John A. Broussard

I called it a failure because you are the one who brought it up in the first place. See above.

If you want to retract Adam's act as a failure, that's OK.

Let's just say that god knew exactly what Adam was going to do.

Do you agree with that statement?

bfniii

i was not trying to characterize adam's action as failure. i was trying to show that in order to do so, one would have to etc, in response to your phrase that God screwed adam. if you read my posts to others, you will see that is the case there as well.

agreed. sorry for the confusion.

yes.

Sven

You are indeed not sure what I'm looking for, since you've for the second time entirely missed what I asked for. I'll not repeat myself, I've already asked twice. Simply go back and read again.

Which is entirely irrelevant to my point. People have always and will always behave contrary to the facts they know themselves, because they prefer to live comfortable, instead of truthful.

Why should I respond to an evasion? :huh:

Explain how the (supposed) facts of divine creation and Jesus' resurrection say something about god's plan on which Christians agree.
Not the "facts" are in question here, it's about the differing interpretations of what they say about god's plan.

Please tell me that you are joking. Are you indeed not aware that hardly any two Christians can agree on how to achieve salvation and on what exactly is salvation (that is, how is heaven/hell like)?


Sure, no problems.

One word: Daniel.

I have done so several times, I'll not repeat myself. Hint: Just look at the quote from you which came directly behind the colon.

John A. Broussard

That solves a lot of problems. God then knew that Adam would sin, that this would bring down death, suffering and misery for humankind.

At least we've gotten this far.

Now why would god do such a thing, knowing the evil consequences of that action?

martini

before i begin, i would like to thank you bfniii for opening my eyes to some very interesting viewpoints on "The Fall" and what is presumed to be "God's Plan".well, here is the deal. just like evolution and "intelligent design" deciding "good" designs, we can just as cogently point out "bad" designs. if you can point out "ultimate good" without any knowledge of the final product, so to speak, i can point out "ultimate evil". you may not like it, but because neither of us know the outcome, it is just as possible. downer, eh?i believe the injunction was in relation to, and i quote:
Gen 3:22 ...now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’— 23therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

which has nothing to do with "The Fall" as proposed by later Xian authors. it had to do with Adam (and Eve) gaining eternal life. it has nothing to do with some later imagined "Fall".i am not asserting that a just god which could exist could not have reasons, only that it is impossible to tell if they are ultimately evil reasons or good ones because "no one knows the mind of God". your own dogma works against you at every turn in cases like these. you cannot pretend to know the ultimate "good versus evil" score any more than i. ergo, it makes no sense for you to pretend that you have the upper hand by saying that there is some "ultimate good".first, the example specifically read that the person goes on to bomb the building. i am not sure where his later philanthropic life came into play.

second, regarding preventing physical pain: being crushed by a falling building or trapped in rubble for days while your life blood oozes out until you die can hardly be relieved by a mortal such as myself, while your supernatural being could do just that.

third, assuming that there is some final punishment is begging the question -- that this supernatural being exists as you portray and the there is some judgement, post-mortum.
each instance i pointed out of a natural disaster (and these have been going on for some time, i hear) shows some pretty significant "evil". as i said, if you can assume that there is a God and His plan is exactly as portrayed in the Bible, then i can assume the exact opposite and have just as much evidence of it. i.e., murders, naturals disasters such as famine and flooding, etc.
i did not eat the fruit, but i am being punished for it. i wanted to point it out because it is at odds with the OT.
Dt.24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Ezek.18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."the system was set up for more to fail than succeed. while you may be apathetic regarding it, i fail to see how this is a good system working towards a truly loving god when that god has specifically and knowingly set up the rules for more failure and eternal punishment than success and heavenly bliss.i am implying that the suffering of those left behind and of those during the events are horrendous in the extreme. to say that these events and this suffering is "necessary" is truly a case for the courts which i do not believe you can defend.He did not make even one ark or pull one baby from the landslide. where was Yahweh? you seem to be forgetting that your evidence for Him is no greater than the evidence for Brahma or Marduk or Osiris.i imply that neglect on any level cannot be perceived as "good". if i could stop a tidal wave from smashing into a populated sea board and killing 50,000 people, i would consider it "evil" for not doing so. i trust you do, as well.a six-year-old kid playing soccor by the shoreline; a mom taking her baby for a walk; a group of men on their way to work, minding their own; these people i consider innocent.two, three, and four are assumptions. i asked what we learned from the millions killed in natural disasters, not what did we learn from WWII or the French-American War. these are not something that could have been avoided. these are not something that any amount of churching can save one from. they leave people in total grief. they leave people as shadows of their former selves. there is nothing to be gained from natural disasters except, of course, the wishful thinking that is the "afterlife".uhhh... myocardial infarction is natural. a fatal stroke is natural. being drowned in a landslide of mud is what i would call "premature". i apologize for not being more clear.why do you insist that this is the only way it could have been done? to do so indicates a limiting of Yahweh's ability to create. i am positing a universe where Adam does not eat the apple out of choice. his progeny do not out of choice. if this universe can be created with free will, why can that one not?
which was chosen to be created by Yahweh. suffering was chosen by Yahweh. the global flood (if you are into that) was chosen by Yahweh. it is a heartless deity that you serve, whether you realize it or not.
a great assumption. with an infinite number of universes to choose from, are you really sure of that?but that is my raison d'être. you cannot claim an ultimate good behind the work of your god from these events any more than i can an ultimate evil or whatever alternative you like. how can you without knowing the final outcome of all such events? forgive me for sounding dense, but why is it called "The Fall" and why are we trying to be "redeemed" if what happened in the Garden of Eden is not considered a failure?not at all! truly, i am telling you this: with both omniscience and omnipotence, there is no reason why a supernatural creator could not choose a universe wherein the creations have free will to choose evil and always end up choosing good because the creator knows the outcome of every choice to be made by every creation. omniscience allows for this. yes there are universes where Adam's great great grandchild might eat the fruit, but Yahweh knows that and creates a universe where that child does not do so. am i explaining it better?

Jack the Bodiless

On the miracle-working of the Egyptian priests:
I have explained the problem many times. You obviously have no answer. You have been defeated on this issue.

On Tyre's walls:
You have it backwards. YOU are the one who is trying to pretend that there was another set of walls somewhere else that Nebby was supposed to breach. If YOUR theory was correct, THEN Ezekiel would need to specify which set of walls he was talking about.
You show an amazing reluctance to correct even the most blatant errors in your "reasoning". Human armies ARE the only means of destruction mentioned by Ezekiel, and I was NOT incorrect in pointing that out. "I will" is NOT a means of destruction.
Your comprehension problems are worse than I feared! This is a feature of ALL LANGUAGES that have generic place-holders such as "you", "its" and so forth.

You have made many posts on this thread, you have invaded Kuwait, and you have murdered six million Jews. (note: in the previous sentence, "you" refers to bfniii, Saddam Hussein, and Nazi Germany). Without this "phantom literary rule", all such languages become incomprehensible! The subject simply DOES NOT change like this.

On morality:
You're just not paying attention, are you?

"Evolution is responsible for both altruism AND selfishness: and these frequently conflict with each other". Why should I accept somebody else's selfishness if it causes suffering to others? With regard to atrocities, I CAN answer no, and evolution DOES explain why: because evolution DOES account for a "social instinct", despite your denials.

On free will and God-given information:
You are contradicting yourself (again). I suggested that suffering-as-education was unnecessary because God could "educate" us by implanting information in our brains, without otherwise influencing our choices. You now seem to be back-pedaling from your earlier position that merely providing correct information would violate freewill.

On God's "goodness":
So you've abandoned your earlier statement that "if the christian God exists, then that God is the embodiment and standard of good" (which would imply that everything God does is good by definition, regardless of what he might do).

This is the Euthrypho Dilemma.

On the sacrifice of virgins:
Actually, we've barely mentioned THIS human sacrifice.

But I don't see much scope for argument here. My standards are simply higher than yours: I could never worship such a deity.

On the sacrifice of firstborn children, and your "adult sacrificial volunteers" fantasy:
Why should I CARE that your quoted article contradicts my claim? I've already pointed out that it's WORTHLESS. It contradicts ME, it contradicts YOU, and it contradicts the BIBLE.

You were asked to provide support for your "adult sacrificial volunteers" fantasy. You posted a clearly erroneous article that supports NOTHING.

On Genesis and the expulsion from Eden:
...Where?
This has been done, many times. You are simply in denial.
In the Sumerian original, there was only one "magical food" (which would have conferred immortality, if the Sumerian "Adam" had eaten it). The author of Genesis goofed when he imperfectly adapted the story to involve two magical foods. But this is irrelevant: my point stands.

On the failure of most Jews to convert to Christianity:
...Except that I HAVE given such a response, of course.

Still waiting...
Still waiting for you to demonstrate the "misinterpretation", AND to explain WHY they have persisted after 2000 years of "correction"...
I wanted details of Jewish experts who have converted due to their studies of the scriptures. You failed to provide them.

Still waiting...
So, there are no orthodox Jews who properly understand Hebrew, and those who DO learn Hebrew become Messianic Jews?

Would you like to support that claim?
I think we've seen abundant proof of the willingness of theists to cling to their beliefs and interpretations in defiance of the evidence. But, on this specific issue, neutral scholars tend to agree with the Jews on the interpretation of the relevant verses.
You have evaded on all these issues. It is quite obvious that you cannot continue.

...Though I don't see how you could even imagine that you have explained how an alternative date for the Flood could be derived from the Bible: you have made no attempt to do so. I will start a new thread on this.

Here it is: Alternative Biblical dates for the Flood?

bfniii

at least tell me where my response fell short of addressing your post.

and why can't those christians i mentioned claim the converse about non-christians?

at least tell me why my response was deficient.

that God has provided propitiation through the OT sacrificial system and the grace of Jesus in the NT despite our disobedience.

the first error made is in characterizing john 3:5 as baptism alone when the passage clearly adds "and the Spirit". james 2:17 does not refer to salvation as the article implies. the reference to matt 19:17 is out of context. the most important part of that passage is verse 21. verse 19 is merely the outworking of the salvation mentioned in verse 21. mark 16:16 is interesting in that it notes that baptism is not required to be saved, but it is an act that symbolizes a profession of faith. matthew 12:37 does not refer to salvation, but to the outworking of a person's beliefs. a person will have to give an account on judgement day of words spoken, verse 36, but salvation does not hinge on it nor does the passage imply such. proverbs 16:4 merely mentions that God has made all people. some will repent, some won't. it does not refer to the method of salvation and thus does not belong on the list. the last two lists refer to the people who are saved, not the method of salvation.

so the verses that haven't so far been addressed, example numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, not only form a concinnity but don't contradict each other. it's ironic that the author would use these verses to show obfuscation regarding salvation, but the verses themselves end up forming a cogent idea.

the next paragraph is most disappointing. the author tries to obviate legitimate critique by launching an ad hominem attack. the first response is the author asking for a context to be defined. herein lies the initial misunderstanding because the verses supplied by the author form the very context the author is asking for here. whether the context is followed by christians or not is irrelevant to the subject of the bible providing a context. the bible being blamed for the actions of believers is non sequitur. the statement "If these rules were clearly defined among Christians, one would not see various Christian denominations debating.." is completely false. multiple denominations are not denounced by the bible nor is one denomination sufficient to provide enough variation to meet the needs or of all believers everywhere. the differences between denominations do not undermine the tenets of christianity. incidentally, differences in the ritual of baptism and women as preachers are irrelevant to the discussion of salvation. it is thus a red herring for the author to even mention these issues. the author mentions differences in the interpretation of scripture as if that's a problem. indeed the very function of christians should be to constantly hone biblical exegesis to extrapolate meaning. unfortunately the author mentions the trinitarian concept en passant, as opposed to fleshing out the alleged problem there. the author begs the question with the statement "one would think a perfect God who knows "everything" would have foreseen what these contradictions would do to his followers' faith." without firmly establishing which contradictions are being referred to. the author then longs for one sacred book which is perplexing because the bible appears to be the foundation of the article.

in order to accurately analyze the first table, certain denominations need to be established as either non-christian or too fringe to be considered orthodox. those would be: christian science, mormons, jehovah's witnesses and the seventh day adventists. the inclusion of even the pentecostals and quakers is questionable. when those have been removed, what we see is that the salvation column reflects a harmony of denominations; faith in Christ and the resulting grace. in the next paragraph, the author characterizes the differences as incredulous when in fact, his own information seems to reflect a common theme.

given the fact that the bible spends a minute amount of time on the subject of heaven, the next section of the article is somewhat frivolous.

"So, after 1,274 years of church councils, the concept of the Trinity was finally defined. Considering that many denominations consider belief in the Trinity to be essential to salvation" it is somewhat of a mischaracterization to state that denominations "require" that a person believe in the trinity in order to be saved. they do so only in the sense that Christ is to be differentiated from the Father and the Holy Spirit in His earthy ministry and crucifixion. "one has to wonder what happened to those believers while the church figured all this out?" the same thing that happened to believers after the idea of the trinity was defined; if they accepted Christ, they went to heaven. the idea of the trinity was known to even first century christians in that Christ acknowledged that He sent a helper, that being the Holy Spirit. the timetable referred to by the author is when the idea become official church doctrine which is completely different than the idea being a belief of christians. those dates don't preclude the idea existing in some iteration prior to the decrees.

the next paragraphs are merely more confusion on the author's part. quibbling over the trinity and the catholic notion of the original sin do not add confusion to the issue of salvation.

could you provide some examples please?

which quote? i asked for a summary so that i could clear up the confusion. otherwise, i have provided a response to each point raised.

bfniii

to show us that there is uncertainty in life and that the uncertainty should produce spiritual alacrity. additionally, the bible says that we need a redeemer and that this place is not our ultimate destination. our hardship here is hopefully developing a hunger to not be separated from God again. we have a better appreciation for the mountaintop once we have been through the valley.

John A. Broussard

So god makes the unborn, toddlers and other innocents suffer in order to develop in them "a hunger to not be separated from God." Your god then seems to be incapable of sparing them--or enjoys inflicting suffering on them.

Does he find it impossible to inculcate a hunger for god without inflicting agony on the potential convert first?

Which is it? Inability or lack of concern?

Thanks.

bfniii

but the bible claims we do know the outcome, the final product.

"the fall" is just a label to describe adam and eve disobeying and getting expelled from the garden. it's not that it's imagined, it's a description. again, God's instruction to adam was in relation to him being allowed to stay in the garden. your quote of the passage illustrates this perfectly. since adam has disobeyed, he is not to be allowed to live in the garden indefinitely (via the tree of life) and God therefore sends him out.

but according to the bible, we do know the purpose.

the bible disputes this by claiming we do know.

i was illustrating that even though we are all guilty of some crime, we can be redeemed which your tale omitted.

but in the analogy, you set yourself up as being analogous to God.

but the analogy was in reference to God's perplexing allowance of evil. i was responding to your statement that He knowingly allows evil.

yep. you sure can. but the discussion is centered around why a good God allows evil.

the story is metaphorical. we are all guilty of some crime. no person is perfectly righteous

i have already addressed this passage with jack. you are misinterpreting the verse.

here is my response to jack on this verse:

notice the use of the word "guilt" which is different than consequence. there is a monumental difference. the bible is trying to point out that guilt is not transferrable which is an important doctrinal tenet.

it most certainly was not. the system was set up for choice. WE choose the numbers.

i have given no such indication. you may be misconstruing the fact that i am not complaining about it like so many other people in this thread.

there is an astoundingly easy way for you or anyone else to find heavenly bliss despite the fact that none of us deserve it.

it may be horrendous, but you haven't shown that God doesn't have a good reason to allow it.

this does nothing to show that God wasn't present.

this is an irrelevant conclusion to the point i raised.

but what you haven't shown is that God is conclusively negligent.

unless there is purpose to the event.

you still haven't shown how they are innocent.

not according to the bible.

there's no difference between the two. there is going to be suffering and pain regardless of what the cause is. therefore, the lesson has not changed.

i couldn't disagree more. the bible provides hope despite our suffering in life.

you have a poor understanding of christianity. the bible proclaims that there is hope that NO disaster or war can take from a person.

i did provide things that are gained, but those notwithstanding, the afterlife is some good wishful thinking.

this categorization is blatantly subjective and simplistic. you would be hard pressed to get any two people to agree on what is premature death. according to christianity, the point is moot. we have hope regardless of a person's circumstances or age.

in no way. it is simply pointing out that God cannot do the illogical. God cannot make evil not-evil. God cannot make a man that is not a man. God cannot create a universe that doesn't exist. those propositions are absurd.

because it is absurd. limited, finite, imperfect beings are not capable of 100% eternal compliance. in fact, the definitions of those adjectives presupposes disobedience. you're missing the whole point of us being created the way we are. going through the valley gives us a greater appreciation for the mountaintop. any other way would be to remove a valuable experience from the human condition. to do so, God would be less than benevolent.

besides, some would argue that God did create the world you describe in heaven.

none of this addresses the points you quoted.

in what way?

positive as outlined above.

again, the bible.

because we "fell from grace" which requires redemption for salvation and is in no way a failure. it's just a choice we make. fortunately, God allowed a limited atonement in the OT sacrifical system and a permanent atonement through acceptance of Christ as savior.

no because you are implying that God, through His knowledge, limits or guides choices made by people. this is not freewill. freewill presupposes that we have the choice to commit evil. if we do have the choice and we are not capable of divinely overcoming it because we are limited, finite and imperfect, then there is nothing to prevent us from eventually choosing evil. we are responsible for our actions. the world you imply makes God responsible for our actions.