Jack the Bodiless

I would like to clear this up:
I am aware of possible non-Biblical origins of a flood myth in the Middle-East: flooding of the Mesopotamian rivers, and the filling of the Black Sea. Are these the "multiple theories" you're referring to, or is it your position that an alternative timescale can be derived from the Bible?

If the latter: I could create a thread to explore just how an "inerrantist" could ignore the Bible's genealogies and come up with a radically different answer. If it's the former, I need not bother: this would be just another evasion of what the Bible says.

...So which is it?

bfniii

this is not addressed to spin.

i just couldn't resist because i find these topics interesting. since spin has been kind enough to allow me to butt in......

by flawed, i assume you mean someone who is not going to heaven. in order to ensure that everyone goes to heaven, freewill must be removed from the equation. it seems that you advocate freewill, but not the consequences that come with it.

because He respects our right to choose. you seem to be assuming that God is pleased with the fact that people choose to do evil.

it's true. there are two factors to consider. first, there are things we will never be able to understand because we exist in this world, not God's. we have a limited perspective at this time compared to His. therefore, it is unreasonable to expect to be able to understand everything God has done or does. second, we are on a path of discovery as well. sometimes we don't understand something at first but do later.

i completely disagree. it's ok to be frustrated and it's ok to be mad at God. He is neither surprised nor confused by this.

what He needs is irrelevant to the fact that He allows freewill.

non sequitur. God being the ultimate cause of the universe and being omniscient are not relevant to our choices.

not necessary by what standard?

He doesn't condemn us. we condemn ourselves.

what was joey's crime? the punishment must fit the crime. if you make an eternal choice, you get an eternal consequence. this is another example of how people want freewill, but not it's outcome.

this is merely a case of common sense. it is illogical to think that an omnipotent creator was surprised by our disobeience or that He didn't have an understanding of how to cope with such casuistry.

arbitrary in what way?

incorrect. transgressors have already received the benefit of choice.

whatever. you accuse me of pussyfooting when i was trying to systematically employ a common procedure from which to proceed. i'm sorry you thought i was being dishonest.

how can freewill exist without suffering or morality?

bfniii

why do you consider this a failure?

are you saying that God is not capable of using such events for ultimate good? are you saying that these events are not a part of His plan?

you act as though the fall has left man without any hope of redemption or heavenly recourse. yes man fell, but the bible maintains that God has provided propitiation.

needless? are you saying there is no purpose whatsoever in the suffering we experience?

not necessarily. in order for it to have been abated, all people who followed adam would have to resist disobedience. it would be most difficult to prove that that could happen.

you're assuming that God didn't have a good reason to make this denoument the way He did.

ok. show that He could not know.

indeed. this is another case of advocating freewill devoid of consequences thus giving the person the ability to make whatever choices one sees fit, but not having to bear any responsibility. even if God was capable of creating such an illogical milieu, He would be less than just in doing so.

you seem to be blaming God for the evils of mankind. God did not force those people to do what they did. but He did respect their ability to choose.

bfniii

i'm sure that if God is omniscient, He knew what the outcome would be. after all, He created the very tree adam ate from.

why do you call it a failure?

martini

because Adam ate the apple -- exactly what Yahweh would not have wanted if Yahweh did not plan for the horrors of natural disasters and man killing man. else, why would He specifically tell Adam not to do it? this goes in perfectly well with an anthropomorphic god without omniscience but not, unfortunately, for any omniscient one.yes when coming from an omniscient entity. mass murder. drowning. torture. burnings. i count these as "bad". if i save a busload of 12 people and one of those people, later, blows up a building of 1000 people, i still did a heroic act. if i knew that the person would do that ... well ... not so heroic.

and if you claim that some "ultimate good" is going to come out of "God's plan", but do not know what that is, then i can just as fairly posit "ultimate evil" with just as much reason and evidence.first, Adam "fell", not me nor you nor anyone alive today. second, wide is the gate to destruction. it sounds like there will be more in "hell" than in "heaven", no? is this your "ultimate good"?the tsunami victims? 9/11 victims? shall i go through history and recount all of the innocent lives lost? awe heck, here are a few just for kicks:
how about the landslides in Venezuela in 1999 that killed some 30,000? no help from Yahweh.

Bangladesh in 1991 where some 130,000 people died in hurricane flooding? no God.

in Columbia in 1985, some 23,000 people died by being covered in a mudflow as a result of a volcano eruption. was God there to help them?

1976. earthquake. Tianjin, China. 255,000 people. gods help: 0.

1970. Mount Huascaran, Peru. a rock and snow avalanche buries two towns killing 20,000. did God help dig them out? no.

in 1959, massive flooding in China killed 2,000,000 human beings. how many arks did God make for the survivors? none.

well, it seems innocent deaths are the soup d'jour, no? what did we learn from all of these deaths? what is the "ultimate good" we can somehow get from this premature loss of life -- men, women, and children?are you doubting omnipotence? it could have been done.

are you doubting omniscience? Yahweh would have known if that particular reality led to the most saved souls or with whatever yardstick you want to judge this "ultimate good".and you are assuming He does. kinda unfair, eh? you can postulate on the "ultimate good" while i cannot? hmmm...that is my point. i said that if He did not know that Adam would eat the fruit, then He is not omniscient. i think you misread that.
by no means do i suggest that. what i am saying is what i said before: thatYahweh is responsible for choosing to create Adam as He did, and the subsequent choice by Adam to eat the fruit was already known to Yahweh from the start. ergo, the responsibility of The Fall is as much, if not more, the fault of Yahweh. free will makes perfect sense to me if you remove "omniscience" from God's attributes. oh, by no means do i blame Yahweh for the evils of later wo/mankind. the fact that Yahweh chose to create an Adam that would eat from the tree and knew he would eat from the tree precludes my contemplation of any future evils done.

John A. Broussard

I didn't call it failure. You did.

So would you tell me, please, whether Adam failed or didn't fail. It's very difficult to carry on a discussion when flat contradictions such as this exist.

Thank you.

bfniii

first, their knowledge of how to perform the tricks is anything but supernatural. second, what do you mean by immediate?

the word "walls" is too general a term to represent anything specifically meaningful. there are so many options of what he could have said such as "those great walls", "the sea walls", "the walls rising from the seas", "the towering walls", etc. it would have been so easy for him to have thrown in just one word that it makes any case of specificity spurious. please address this special pleading.

applications of "obvious" vary per individual. the lack of any qualifier implies he was obviously being generic.

they are not, as i have said multiple times. you have continually ignored "I will". it is open-ended.

you are trying to claim they are the only means when i have clearly laid out another means several times. you are reading the word "only" into the text.

at last. we come to the crux of your argument. here you hold the bible to a phantom literary rule; that being each verse can have one and only one subject. please explain where this expectation comes from.

when you misrepresent my arguments, then i can see how you would think that.

evasion. are the atrocities committed by people acceptable? if good and evil are products of evolution, then the answer is yes. there are people who commit evil because they are doing the right thing for them, i.e. the nazis, islamic extremists. if you are compelled to answer no, then you are implying a standard where evolution can provide none as evidenced by your current response outlining the inherent conflict.

yup. evil and good have been done in the name of religion. what's your point?

i read the entire response and didn't understand. the chopping isn't what caused the misunderstanding.

this is a most ambiguous response. first, i gather that when you say "God gave us perfect information" you mean that God putting ideas in our head would preclude us from making a choice that deviated from the information imparted. if that is the case, that is not freewill. that is God eliminating thoughts of options.

second, i do not believe that morally wrong choices are "based on faulty information". i believe that God has given us the option to choose. it's not based on faulty information. it's God allowing those vicissitudes.

third, your last sentence appears to be a strawman. but then again, i'm having trouble following this line of thought.

incorrect:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Did the plague and the tsunami benefit anyone in any way? Of course not.

Originally Posted by bfniii
no one? no one at all? that just cannot possibly be true. what about construction? infrastructure that was destroyed must be rebuilt. now construction workers are in demand. there are ecological considerations too. events like this do have beneficial side effects as well as unfavorable ones. what about physicians or biologists? any time there is an outbreak, they are in demand. it's just too simplistic to make such a claim.

i am not trying to minimize or rationalize suffering by anyone. as john donne said "europe (mankind) is the lesser". but i am merely pointing out that gratuitous evil is not completely devoid of meaning. if we believe that, then we lessen the human condition.

this is semantics. we have suffering here and it can be used for ultimate good. God allowing it doesn't make Him evil. quibbling over who suffered how much for what is petty and a waste of time. my suggestion is to rise above it. use these hardships and injustices as a means to build character.

sigh. another argument that we've already settled.

ezekiel confirms no such thing.

first, note "this announcement imported NOT that the person was to be sacrificed." this contradicts your claim. second, a previous sentence that you conveniently omitted notes "the devotee accompanying his vow with a solemn imprecation on himself not to fail in accomplishing his declared purpose." the emphasized words outline that we are talking about someone devoting himself.

as i have stated all along, i never said that child sacrifice did not happen. i said that it occurred outside the mandates of orthodox judaism as outlined in the OT.

then why does genesis portray God that way? clearly the idea had been thought of because the author of genesis uses it.

besides, you didn't answer the question.

i was hoping you would provide a quote to support your case. not doing so implies you have no case.

me providing an alternative theory is not necessary, there are several out there that i have alluded to. as of now, it is not relevant whether the flood was local or global. neither alters christian doctrine.

i was hoping you would provide a quote from genesis that God had a problem with adam eating from the tree of life BEFORE the disobedience. the lack of one implies you have no case. also, i'm still waiting for you to at least tell me why such a quote is unnecessary.

i was hoping you would provide a response on how they are completely ignorant of the relevant arguments. not providing one implies you have no case.

i was hoping you would provide a response to the accusation that you are appealing to numbers. not having one implies you are guilty of that logical fallacy.

i didn't say ignorant. i said they misinterpret isaiah 53 (and other references that were fulfilled by Jesus).

i take this as an admission that you are incapable of supporting your case that the continued existence of judaism negates christianity.

same old song and dance. now prove that no one else outside of that group is capable of having the same level of understanding they have. they alone possess this knowledge.

you were the one who made the initial claim against christianity due to judaism. provide support for the topic you initiated.

some do. they're called messianic jews.

they can believe whatever they like. that certainly doesn't make it right. i imagine it's difficult to admit you missed one of the most important markers in your religion's history. besides, there are people who read their beliefs and remain christian. explain that.

i think you and i are reaching a point of diminishing returns on earthly suffering, the tyre prophecy, the flood and the egyptian miracles. i have stated my case plainly over and over. i realize you disagree and that's ok. you may, of course, continue your inculcations if you wish. i'm just proposing we agree to disagree.

bfniii

both

bfniii

how do you know that God doesn't intend those "horrors" for ultimate good? how do you know that God doesn't have a good reason for those "horrors"?

taken in context, the injunction was in reference to being allowed to stay in the garden of eden.

ok. you have stated that these atrocities exist. now support your belief that a just god could not possibly have any good reason for allowing such things.

but you omit that you probably can prevent the physical pain of those who died, the bus event causes some ancillary good and that you eventually cause the bomber to repent which causes him to go on to a philanthropic life (or punish him accordingly).

but we do know what it is. according to the bible, the ultimate good is for those who accept God's plan (Jesus as messiah at this point) to go to heaven.

i fail to see the significance of this observation.

depends on the choices of individuals. the numbers are irrelevant.

you seem to be implying that victims of these tragedies are going to hell. is that the case? if so, why do you make such an implication?

1. you imply that God is absent during these events. the existence of suffering is not proof of such
2. you seem to imply that God is evil for allowing such events.

what do you mean by "innocent"?

1. that there is uncertainty in life
2. the uncertainty should produce spiritual alacrity
3. human life is hopelessly meaningless sans a redeemer.
4. that this place is not our ultimate destination

what do you mean by premature?

certainly, by removing our freewill. would God have been just in doing that? no.

1. the numbers are irrelevant. what is relevant is an individual's ability to choose.
2. God may have made a world where adam was different. it's irrelevant to us. we live in this world.

in response to the overall line of thought, you are asserting that God could have made adam in such a way that adam, nor anyone else, would have chosen to disobey. is there a way that God could have done that without removing freewill? the answer is no. no finite, imperfect human being could go a lifetime without disobeying.

you can postulate all you want. just show that :

1. God doesn't intend suffering for ultimate good
2. God doesn't have a good reason for allowing suffering

i understand the "if". since you bring it up, support it.

again, you characterize the fall as "failure" and someone is at "fault". you base that on the fact that suffering resulted. God gave us the ability to choose. we choose. don't blame God for our choice. even so, God can still use the resulting suffering for good.

this is a repetition that you want us to have freewill but not the consequences. we should be allowed to live in the garden of eden, be free to choose to disobey, but not get kicked out. unless you can show excluded middle, that is the only option you are left with.

bfniii

incorrect.

Originally Posted by bfniii
in order to say that God screwed him, you would have to show that God put adam in a situation that he was doomed to fail. that would have to be something like every tree in the garden being forbidden or God lying and saying that the forbidden tree was actually ok.

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard
Didn't god know that Adam was doomed to fail?

Originally Posted by bfniii
why do you call it a failure?

your question implies that you believe God should have known about adam's failure. i am asking you why you call it failure.