Ted Hoffman

Theli
My big complaint about Jesus crucifiction is that people claim that "god sacrificed his own son for our sins", and then they say Jesus still lives in heaven.
Have I missed something here?
You havent missed a damn thing.

The way I see it, if someone hits his big toe with a mallet, then he comes to you and tells you that he did it to save your life, WTF are you supposed to do?

It was his call, and he made it. It remains his business. When God was sacrificing Jesus, he consulted no one. Its an imposed and artificial act.
Who was supposed to forgive us? God.
Who was supposed to punish sinners? Same same God.
And who sacrificed his own son? same same God.
And for what? So that he (God himself) could forgive us and not punish us.

Makes a lot of sense huh?

Theli

I've been wondering about this for awhile now. If god really wanted to "save us", why did he have to kill his son to do so?
Was Jesus preventing us from being saved?
The story about Jesus' sacrifice sounds good.
Until you put 2 and 2 together, that is.

I've read somewhere on this board that there was another problem with his sacrifice, concerning the trinity. Have you heard about this?

Ted Hoffman

Theli,
No I haven't, please give me a clue. The darned theists have deserted this thread. We might as well carry on on our own.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

advocate_11

Since things have quieted down, I will respond to your responses to those of mine that you felt were worth commenting on.

God is to be worshipped because he has provided that you (if you are elect), through no merit of your own thoughts or actions will be spared eternal torment and be brought into paradise for all eternity at the day of judgement when God visits upon each their rightful dues
Worship me or die. Beautiful answer.

From the perspective of many believers it is necessary to qualify your summary. We may instead say that the believer may believe that they do deserve torment rather than paradise when supposing in awe to reflect upon God. It is not, "I worship God because otherwise I will die," but rather it is, "I worship God because I believe whole-heartedly that I deserved to die, but you have spared me."

God will be worshipped by the elect because he has foreordained that they will do so.
Mindless zombies, great answer.

Not "mindless" in the least. As you may observe of yourself, we do appear to have "minds". We experience emotions, and perceive the world around us. Further, I do not believe that "zombie" is the most descriptive term.

I am not sure what you intend by "best". Do you mean the choice which will, over the being's life, maximize the amount of pleasure it will experience?
Best for the creation.
God knows what you believe to be best for your life. However, as we are assuming that such a God may exist, and as you (if you are a typical person) believe that your current position in life is not necessarily what is best for you, then no, it does not appear that God has taken your conception of best as authoritative.

Even if you are omniscient, does that mean you rubbish the thoughts of everyone else?
If thats the case, why let them even have any thoughts? Why not just make objects that bend to your will without question?

This is similar to asking, "Why let them have two arms instead of three?" I do not know. God does not know; a "deeper meaning, why" does not exist to be known. God is a being of the sort who by his nature creates beings like ourselves. However, God does know that upon considering the set of actions willed as determined by his nature, that an element of that set were at least some beings that do not bend to his will without question.

Some may "expect" God to love his creation, while others may not. God does "love" his creation in that in considering the mechanism whereby God has an emotional state, the emotional state as it corresponds to God's creation is in part one of love.
You have not answered the question.

No, there is no reason to "expect" God to love his creation. However, God does love his creation as I have stated above.

God created man as a necessarily forthcoming manifestation of God's glory.
"necessarily"? from whose perspective? Yours or Gods? Manifestation for what purpose? Why does his Glory have to be manifested?
What is Gods Glory? Did God create his Glory or did we create Gods Glory?
If he did not create it, who created it?
If he created it, can it rightfully be called Glory? (Glory is earned isn't it?)

It was necessary from the perspective of considering God as a being possessing a nature of the sort whose possessor knows his own will (as determined by its nature and secondarily by its emotional state) perfectly, and who is not in any way prevented from executing its will.

Referring to God's glory is equivalent to referring to his nature; it was not created, but rather has always existed as a property of God is a glorious being. He is the most powerful and wise being that exists. God recognizes himself to be glorious by this standard.

God has foreordained that some should "fellowship" with himself because it was by nature necessary for him to do so
By nature? whose nature? Are you saying God couldnt help it?

No, God could not "help it". However, God did not will to do otherwise.

However, it does not seem to me that my possessing omniscience and omnipotence alone entail it being logically necessary for me to create a being of one particular sort even if it is given that I will necessarily create a being of some sort.
The word "necessary" is contra-omnipotence. Its a constraint. Omnipotence assumes total absence of constraints.

God has a will as determined by his nature. Omnipotence would correctly mean total absence of constraints were God a being without a will and without a nature which determines it. It is not possible for God to do other than what he wills to do. Infact, if God willed to do one thing but as a result of your definition of omnipotence, instead did something else entirely that he did not will, then I suspect that very few people would find that to be a reasonable definition of omnipotence.

Then, yes, if I wished beings to worship and fear me, it seems that one possible situation in which this might arise is if these supposed beings were a great deal less knowledgeable and powerful than myself
So by design, our inferiority serves Gods purpose perfectly. He cannot claim to love us if all he wants is to be worshipped. He is fulfilling his needs.

Yes, it serves God's purpose perfectly. Were it the case that God's purpose would have been perfectly served by doing something else; God would have done this something else.

God can claim to and does infact love us as I have stated previously in the way that I described. God does not will only that beings should worship him; physical worship is a very small element of God's purposes in creation.

In what sense do you suggest that a being possessing omniscience might "pose a challenge" to God?
He might not be very willing to abase himself before God and praise him. God wouldn't like that.

Yes, but God is still omnipotent and has foreordained all things. This merely omniscient being would still be incapable of doing other than what God has foreordained that it should do.

Respect is given to God by man insofar as God has foreordained it to be given.
So we represent Gods Glory. And we should always acknowledge it.
If God does not respect us, should we respect him solely on the basis that he created man?

Are you saying that we have no choice but to respect him? (you use the word "foreordained") You are implying our actions are deterministic?

If its foreordained, is it "true" respect? If we have been designed to respect him, has he "earned" that respect or manipulated the situation to get it?

Finally, why does God has to "foreordain" anything? Is he wary of things going contrary to his will?

Things can not go contrary to God's will. They are foreordained as a result of this always being the case.

One emotional reason given by believers for supposing to respect God is that they find him to be so very glorious.

Is it true respect? There is no difference between "true respect" and "an emotional feeling of respect". If I say, "I respect you", and to my knowledge I am not deceiving you, then that is true respect.

[edit: ubb]

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: advocate_11 ]</p>

Ryanfire

the trinity basically states that god, jesus, and the holy spirit are one.

Unless I've been misinformed by a christian friend of mine.

So yeah.. god would kill himself to save us from himself. That's the point you were going to make

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The trinity is just another concept proposed by religion, where they try to make sense out of nonsense.

Ryanfire

Advocate,

You believe man is hopelessly depraved, how nice of you to have faith in humanity. We all deserve to die because we were created. Kudos to god for creating beings that deserve to die, very awe inspiring and inspirational, I think I'll go around throwing myself at cars because I deserve to die, but you will save me each and everytime if you feel I'm worthy.

Thanks in advance god.

Love Ryan.

Theli

Yes, this was what I was reffering to.
God and Jesus was the same being. Wich makes it all even more weird.

Theli

Advocate...

Is there anything in your posts that isn't unsupported assumptions?

I mean, it's easy to defend a being that exist only in your own mind, that you can make say or do anything. But to connect these actions to something existing outside your own imagination is something else. I have not seen you do this.

Ted Hoffman

Advocate
This is similar to asking, "Why let them have two arms instead of three?"
False analogy. It could fit loosely if one hand is not used at all, or if every action of the one hand is considered a bad action.

A better analogy would be design a being with two brains each having equal control (free-will), then expect the being to use only one brain. And if it uses the other brain, call it evil.

I do not know.
Maybe you oughta think about it?

God does not know; a "deeper meaning, why" does not exist to be known. God is a being of the sort who by his nature
God has a nature?
And what is Gods nature?
How did he get it?
If he has a nature, doesn't that mean he cannot act against his nature? (hence NOT omnipotent)

Creates beings like ourselves.
You mean beings inferior to him? With vestigial structures, relatively poor eyesight, short lifespan and killing each other?

However, God does know that upon considering the set of actions willed as determined by his nature, that an element of that set were at least some beings that do not bend to his will without question.
So you are saying God has designed some of us to refuse to bend to his will? Doesnt that imply predestination and hence "tampering" and manipulation on Gods part?
And what purpose would such beings serve in Gods grand plan?

Intensity: God created man as a necessarily forthcoming manifestation of God's glory.
"necessarily"? from whose perspective? Yours or Gods?
Advocate: It was necessary from the perspective of considering God as a being possessing a nature of the sort whose possessor knows his own will (as determined by its nature and secondarily by its emotional state) perfectly, and who is not in any way prevented from executing its will.

The question was, whose perspective is that? Mans or Gods perspective? Please do not avoid the question again.

Intensity: What is Gods Glory? Did God create his Glory or did we create Gods Glory?
If he did not create it, who created it?

Advocate: Referring to God's glory is equivalent to referring to his nature; it was not created, but rather has always existed as a property of God is a glorious being.

Nice answer.
This brings me back to how god acquired his nature. What do you mean by "his nature"?
For example, considering the story of the three blind men and the elephant, are you going to tell me that "his nature" is slender like a rope (as the blind man who held the tail would say) or "flat like a wall" like the man who felt its side said?
Or are you going to tell me that he is a horse and eats grass as a horse would describe its God, or are you going to tell me he is kind and loving like the modern man prefers to describe God?

Most importantly, I will require you to indicate reliable means that you used to get the info concerning Gods nature.

If his Glory is his nature, is Glory his nature and is nature his Glory?

If he created it, can it rightfully be called Glory? (Glory is earned isn't it?)

Advocate: He is the most powerful and wise being that exists. God recognizes himself to be glorious by this standard.
Who set that standard? Can someone who has been sick all his life set proper standards for judging the healthiest among healthy people?

Where is the evidence that indicates that he is the most powerful and wise being? Earthquakes and disease?
Powerful in what way (physically, spiritually, emotionally)? Wise in what way? Flooding the earth because a single species is sinful is his wisdom? Powerful enough to kill his own son so that he himself could forgive us?
Provide examples of his wisdom please. And if you do not have perfect wisdom, are you qualified to judge what amounts to perfect/ infinite wisdom? Using what parameters/ standards?

Where does God exist?
If He looks at the mirror and recognizes he is glorious by his own standards isn't he merely vain?

You haven't answered the following questions though:
Manifestation for what purpose? Why does Gods Glory need to be manifest?

No, God could not "help it". Spoken like a true God. Are you God?
Were you there when he was making up his mind?
How do you know what God could not help? Who imposed it on him if he could not help it? Is he given to reacting on impulse?
I thought he was the most powerful.
If he can't help his nature, wouldnt you then say his nature is more powerful than him?
However, God did not will to do otherwise
Aah, you even know the alternatives that existed. Its so nice to have you here telling us what happened before God decided to follow his nature.

God has a will as determined by his nature.
Ergo God has no free will: his nature dictates his will.
Thank you for pointing that out.

Omnipotence would correctly mean total absence of constraints were God a being without a will and without a nature which determines it. It is not possible for God to do other than what he wills to do. Infact, if God willed to do one thing but as a result of your definition of omnipotence, instead did something else entirely that he did not will, then I suspect that very few people would find that to be a reasonable definition of omnipotence.
So then, how do you (re)define omnipotence?

If God has a nature and a will. That means God is not omnipotent and that God changes, anything that changes operates within time hence "your God" is not transcendent and thus is not omniscient since he operates within time and cannot see the future.

Yes, it serves God's purpose perfectly. Were it the case that God's purpose would have been perfectly served by doing something else; God would have done this something else.
Maybe he did not do that something else because he is not omnipotent and did as his nature dictated?
Either way, you have admitted that God does not love us. He loves only himself and we are his worshipping tools ( like if one wants to have sex with an inflated doll, he creates one and has sex with it: ergo the inflated doll is his sex tool which serves his perverted need for sex), in the same way, we are Gods worshipping tools, because we satisfy his need to be worshipped.
Comprendre?

God does not will only that beings should worship him; physical worship is a very small element of God's purposes in creation.
Please refer me to a book that lists Gods purposes in creation.

So far, its just been about his Glory having to be manifested (or else? maybe he would die from lack of attention?)

This merely omniscient being would still be incapable of doing other than what God has foreordained that it should do.
Are you therefore saying that we should worship God because we are not omniscient? Because abasement before other beings is not the nature of omniscient beings?

Are you saying that the act of worship is a preserve of inferior beings who dont know any better?

Things can not go contrary to God's will. They are foreordained as a result of this always being the case.
Aaah, so Adam was designed to eat the apple and sin? Oh, that makes a lot of sense.
And Osama Bin Laden himself had no desire to commit the sept 11 attack - it was just Gods plan?
Aaah, this is invigorating!

Is it true respect? There is no difference between "true respect" and "an emotional feeling of respect". If I say, "I respect you", and to my knowledge I am not deceiving you, then that is true respect.

But since even respect is preordained by God as you have asserted, how can it be "true respect"?

Its like creating Robots and programming them to respect you then calling that true respect.

Theli

Something that is easy to forget when discussing about an omnimax god is that god is reffered to as a being, not an omnimax ability, or an action.
And if that being has no consistent nature, then how can it even be said to exist?

And as I said before, Omnimax must ultimatly be an assumption on humans side, as it is an assumption on god's side.

And ofcourse, omnimax can't count as a nature as it is merely a measure of ability.