Appius

Exactly, a command is something the faithful will do willingly. If one was truly faithful he would not need to be commanded. The commands are there to show us that we fall short. That does not mean we ignore them, but rather keep them in mind and strive to follow them with God's help, and if and when we fail to repent. I believe this fits nicely into the Ananias and Sapphira problem. First of all they were guilty of holding back a portion of their wealth, but second they lied to God about the price of the land. The story focuses on they fact that they thought they could deceive God, and that they failed. One could also take they view that they were not sorry for the action. Either way it is not an action the faithful would do, or if they did they would ask for forgiveness. Moreover, perhaps Ananias and Sapphira had done this before and been warned.

Mageth

Exactly, a command is something the faithful will do willingly.

So it is a command, and doesn't just "seem like" a command, as you put it earlier?

Magus55

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mageth
[B]You are using a Calvinist argument here. God's omniscience, does not predestine events to take place. The fact that he knows what will happen before it does, doesn't prevent it from happening.

I think you need to reword the last sentence, as it makes no sense.

I worded it just fine, predestination doesn't exist. The fact that you know in 5 years the sun will rise in the east and set in the west doesn't mean the sun is predestined by you to do so. If a mom gives her child a piece of cake and broccoli, the mom knows which the child will choose. Does that mean the child never had the choice in the first place?



God never intended for humans to use their free will to disobey him, but they did it anyway.

Then why in hell did he give humans free will, and on top of that set up the scenario for them to disobey him?

Because he didn't want you to be a mindless robot, in which case creating you would have served no purpose.

And the gun manufacturing knew what the weapon could do, therefore he had foreknowledge that someone could very well use it against its intended purpose.

Exactly. So the gunmaker at least shares responsibility for the use of the gun for an unintended purpose.

Not according to other posts by people on the subject, and not according to our morality and justice system. Gun manufacturings don't get sued everytime someone is murdered with their gun.

Mageth, how many times do i need to say it. God did not create sin itself, only the scenario where its possible for sin to exist.

I did not say god "created" sin, I said "so god, by his decree, created "wrong", or at least the possibility of doing wrong" and that god introduced sin to the world.

Yes God created the possibility to do wrong, but he didn't introduce it in the world. Had Adam and Eve not chosen to disobey God, sin wouldn't exist today. We still would have the possibility to do wrong though, but if we never disobeyed God in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess.


You also said "God forbidding the eating of the tree is what gave Adam and Eve the ability to say, yes we will follow God, no we will not follow him. " In so doing, God introduced the ability to sin to A&E, and through the tree and his decree, defined the sin which they could (indeed, would) commit. So I still say god introduced sin into the world.

You can say God introduced it in the world all you want, doesn't mean its true.

Sin is not a material thing, he didn't drop a pot of sin on the world and walaa, he created sin.

By your own words, god decreed what is wrong. If god would not have done that, then sin would not, could not have come into the world.
And if he didn't do that, we would never have the ability to do anything but what God wants you to do. No free thought, nothing on your own, no choice to watch TV or pray, no choice to go to the movies instead of "church". You would be a robot.

By allowing Free will, God allowed humans to make choices that are in harmony with God and those that aren't, He never created sinful, evil humans, only the possibility for them to exist.

Since they do exist, and are not just a "possibility", and god supposedly created everything, then god did indeed create sinful, evil humans. I't simple, really.
Apparently its not so simple since you keep questioning it. Do you not value your ability to choose what you want to do and what you want to think? Then stop arguing over a being you don't even believe in. God didn't create sin, he created the scenario for sin to come about through humans. Its his creation, he deemed it so. You don't believe in it, so stop arguing over it!



And stop bringing the argument of sin up, im sick of trying to explain it to people who have absolutely no desire to comprehend it.

I would argue that I comprehend the biblical concepts of sin et al at least as well as you (better, from what I've seen; I could argue from your side more effectively than you've demonstrated if I so chose), and having spent 47 years reading, discussing and thinking about them, including here on this board for the last two years, the "absolutely no desire" bit it demonstrably false.

Apparently you don't since you keep bringing it up and asking the same redundant questions about it. And no you couldn't argue on this side better because you would have to believe God exists and is perfect which is apparently impossible for you to do.

The problem is, you fail to recognize the inextricable wad of contradictions that the "Fall" account of Genesis poses, and that the "typical" defense of it that you appear to be reciting by rote, and not doing a very good job of I might add, is indefensible.

Sorry i don't see any contradictions, i thought you could defend God better than me? Iv'e given a perfectly good explanation for sin and God, just because you don't accept it doesn't mean its an invalid contradiction.

So if you don't want to attempt to "explain" it, don't. Such efforts are fruitless for "your side" anyways. From "our side", I'll continute to "bring it up", as it is a good illustration of problems with the biblical account for the lurkers and others to see and ponder.
You won't be bringing any "reborn" Christians to your side in this lifetime. You can bring up the subject all you want but true Christians don't see any problems. They believe in God and what he says is true. I'm just not gonna bother responding to anymore of your redundant, pointless arguments about sin and God.

The only reason you bring it up is to play dumb games to try and disprove God's nature, it never worked before and it won't now. So give it up.

I don't bring it up to "play dumb games to try and disprove God's nature", unless you think theological discussions are "dumb games." (hmm, perhaps you're on to something there.) I could just as well accuse you of bringing sin up to "play dumb games to try and prove God's nature", couldn't I? You are the one who keeps bringing up God and sin, not me

The reason I "bring it up" (if indeed I was guilty of that on this thread; I haven't looked back to see where the subject of "sin" was introduced in this thread) is so "lurkers" and others (even you) can hopefully critically examine some of the claims of "god's nature" made by believers and sometimes actually based on the bible. Christians will trust God any day before the claims of humans, so its wasting your breath. Only thing you are doing is bringing other people who may be open to the idea of God, to their own eternal punishment. Go you!

And such a tactic demonstrably has worked before, and may even be working now. I know it's worked before because examination and discussion of such issues as sin, free will, A&E, etc. were a big contributing factor to my coming to my senses and recognizing the Bible and Xian doctrine for the inconsistent, contradictory, unsupportable account of "god's nature" that it is.

So, no, I won't give it up, free will and all.

Apparently you were just subconsiously hoping someone would disuade you from Jesus. If the Holy Spirit dwelled within you, you wouldn't have given up on Jesus so easily. "Reborn" Christians hear these lame arguments from atheists every day and they endure many many hardships in life, yet their faith only gets stronger. Of course, i guess we are all just psychotic Such a shame.

winstonjen

Magus:

Straw man argument. If god never decreed what was sin and what was not, we would NOT be robots. We could do whatever we wanted to without 'sinning', therefore we would have free will.

Ab_Normal

and no true scottsman adulterates his porridge...

sourdough

exactly,they give money to the church in hope that this imaginary skydady will send their soul to haven when they die!why would God need your money?
unfortunately there is no Haven and no souls,death is the End.and all the believers are suckers who fall for this con game.
:boohoo:

Infidelettante

I think you may be wrong on your definition of sin. It means to fall short of Gods perfection. *For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God*[don't recall the address]. *For he has made him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might be made the rightiousness of God in him*11 Cor. 5:21. The reguirement in the NT to enter into the presence of God [to inter heaven] is Gods' rightiousness. With out saying this is a standard none of us can meet. It is the however the goal God has set for us. That he has given humanity a way out of this dilemma does not mean that he is absolved of the unjust and evil nature of it.

JT

JCS

One problem, christians claim their god is the prime mover. If this is the case and if he also has the ability to know the outcome, then how can it not be predestined. Once he lined up all the bits of what would become existence and gave it a shove all those bits were destined to follow the path they were pushed unto. That would give the mover the ability to know the outcome since it made the push and selected the direction(s) in which the push was made. Much like billards, the shooter has the best vantage point in which to determine what will go where and why.

Your analogy supports predestined far better than it proves free choice. The mother giving the child a choice knowing the outcome is based on the mother arranging for that outcome, in other words she predetermined it. The child could have chosen broccoli but the mom knew she wouldn't because she arranged for a choice the child would find more preferable.

EggplantTrent

The existence of free will negates the idea of an all powerful and all knowing God. If God knows what your'e going to do ten minutes from now, and he knows exactly what you're going to do ten years from now, does this not imply that we have no free will at all?

To assume free will exists is to say that there are situations that not even God will know the outcome of. Once again: If God knows exactly what I'm going to do at all times, or knows exactly what actions I will take and their outcomes, then I have no free will.

So now you have a God that knows everything and knows what you're going to do, but at the same time doesn't know what your'e going to do. You believe in determinism and indeterminism. Is this not a contradiction in your beliefs?

Let's talk about sin. Whatever the definition is, the whole "Not following what God wants you to do" suffices.

You say this: God created everything. He knows everything. He did not create sin. Sin exists because man ate the fruit from the tree, or through man's rebellious nature etc etc.

Yet, God created everything. He's in control. He gave man the capability to sin. <-- Read that statement again.

So therefore is not God the creator of sin as well (after all, it is his universe)?

If he controls eveything and knows everything then this implies that he predetermines everything. So how does he choose who goes to heaven or not? what criteria is he using? Or is he just randomly picking names out of the cosmic hat in the sky?

EggplantTrent

HRG

So ? They could have chosen between talking during a specific moment of time and not talking, right ?
This argument has been repeated countless times, yet it is still ridiculous. Free will doesn't depend on the existence of a choice between "right" and "wrong"; it's existence is perfectly well shown by the free choice between ham and jam for breakfast, or between Adam's looking and not looking at the famous tree.

The theist redefinition of free will as a choice between "right" and "wrong" is just too transparent ....

regards,
HRG.