Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goober
Wyrdsmyth: :notworthy

Theophilus: Please explain the purpose for which the universe was created. And don't give us the 'mysterious plan' bullshit, that is not an answer.

Well, since I've never used that answer, the bullshit would seem to be coming from you, wouldn't it?

The purpose was for God's glory. If you want to know "how" the plan works, you'll have to do your own research.

And while you are dancing the theological shuffle, please reconcile this statement with free will:

I never said anything about free will, so I have nothing to reconcile.

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alan N
Rom 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,...

Restrain it's effects? Please explain.

Phil 3:12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.

Heb 11:39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40 God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

Heb 12:23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect,

Paul clearly understood that the result of his faith and obedience, which to him meant upholding the law, would be perfection:

Rom 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Thanks for this great illustration of what happens when we take scripture out of context.

If you'll read the entire middle section of Romans, you'll see that "Paul clearly understood" nothing of the sort.

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
and...

You know what would really complete this whole act? A line of dancing girls singing:

"Do the theological shuffle, one, two, three...
For those who don't know it, theophilus will lead!
Shuffle them terms,
and move them around,
Juggle them arguments,
who cares if they're sound.

"Everybody, now! All together!

"Do the theological shuffle, one two, three...
For those who don't know it, theophilus will lead!!!"

I'm sure your mother must be very proud.

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar

Theophilus:
Yes, it [the universe] is perfect.
It is perfectly suited to the purpose for which it was created.

Don't you see just how self-contradictory, indeed downright schizophrenic, all that is? If God created a perfect universe, why is it now imperfect?

Don't you see just how irrelevant your remarks are to my post? I denied that the world is imperfect.

If you say that the universe is perfect, you must admit that sin, evil, and suffering are all part of God's design;

What's your point?

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
Before proceeding, let�s be sure that we�re on the same page. First, you surely aren�t claiming that the world (i.e., the universe) is perfectly round, or perfectly beautiful. The kind of perfection you�re talking about is moral perfection. Correct so far?

No, I am talking about ontological perfection. The world is perfectly suited to the purpose for which it was created.

Now the original question was �What kind of world would a perfect God create?� And your answer, I gather, is �A world that perfectly accomplishes His purpose.� This makes sense if the whole of what you mean in calling God �(morally) perfect� is that He perfectly accomplishes His purposes. If you meant more than that � if being �morally perfect� meant more than �perfectly accomplishing God�s purpose� � then the fact that the world does so would not be sufficient to show that it�s morally perfect.

There are no divisions in God; his is not "morally perfect" in the way we use that term, i.e., he perfectly conforms to some standard of morality. He is the standard by which all morality is judged.

Are you still with me? If not, where have I gone wrong in my reasoning?

You have misunderstood my meaning.

What a refreshing post: no insults; no gratuitous bluff. Thanks.

Jobar · 07-22-2003, 07:18 PM

Jobar- If you say that the universe is perfect, you must admit that sin, evil, and suffering are all part of God's design...

theophilus- What's your point?

My point is that if God 'designed in' evil and suffering, then he is the author of all evil and suffering. Omnibenevolence goes out the window.

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
To those who are juggling, equivocating, and doing the theological shuffle, I would ask that you answer this simple question:

Is this world perfect?

Yes or no. Sic et Non. Let's have it.

Perfect means flawless. Imperfect means flawed or in need of improvement. If you cannot imagine any improvements or any way to make something better, then that is perfect. So, I am using the term 'perfect' in its usual connotation.

It's a simple question, with a yes or no answer.

I answered your question.

Now, why don't you quit dancing around and give a meaningful response?

Here it is again in case you've misplaced it:

Yes, it is perfect.
It is perfectly suited to the purpose for which it was created.

Now, unless you know that is not true, all your "juggling, equivocating, and doing the atheist shuffle," is simply an act of petulance.

theophilus · 07-22-2003, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
Jobar- If you say that the universe is perfect, you must admit that sin, evil, and suffering are all part of God's design...

theophilus- What's your point?

My point is that if God 'designed in' evil and suffering, then he is the author of all evil and suffering. Omnibenevolence goes out the window.

I recognize that this is a difficult concept and most Christians would shy away from it.

God, as the creator, is the ultimate "cause" of everything that comes to pass. But he is not the instrumental or immediate cause.

God did not (and does not) "force" men to sin; men sin because they choose to. God "ordained" sin as part of his eternal plan, but he is not, thereby, the author of it.

I do not pretend to be able to fully explicate this, but that is what you would expect from fallible human intellect.

A poor analogy might help:
A nation discovers that one of it's workers is spying for its enemy. They use the traitor's perfidy to pass false information to the enemy. Now, is the nation resonsible for the spying? No. Did it use the traitor to accomplish its own purpose? Yes.

Jobar · 07-22-2003, 07:35 PM

But he is not the instrumental or immediate cause.

Ahh, so it's omnipotence you would be giving up, then?

It's the classic trilemma, theophilus.

Jobar · 07-22-2003, 07:42 PM

An aside, theo- did you see the interesting thread concerning your namesake, in BC&H?

Had Theophilus heard of Jesus?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-22-2003, 07:18 PM	#56
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Jobar- If you say that the universe is perfect, you must admit that sin, evil, and suffering are all part of God's design... theophilus- What's your point? My point is that if God 'designed in' evil and suffering, then he is the author of all evil and suffering. Omnibenevolence goes out the window.

07-22-2003, 07:35 PM	#59
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	But he is not the instrumental or immediate cause. Ahh, so it's omnipotence you would be giving up, then? It's the classic trilemma, theophilus.

07-22-2003, 07:42 PM	#60
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	An aside, theo- did you see the interesting thread concerning your namesake, in BC&H? Had Theophilus heard of Jesus?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.