bfniii

obedience is not the same thing as morality. a robot can be obedient but amoral. i think the difference between adam before and after the disobedience is that beforehand, he knew that the tree was forbidden. after, he was capable of knowing the why or how things ought to be. he was capable of having his own conception of how to apply his decisions.

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.

John A. Broussard

I'm baffled. Isn't your god omniscient. Didn't god know that the situation in which she/he/it put Adam in would inevitably lead to Adam's sin?

Please clear up the confusion.

Thank you.

bfniii

i realize that post is not addressed to me, but i would like your permission to respond.

bfniii

i would say that is a safe bet given the fact that God created the tree of knowledge.

can you help me with what part confuses you so that i can respond appropriately?

spin

Sorry, bfniii. Don't let me stop you. I was merely talking to non-believers. You're naturally free to have your say. I didn't intend to go further into the issue, that's all.


spin

martini

Gen 1:1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, ... -- STOP.

at this point in the tale (if not before), Yahweh would have to know, based on the way He made Adam and His knowledge of the future, that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit. of the millions or billions of ways to make an Adam, He chose this one -- the one that failed -- knowing that this Adam would eat the apple. is that clear?

i.e., it was the choice of Yahweh to make Adam as He did. ergo, it was Yahweh who chose The Fall, the drowning of all wo/mankind, the sufferings of the Hebrews, the slaughter of the first-borns in Egypt, the crucifixion of the Christ, the persecutions of the Xians, the the murders of the pagans, the Inquisitions, witch trials, ad infinitum.

if Yahweh had made Adam differently (i.e., with free will but omnisciently knowing that that Adam would not choose the fruit), all of this needless suffering, violence, and death -- eventually including eternal suffering -- would have been abated, yes?

now, if He could not make Adam that way,
then He is not omnipotent.

if He could not know whether Adam would eat the fruit, then He is not omniscient.

eating your cake and having it too is just not possible in this case.

oh, if He chose this way anyway, i cannot find the words to express how perverse and abominable Yahweh must be. even Hitler, Polpot, or Jeffrey Dahmer could not torture you forever.

apologies for the interruption.


mike

John A. Broussard

Thanks for the offer to clear up the confusion. I'll rephrase my question.


Didn't god know that Adam was doomed to fail?

Thank you for your answer.

bfniii

what i am saying is that they knew in advance HOW to perform the trick. once it was done by the hebrews, they then reciprocated.

you are employing special pleading. you are saying he should have clarified which walls if it were not the walls of the island, but don't accept that he should have clarified if it were the walls of the island he was referring to. you base this on the assumption that you feel like it was obvious which walls. if it were obvious, why wouldn't he have specified the walls of the island? if they were so conspicuous, some word specifying the island should have been in the phrase. there isn't.

that's just it, "I will". it's not specific is it? why do you try to make it specific when the text is clear that it is not? you are reading into the text. he mentions the attackers, but not in the context you are trying to create.

again; "I will". not "the armies will". please quote the text where you see "the armies will (be the ultimate downfall)".

please quote the text that claims they are to be responsible for the ultimate erasure of tyre's wealth.

the wealth that exists today is not a product of the tyre mentioned in ezekiel.

can you not realize that you just inserted "the city...in the midst of the ocean"?

i didn't say based.

i do not recall making the claim that "...thou shalt be built no more" referred to anything other than the political establishment.

in what way are they products of evolution?

if evolution is credited, then the atrocities of the nazis are perfectly acceptable because they were doing what was right to them on a societal level and an individual level. ditto islamic extremists (killing infidels merely because they are infidels). because no two people or two societies can completely agree on what constitutes morality and because people or societies are often in conflict over the ideas, then evolution has at most produced confusion and conflicting ideas. therefore, it has produced nothing. if evolution is to be credited, then there is no real, tangible good or evil. anything goes.

my denial is denoting the fact that your case isn't proved just because you state it is so. you make the claim that it is so, so show us your proof.

what is successful?

using your own criteria, there should be no need for two societies to ever go to war.

strawman. i never said the information was wrong. i was referring to the method of "imparting" information and it's obviation of freewill.

another strawman. the "equipping" is precisely what is in question.

what is "perfect information"?

i'm not following this part of your point. could you rephrase?

i have given examples of how God can use suffering for ultimate good

really? and when one person decides to harm another person?

exactly. sometimes people put themselves in harm's way to save others. sometimes people go on killing sprees. i am asking you to explain these conflicting behaviors. if evolution produced a cogent idea, these conflicts would not exist.

WHAT STANDARDS? there are no standards! every society has a DIFFERENT set of laws and they often conflict with other societies' laws.

what world are you referring to? not this one. there is war, there is killing, there is injustice. there is no general agreement.

i provided a response FROM THE TEXT. i can repeat it if you like.

i make no such pretense.

should i have a problem with it?

because it doesn't exist in the text.

i created?

look at the text from the NAS: "28 'Nevertheless, anything which a man sets apart to the LORD out of all that he has, of man or animal or of the fields of his own property, shall not be sold or redeemed. Anything devoted to destruction is most holy to the LORD. 29 'No one who may have been set apart among men shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death."

look at the explanation from the JFB commentary; "28, 29. no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, . . . shall be sold or redeemed--This relates to vows of the most solemn kind--the devotee accompanying his vow with a solemn imprecation on himself not to fail in accomplishing his declared purpose. 29. shall surely be put to death--This announcement imported not that the person was to be sacrificed or doomed to a violent death; but only that he should remain till death unalterably in the devoted condition. The preceding regulations were evidently designed to prevent rashness in vowing (Ecclesiastes 5:4) and to encourage serious and considerate reflection in all matters between God and the soul (Luke 21:4)."

matthew henry's commentary: "v. 28. They were of the same nature with those sacrifices which were called most holy, which none might touch but only the priests themselves. The difference between these and other sanctified things arose from the different expression of the vow. If a man dedicated any thing to God, binding himself with a solemn curse never to alienate it to any other purpose, then it was a thing devoted. 2. Devoted persons were to be put to death, v. 29. Not that it was in the power of any parent or master thus to devote a child or a servant to death; but it must be meant of the public enemies of Israel, who, either by the appointment of God or by the sentence of the congregation, were devoted, as the seven nations with which they must make no league. The city of Jericho in particular was thus devoted, Jos. 6:17.

i hope this clears the text up for you a little. i did not create such an interpretation. biblical experts do not agree with your interpretation as there is absolutely no mention of this sacrifice that you refer to.

see above.

i cannot believe you are holding on to this embarassing position. how could we steal from an omnipotent God who created the very thing we allegedly stole?

that is unequivocally not what the text says and i defy you to quote the text as saying such. BTW, my position is most definitely supported by the text. i can outline it again if you like.

according to one theory. there are multiple theories. you can deny that if you like, but it doesn't make the multiple theories go away.

given the fact that the date cannot be reliably fixed at this time, history is most certainly silent on the issue. in order for archaeology to refute the date of a flood, a date has to be set. furthermore, the issue of global versus local flood must be settled.

i defy you to quote the text where God has a problem with adam eating from the tree of life before the disobedience with the tree of knowledge. if you cannot, you have no case. you are reading into the text that we were expelled for only one reason. to state so is to ignore context.

a second jackism on the same point. i take this as tacit acknowledgement you have no case.

thank you for proving my point. you claim that God kicked us out because we were about to gain god-like power. in doing so, you assume that God had a problem with us eating from the tree prior to the disobedience. you here admit the text does not say so. therefore, the assumption has led to spurious position.

backpeddling. i used your own (faulty) method against your reasoning. i will now introduce a second point. it could be claimed that you should support the messianic jews because the majority had inadequate access to the relavant information; that being exposure to Jesus. not only is your method flawed, it doesn't even support your own point.

i don't subscribe to your flawed and specious method.

now you must prove that these people who convert from judaism to christianity cannot possibly have access to the relevant arguments, thus making them ignorant of the relevant arguments which would preclude such a conversion. i am pretty sure you are unable to do this.

1. what makes orthodox judaism correct?
2. where do you get the authority to declare them correct where others are wrong?

indeed. the very questions i have been asking of you. you make the claim that christianity is invalid because of the continued existence of judaism. i am asking you to support such a claim.

you asked me a red herring; to respond to your appeal to numbers. i explained that you committed an appeal to numbers. you then accuse me of evading. this makes no sense.

thus misrepresenting the passage.

now just prove that "seed" cannot mean "followers" and that "prolong" cannot mean "legacy".

that's what we're discussing.

they're stubborn?

1. this is ad hominem. your argument employs the tactic of accusing them of being blind because they are religious.
2. this is tautology. they are blind because they are religious. we know because they are blind.
3. this is question begging. your argument is assumed to be true by the premises of the argument; that being "they are required" which you are unable to substantiate.
4. this is special pleading. they are authoritative enough to know about whether Jesus is the messiah, but not enough to be honest about their origins.

you must have forgotten your history. prior to copernicus, belief in anything other than the ptolemaic model was heretical and warranted burning at the stake. however, christianity did indeed accept the heliocentric model and neither the bible nor christianity were fundamentally changed.

i am referring to christians and christianity.

John A. Broussard

Thanks for the offer to clear up the confusion. I'll rephrase my question.






Didn't god know that Adam was doomed to fail?

Thank you for your answer.

Jack the Bodiless

You are, as usual, evading the point AGAIN.

You obviously have no explanation for their "supernatural" immediate readiness to respond to this and other miracles.

On Tyre:
He should have specified because it was obvious? What nonsense is this?

If it's obvious, then he wouldn't NEED to specify, and indeed he did not. Maybe we should add "obvious" to the list of words that you don't understand?
Have you forgotten your own words? Maybe you should backtrack a little?

I stated that human armies are the only means of destruction mentioned by Ezekiel. You said "incorrect". You were wrong. Human armies ARE the only means of destruction mentioned by Ezekiel. You then went on to falsely accuse ME of "reading into the text", when it is YOU that is doing so.

If you take the time to avoid making clearly erroneous statements, these diversions will not be necessary.

It's part of a larger problem that pervades this thread: you can't keep track of the context of your remarks. For instance:
No, you said this occurred ON THE MAINLAND: the destruction of the mainland suburb. Here is where you said it:
The phrase "...thou shalt be built no more" follows directly after this, in the same Biblical verse: Ezekiel 26:14. You're trying to switch the subject in mid-verse!

It is quite obvious that you have no coherent, Bible-based account of the fall of Tyre. You're inventing whatever fantasy you need to "save" the prophecy, from moment to moment, with no regard for the integrity of the text.
Evolution is responsible for both altruism AND selfishness: and these frequently conflict with each other.

I note that you have no problem with the fact that RELIGION is responsible for Islamic (and Christian) extremists, and numerous genocides.
Maybe if you refrained from chopping up my sentence with irrelevant interjections, you could read it?

You do not believe in free will. You believe that if God gave us perfect information, then we would inevitably make the "morally right" choice: you believe that "morally wrong" choices are based on faulty information. You believe that we should remain in a state of semi-ignorance to have the "freedom" to make erroneous choices (why?).

...At least, that is what you appear to be saying. I suspect that, as usual, you have simply failed to consider the implications of your own statements.
Well, no, IIRC you merely asserted that God can use suffering for ultimate good.

You are also still confused about what "goodness" is. You said that "if the christian God exists, then that God is the embodiment and standard of good". This implies that EVERYTHING God does is, by definition, "good". Punishing people for the crimes of others wouldn't be for "ultimate" good in the future: it would BE good, here and now, because God is doing it. Similarly, ripping the legs off innocent serpents IS good: no further justification necessary. And if God decides to boil babies alive on a whim: that's good too.

It is quite obvious that you don't really believe this, hence your difficulties with the "bfniii principle" and your need to find excuses for God's actions.
Spoken like a true psychopath.

Yes, you should. But you may be incapable of seeing this.
Yes, it does, as Ezekiel confirms. It also existed outside the text of the Bible.
Yes, YOU created (apparently). Your own source disagrees with you: "This announcement imported not that the person was to be sacrificed or doomed to a violent death; but only that he should remain till death unalterably in the devoted condition." It specifically DOES NOT refer to adult human-sacrifice volunteers (of course, it's also bunk anyhow, as it directly contradicts the Bible: "they shall surely be put to death").
...Biblical experts?

Yes, they could "devote" enemies to destruction. But this does NOT mean that they never devoted their firstborn as sacrifices.
...Where you utterly failed to provide ANY support for the existence of a group of adult Hebrew sacrificial volunteers.

Talk about "reading into the text"!
The Christian "omnimax God" had not yet been invented when Genesis was written. You are "reading into the text"!
This has already been covered: by myself, Sven, and others. It is, indeed, what the text says.
I note that you have still not provided any alternative theory. And now you're prepared to go for a "local flood" too?
The text plainly states that God DOES have a problem with Adam eating from the Tree of Life AFTER the other incident, this IS the only stated reason for the expulsion from Eden, YOU are ignoring the context, and YOU have no case.
More deflection. Remember, I'm trying to get YOU to address the MAJORITY of Jews: those who do NOT convert. You keep evading by talking about the few who HAVE converted.

So, are YOU saying that the majority of Jews are ignorant of their own religion, and have remained thus for two thousand years? Let's see YOU demonstrate this.
And I have done so, by pointing out that Jewish EXPERTS (who surely have the best understanding of the meaning of their own holy books) aren't converting.

If you wish to discuss the specific passages (the messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfil, according to the Jews), we can still do that (on a dedicated thread). Incidentally, Matthew's manufacture of bogus "prophecies" from out-of-context and mistranslated OT verses (e.g. Isaiah 7:14) probably doesn't endear him to Jews, and doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Christian interpretations.
A baseless allegation that you are uanble to support.
So, you feel that you can simply alter the meaning of Hebrew words on a whim, and Jews everywhere are supposed to smack their foreheads and say "Gosh, of course, THAT'S IT! We Jews don't know Hebrew!".