Is the Will of God free? [Archive]

Bettenoir

September 14th 2005, 09:42 AM

Hello folks... Let's try this on and see how it fits...

Does the God of the Bible have Free Will? It would seem so given that we have free will and the source must be from God as we are made in his Image... Given that notion (which if you wish to dispute knock yourself out) I'd like to pose a couple of questions:

1. If God has Free Will and his Will is Good - given that He is all-powerful - why does He or did He allow Evil to enter the world at all? This may be a redundant question, I realize, but I encourage thought on it because it seems God could have prevented the entrance of the Serpent into the Garden and could have not planted the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the mist of the Garden: yet, knowing full well what was to happen, these things were done. Did God's own foreknowledge override his Free Will and Will to Good?

God let that serpant in so that he could test A&E,without that serpant,A&E would have just beeen blind atomaton's doing what God said just because God said it. Free will is the choice to choose.

2. Assuming God created Free Will in man (or transferred it to man) and man was capable of choosing disobedience and thus Evil - was God capable of choosing wickedness as well? If not is this because he is only Good or for some other reason? And if so why did He not choose Evil as man did? If God cannot choose evil and wickedness why can man if man is in His image?

Man did not choose evil, he chose to gain knolwdge over blind faith, that's not evil. Yes Some of Man are capible of great Evil but not all. I belive that God can choose Evil and wickedness,just look at the great flood or the many babies he had killed because someone built areally big tower. the diffrence between God and say Hitler is that God can repent and has done.

3. In giving Free Will to man God seems to have handcuffed himself: if the choice of Man to disobedience and the entrance of Sin into the world was a result of our freedom to choose and God did not stop nor did he divinely "delete" this mistake are we to assume that God could not intervene? That freedom of choice - as a Divine creation - could not be undone: was God constrained by this action as a result of Him fashioning Free will? How does this jive with God being all-powerful?

Perhap's god like's us this way,that way he can use "Sin" too make us feel guilty all the time.he can use "sin" to bully people into worshipping him as apposed to worhiping another God or Godess.
Thanks for the replies - rest assured I'm not posting for argument's sake but simply wrestling with some theological / philosophical "daemons"...

Take care!

You too :teeth:

themuzicman

September 14th 2005, 09:58 AM

Hello folks... Let's try this on and see how it fits...

Does the God of the Bible have Free Will? It would seem so given that we have free will and the source must be from God as we are made in his Image... Given that notion (which if you wish to dispute knock yourself out) I'd like to pose a couple of questions:

1. If God has Free Will and his Will is Good - given that He is all-powerful - why does He or did He allow Evil to enter the world at all?

Because God desires to have a relationship with us, but in order for that relationship to be freely chosen, we must have the option to reject Him, as well. Thus God delegates sovereignty to men over man's will and the earth.

This may be a redundant question, I realize, but I encourage thought on it because it seems God could have prevented the entrance of the Serpent into the Garden and could have not planted the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the mist of the Garden: yet, knowing full well what was to happen, these things were done. Did God's own foreknowledge override his Free Will and Will to Good?

I don't hold to the definate foreknowledge that you describe. I believe God knew that Adam COULD sin, but not that he WOULD sin. Again, the tree was necessary to God's purpose of a relationship with Him.

2. Assuming God created Free Will in man (or transferred it to man) and man was capable of choosing disobedience and thus Evil - was God capable of choosing wickedness as well?

In the end, wickedness is rejecting God. I don't know how you can have God reject Himself, especially if He is holy and perfect.

If not is this because he is only Good or for some other reason? And if so why did He not choose Evil as man did? If God cannot choose evil and wickedness why can man if man is in His image?

Welll, what "in His image" means is up for some debate, and probably has several ramifications, but I doubt that rejecting God is one of them.

3. In giving Free Will to man God seems to have handcuffed himself: if the choice of Man to disobedience and the entrance of Sin into the world was a result of our freedom to choose and God did not stop nor did he divinely "delete" this mistake are we to assume that God could not intervene?

Well, when God speaks, His word is eternal. If God declares that man will be created with a free will (and Gen 2 seems to imply that He did), then to override that free will or to reverse a decision made would be violating His own word.

That freedom of choice - as a Divine creation - could not be undone: was God constrained by this action as a result of Him fashioning Free will?

God was constrained by His own word.

How does this jive with God being all-powerful?

All-powerful simply means He is able to do all things. It doesn't mean that He will do them. If they are unjust or in violation of His word, then He won't.

Thanks for the replies - rest assured I'm not posting for argument's sake but simply wrestling with some theological / philosophical "daemons"...

Take care!

NP... THis has been an Open View opinion.

Michael

mentored1

September 14th 2005, 08:07 PM

Thanks for your insights Bettenoir - look forward to more replies

God let that serpant in so that he could test A&E,without that serpant,A&E would have just beeen blind atomaton's doing what God said just because God said it. Free will is the choice to choose.

So they were blind automaton's before they were tempted to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good & evil? If they were blind automatons (assumingly incapable of choice) then when did they gain the power of choice? And why did God need to warn them in advance about not eating the Tree of knowledge of Good & Evil?

If automatons then why was it not good for man to be alone; or how did Adam know that Eve was 'flesh of his flesh'... These don't seem like things that an automaton would do...

It certainly seems like they had the capacity for free will: otherwise tempting them to choose the fruit as the serpent did would be ineffective since they were just automatons... Was free will inherent in man's creation and subsequently "probed" by Satan and the existence of the Tree?

Man did not choose evil, he chose to gain knolwdge over blind faith, that's not evil. Yes Some of Man are capible of great Evil but not all. I belive that God can choose Evil and wickedness,just look at the great flood or the many babies he had killed because someone built areally big tower. the diffrence between God and say Hitler is that God can repent and has done.

I'll admit I don't know that I've heard this type of explanation before...
So how did man's choice of knowledge become 'original sin' condemning all future generations?

If God can choose and execute "evil" then how is he described as 'holy' and 'without spot' in whom 'is no darkness or shadow of turning'?

Perhap's god like's us this way,that way he can use "Sin" too make us feel guilty all the time.he can use "sin" to bully people into worshipping him as apposed to worhiping another God or Godess.

He is described as a 'jealous' God visiting iniquity on the children of future generations... God is also described as a 'just' God in that he recompenses or will recompense every act in this life or the next... Trying to understand the complexities that play on the human mind at levels we are unaware of is beyond my capacity: trying to understand how a supernatural power works is even more mysterious...

Take care!

mentored1

September 14th 2005, 08:21 PM

Appreciate the reply muzicman; my own thoughts follow...

Because God desires to have a relationship with us, but in order for that relationship to be freely chosen, we must have the option to reject Him, as well. Thus God delegates sovereignty to men over man's will and the earth.

I think I mentioned this in a previous reply in this thread but I'll repeat to make sure: was the Tree of Knowledge and the Serpent necessary? Was man created from the get go (out of the dust) with free will? If Adam & Eve both had free will that functioned normally why allow an enticement? Was God incapable of knowing man's heart in any other fashion than by his actions (it seems that he knows the intents regardless)?

I don't hold to the definate foreknowledge that you describe. I believe God knew that Adam COULD sin, but not that he WOULD sin.

What of the reference to the lamb slain from the foundations of the world (Rev.13:8)? Why was Christ slain from the foundation of the world if not because God already knew the coming of Sin and the atonement of it? Is that not preparation for foreknowledge and thus God knew it when he made the worlds that Christ was to be sacrificed?

In the end, wickedness is rejecting God. I don't know how you can have God reject Himself, especially if He is holy and perfect.

I don't know of your views on the passage in Psalm 22: 'my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'... It seems that God had to reject himself in the form of his Son exactly because He is holy and perfect... His image in man seems analagous to this ocurrence... Again, I'm interested in how you view this...

Well, when God speaks, His word is eternal. If God declares that man will be created with a free will (and Gen 2 seems to imply that He did), then to override that free will or to reverse a decision made would be violating His own word.

Indeed it would seem that way... Does that seem to suggest that God's omnipotence can be curtailed by itself? Is then God not all-powerful but only so in the context of his character (which is not truly omnipotent is it?)?

But if man's "free will" allows him to choose 'not-God' it is not a free choice for the repercussions of that decision are not man's but God's who has set the penalty for that rejection. I may be mistaken but there is only once choice to make for every human under the Biblical reality: acceptance or rejection of God... and every human is born with the default setting to "reject"... ?

Take care!

themuzicman

September 15th 2005, 09:24 AM

I think I mentioned this in a previous reply in this thread but I'll repeat to make sure: was the Tree of Knowledge and the Serpent necessary? Was man created from the get go (out of the dust) with free will? If Adam & Eve both had free will that functioned normally why allow an enticement? Was God incapable of knowing man's heart in any other fashion than by his actions (it seems that he knows the intents regardless)?

The tree? I think the tree was intended by God to be a lesson to Adam and Eve that God is still their creator, and that they need to respect and trust in him as God and sovereign over creation.

The serpent, obviously, is not necessary, but a result of Satan's fall, and in his rebellion against God convinced Adam and Eve to condemn themselves to death by eating of the tree by telling them that they wouldn't really die.

Clearly without Satan's fall, there is no fall of Adam.

What of the reference to the lamb slain from the foundations of the world (Rev.13:8)? Why was Christ slain from the foundation of the world if not because God already knew the coming of Sin and the atonement of it? Is that not preparation for foreknowledge and thus God knew it when he made the worlds that Christ was to be sacrificed?

I think God knew that the possibility that man would sin existed, and He had a plan in place for Christ to come and die for the sins of the world, should that happen. I read it as a contingincy plan.

I don't know of your views on the passage in Psalm 22: 'my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'... It seems that God had to reject himself in the form of his Son exactly because He is holy and perfect... His image in man seems analagous to this ocurrence... Again, I'm interested in how you view this...

I see this as a relational forsaking, which is perfectly fine since there is obviously a relationship between Father and Son. For God to reject Himself, He would have to violate His own word or law.

Indeed it would seem that way... Does that seem to suggest that God's omnipotence can be curtailed by itself? Is then God not all-powerful but only so in the context of his character (which is not truly omnipotent is it?)?

Sure it is. Omnipotence only implies ability, not fulfillment. If God chooses to limit Himself by His word, that doesn't make Him any less powerful.

But if man's "free will" allows him to choose 'not-God' it is not a free choice for the repercussions of that decision are not man's but God's who has set the penalty for that rejection. I may be mistaken but there is only once choice to make for every human under the Biblical reality: acceptance or rejection of God... and every human is born with the default setting to "reject"... ?

In one way or another, yes. IMHO, I think the original sin caused a fundamental epistimological shift in man's worldview, which is perpetuated by man's ongoing sin, which causes each of us to sin. Since we are all raised by sinful parents, that fundamental worldview is passed from parent to child, which ultimately condemns that child to sin, as well.

(This comes from the name of the tree, which is the knowledge of good and evil. THis, to me, suggests an epistimological change upon eating of it.)

Since no child can be raised without it's parents sin ultimately moves from generation to generation. Only God could break this cycle.

Michael

Champagne

September 15th 2005, 09:37 AM

Good questions- which I had the answers. I just think the questions point out the inconsistencies in CHristianity that can't be ironed out.

According to orthodoxy, Adam and Eve were created perfect- there was no sin in the garden. They did not have free will.

And God was able to have a relationship with them, regardless of the fact that they were "Automatons." And the Garden of Eden is an utopia- it is the ideal - it is perfection. So apparently God's first "plan" was perfect and good- even without free will.

God introduced the thought into Adam and Eve's minds by having the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil there to tempt them. This brings up the question, well if they had no free will, how could they morally choose to do the right thing anyway? They ate from the tree, and THAT'S when they obtained free will. God said, "Behold, they have now become like one of us- knowing good from evil."

They didn't know good from evil before. And I don't know how they would, if there was no evil. But God says that now they are like him, now they know the difference. He doesn't say where evil came from though.

And they are punished for eating of the tree- so severely that the entire planet, animals, and all future generations are affected by it, and are born in sin. All manner of evil and suffering stem from their choice, which wasn't really a choice anyway, since they did it before they knew right from wrong (which could only be obtained by eating from the tree.)

Since God punished them for eating of the tree, we can only surmise that God did NOT want them to know good from evil. He wanted them to remain innocent babes in the woods. (of course why put the tree there in the first place if indeed that is the intention)

But he punished them, so it obviously was a grave sin to eat from the tree- a sin that was committed BEFORE they knew right from wrong though.

The whole story just doesn't make any logical sense.

mentored1

September 15th 2005, 07:52 PM

Muzic - great stuff! Some very good points that I must admit are thought-provoking indeed! Appreciate it!

The tree? I think the tree was intended by God to be a lesson to Adam and Eve that God is still their creator, and that they need to respect and trust in him as God and sovereign over creation.

I'll admit I'm not sure what you're getting at here... Mind elaborating a bit?
If man was created from the get go with free will why plant the tree in the garden at all, thus creating the object of an 'epistemological' shift?

The serpent, obviously, is not necessary, but a result of Satan's fall, and in his rebellion against God convinced Adam and Eve to condemn themselves to death by eating of the tree by telling them that they wouldn't really die.

Clearly without Satan's fall, there is no fall of Adam.

I certainly agree with your assessment here... But I recall in Job that Satan required God's clearance to afflict Job - is this the general blueprint (Satan requiring permission)? And if so why did God, in this case, grant it knowing Satan's deeds and character?

I think God knew that the possibility that man would sin existed, and He had a plan in place for Christ to come and die for the sins of the world, should that happen. I read it as a contingincy plan.

Intriguing! I've never heard it described as a "contingency" plan (at least not to my recollection)... Is there any other example in Scripture where God prepares for something in this fashion?

Not that I deny your explanation to be legitimate, but I ponder God's character as far as I can and it seems strange that He would prepare the sacrifice of his Son before bringing anything into creation - implying his foreknowledge of the possibility and yet plant the Tree and allow Satan entrance... Maybe I'm missing a clue or two in this - help me out!

I see this as a relational forsaking, which is perfectly fine since there is obviously a relationship between Father and Son. For God to reject Himself, He would have to violate His own word or law.

Indeed it would strange... You mind elaborating a bit on your mention of "relational" forsaking? As in the Father-Son relationship being repudiated for that time or in another sense?

Sure it is. Omnipotence only implies ability, not fulfillment. If God chooses to limit Himself by His word, that doesn't make Him any less powerful.

So as far as we can tell from Scripture God is only 'potentially' omnipotent? If the Scripture shows us only that He did indeed limit himself by his own power then how can we reach the conclusion that he is actually omnipotent - is it as simple as reverse engineering?

The reason this particular point is so intriguing to me is the implications of power and free will and how they play upon each other: it is obviously so with humans how we can choose to limit ourselves and our choices in turn can limit our power... But why is this the case with God? It seems that we're dealing with a classic anthropomorphism aren't we?

In one way or another, yes. IMHO, I think the original sin caused a fundamental epistimological shift in man's worldview, which is perpetuated by man's ongoing sin, which causes each of us to sin. Since we are all raised by sinful parents, that fundamental worldview is passed from parent to child, which ultimately condemns that child to sin, as well.

Indeed I tenuously tout this explanation myself... it seems to fit the story... but then you have passages in Scripture where we are 'born speaking lies' and there are 'none righteous, no not one'... Didn't David say that his mother 'conceived in sin'?

While I see the possible connections to the epistemological shift and the passing of it on to the offspring the Scripture seems to indicate that we are 'bent' towards sin by our very nature...

And if it's a matter of a world-view and not of an inherent 'fleshly, carnal' sin carried in the flesh why does the body need to be 'changed'?

Again, excellent stuff - I enjoy these kind of punctual and substantive arguments!

Take care

themuzicman

September 15th 2005, 09:00 PM

I'll admit I'm not sure what you're getting at here... Mind elaborating a bit?
If man was created from the get go with free will why plant the tree in the garden at all, thus creating the object of an 'epistemological' shift?

To teach Adam and Eve about God's sovereignty, and as a reminder that God may reserve things for Himself, which they aren't to partake of.

I certainly agree with your assessment here... But I recall in Job that Satan required God's clearance to afflict Job - is this the general blueprint (Satan requiring permission)? And if so why did God, in this case, grant it knowing Satan's deeds and character?

I don't know that it was permission. God had placed a hedge of protection around Job, such that nothing bad could happen to him. Only when God removed that hedge could Satan do anything.

That's different than the freedom man has in His own will.

Intriguing! I've never heard it described as a "contingency" plan (at least not to my recollection)... Is there any other example in Scripture where God prepares for something in this fashion?

In the Old Covenant, God tells the people of Israel what will happen if they follow the law, and what will happen if they don't. He leaves that contingint up to them. Likewise, God seemed prepared to deal with Jonah when he refused to go to Ninevah.

I know this isn't exactly what you're looking for, but nothing is coming to mind immediately.

Not that I deny your explanation to be legitimate, but I ponder God's character as far as I can and it seems strange that He would prepare the sacrifice of his Son before bringing anything into creation - implying his foreknowledge of the possibility and yet plant the Tree and allow Satan entrance... Maybe I'm missing a clue or two in this - help me out!

Again, all these were known as possibilities. The tree was a teaching tool. Who knows when Satan rebelled, but it seems plausable that he did so AFTER Adam was created. I know some people who think that Adam's fall was Satan's rebellion, as well.

Indeed it would strange... You mind elaborating a bit on your mention of "relational" forsaking? As in the Father-Son relationship being repudiated for that time or in another sense?

If we look back to Psalm 22, we find the author (David?) asking the same thing, and the context is clearly one of David feeling as though God was far from him, and had abandoned him.

So as far as we can tell from Scripture God is only 'potentially' omnipotent? If the Scripture shows us only that He did indeed limit himself by his own power then how can we reach the conclusion that he is actually omnipotent - is it as simple as reverse engineering?

God's omnipotence is established elsewhere in scripture.

The reason this particular point is so intriguing to me is the implications of power and free will and how they play upon each other: it is obviously so with humans how we can choose to limit ourselves and our choices in turn can limit our power... But why is this the case with God? It seems that we're dealing with a classic anthropomorphism aren't we?

If we're anthropomorphizing, we need something to be anthropomorphizing TO. What characteristic of God is being described in human terms?

Indeed I tenuously tout this explanation myself... it seems to fit the story... but then you have passages in Scripture where we are 'born speaking lies' and there are 'none righteous, no not one'... Didn't David say that his mother 'conceived in sin'?

We have to be careful using Psalms because of it's genre. Paul uses Psalms properly, understanding that it frequently speaks in hyperbole and extremes. The point is that we all sin, and are all condemned because of our sin.

While I see the possible connections to the epistemological shift and the passing of it on to the offspring the Scripture seems to indicate that we are 'bent' towards sin by our very nature...

That depends on how you deal with the various terms. If they are ontological, that presents their own problems, including the question of who has the power to change on a fundamental level that which God created.

And if it's a matter of a world-view and not of an inherent 'fleshly, carnal' sin carried in the flesh why does the body need to be 'changed'?

Where does it say that the body needs to be changed?

Michael

basicbeliever

September 16th 2005, 05:05 PM

basicbeliever

September 16th 2005, 07:49 PM

Does the God of the Bible have Free Will? It would seem so given that we have free will and the source must be from God as we are made in his Image... Given that notion (which if you wish to dispute knock yourself out) I'd like to pose a couple of questions:
Two things to keep in mind for this discussion (presuppositions if you will)
1. God is infinite
2. Man is finite

There is much more possibility in infinite than there is finite.

1. If God has Free Will and his Will is Good - given that He is all-powerful - why does He or did He allow Evil to enter the world at all? Did God's own foreknowledge override his Free Will and Will to Good?
In order for us to have free will, we had to have the choice for wrong. I will quote Dr. Norman Geisler: "He [God] created the fact of freedom; we perform the acts of freedom. He made evil possible; men made evil actual."

I know we have discussed "freedom" in the past. I will give my basic understand of what free will means here for the purpose of this discussion. I consider it the ability to decide between alternatives.

2. Assuming God created Free Will in man (or transferred it to man) and man was capable of choosing disobedience and thus Evil - was God capable of choosing wickedness as well? If not is this because he is only Good or for some other reason? And if so why did He not choose Evil as man did? If God cannot choose evil and wickedness why can man if man is in His image?
I believe God created Free Will in man as defined above.

Man is of course able to choose disobedience and thus evil

It is not in God’s nature to be able to choose wickedness, however, it is in man’s nature, therefore we can choose to be wicked.

Here is an excerpt from a short paper I put together in regards to “in His image” (I can post the full thing if you wish, it may make more sense):

As the image bearer of God, man was created with true free will and was not mechanistically determined by internal or external factors, because he was created to reflect God’s free and sovereign will in subduing the world.

God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Genesis 1:28)

Thus, the world was not made to control man in some mechanistic or deterministic way, but man was made to control the world in a personal and rational way.

What is the “image of God” in which man was created? Despite all the elaborate attempts to read highly technical, theological, and philosophical concepts in the Biblical words “the image of God,” we should take them in their simplest meaning as they would have been understood by the people to whom Moses wrote. In this sense, “the image of God” simply meant that man was created to be and do on a finite level what God was and did on the infinite level.

Man was created to reflect God in the created order. Thus, we do not need to divide up the image of God into such categories as “inner and outer,” “higher and lower,” etc. Neither should we reduce the image bearing capacity of man to one of his functions such as reason, language, or emotion. The “image of God” simply means that man reflects his creator in those capacities and capabilities which separate him from the rest of the creation. The nobility, uniqueness, meaning, worth and significance of man all rest on his being made in the image of God and being placed over the world as God’s prophet, priest, and king (Gen. 1:26-27). This is why the Apostle Paul could refer to Jesus as the messianic image bearer of God (Col. 1:15). As the second Adam, Christ was the full and complete image bearer. This is why Christ could say that to see Him was to see the Father (John 14:9). Christ reflected on a finite level as the second Adam what the Father was like on an infinite level.

In terms of our self image, we must view ourselves as uniquely wonderful, intrinsically valuable and richly invested with meaning, significance and purpose. Man was created to glorify God and to enjoy Him and His creation. Man is not worthless.

3. In giving Free Will to man God seems to have handcuffed himself: if the choice of Man to disobedience and the entrance of Sin into the world was a result of our freedom to choose and God did not stop nor did he divinely "delete" this mistake are we to assume that God could not intervene? That freedom of choice - as a Divine creation - could not be undone: was God constrained by this action as a result of Him fashioning Free will? How does this jive with God being all-powerful?

We are not to assume that God could not intervene just because He chose not to intervene. God could have suspended freedom of choice, but then we would not be here for the purpose in which God put us here now would we. So don’t assume a could not for a would not.

Now I have a question. Why do you assume that God has not already solved the problem of evil in such a way that neither His goodness nor omnipotence is limited? On what grounds do you limit what God can or cannot do to solve this problem?

Thanks for the replies - rest assured I'm not posting for argument's sake but simply wrestling with some theological / philosophical "daemons"...

Take care!

:smile:

Enjoy!

mentored1

September 19th 2005, 09:44 PM

If we're anthropomorphizing, we need something to be anthropomorphizing TO. What characteristic of God is being described in human terms?

The human fact that our choices (free will) can limit our power. Such as in a society of law where the passions are restrained by punishment or diplomacy restraining the insanity of nuclear destruction (as it seems). The TO is the human restrictions on our behavior by choice. Is it anthropomorphic or is there another relation that might help clarify God's omnipotence being willfully restrained to allow free will to run its course?

Where does it say that the body needs to be changed?

Phillipians 3:21; Romans 8:23; 1 Cor. 15:40+

Again unless I'm missing some major clues...

Take care!

mentored1

September 19th 2005, 09:57 PM

Two things to keep in mind for this discussion (presuppositions if you will)
1. God is infinite
2. Man is finite

There is much more possibility in infinite than there is finite.

Indeed one cannot argue with those except on one premise:

As a finite creature how can we understand and thus explain what is available or not available to the infinite? Perhaps infinity is infinite because it lacks diversity / choice?

In order for us to have free will, we had to have the choice for wrong. I will quote Dr. Norman Geisler: "He [God] created the fact of freedom; we perform the acts of freedom. He made evil possible; men made evil actual."

Geisler has put out some interesting stuff... In making evil possible is that a realization for us that the possibility of evil exists for God as well? How can the possibility of something arise from a source (God) that does not itself have that possibility? Again I go to the question of why didn't this possibility in God become actualized?

Man is of course able to choose disobedience and thus evil

It is not in God’s nature to be able to choose wickedness, however, it is in man’s nature, therefore we can choose to be wicked.

We reach the question of what is God's nature? Man has "nature" which is defined in various ways of which I think we are aware: but isn't it a classic anthropomorpic argument to say that God has a nature? If man is God's image (as your paper describes well, kudos) then the possibility for evil exists for God and man: yet there is a distinct "nature" which allowed man to actualize this possibility and God to avoid it. What is the essence of this difference in "nature" if one arose from the other?

We are not to assume that God could not intervene just because He chose not to intervene. God could have suspended freedom of choice, but then we would not be here for the purpose in which God put us here now would we. So don’t assume a could not for a would not.

Certainly assumptions are hazardous.... As I mentioned a few questions in above comments regarding this I'll summarize here: man in God's image - the possibility of evil actualized by man but not God due to different "natures" - the possibility of evil in God not actualized, why not? Where is the difference in "nature" if one arose from the other (man from God)?

Now I have a question. Why do you assume that God has not already solved the problem of evil in such a way that neither His goodness nor omnipotence is limited? On what grounds do you limit what God can or cannot do to solve this problem?

Indeed according to the Scripture this was dealt with in the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world" wasn't it? So the resolution hasn't yet been "realized" in a sense yet the possibility of salvation is present. So if God is the God of Scripture then indeed I don't pretend to know better than He...

What my questions are pointing at simply the limits of human knowledge and understanding when dealing with some questions. Belief and faith seem to play the glue or the bridge between the gaps in understanding: is belief and faith a possibility that some men actualize? If so is the possibility for faith and belief part of man's nature and thus of God's image? Then what could God have faith in? Granted the question is absurd in a sense but the fact remains that I actualized such a question and it is entirely plausible given some basic tenets of Scipture... The resolution of such is the bridge of faith...

I appreciate your comments and discussion - keep 'em coming!

basicbeliever

September 20th 2005, 12:51 AM

I am getting ready to travel for a while (a couple of weeks), if I get time I will respond before I leave, if not, it will have to wait until I return. Sorry.

Rani

September 20th 2005, 01:16 AM

The following series of questions is quite interesting, I know that I can give answers on how I believe things work in regards to free will and the like, however if the question is asking 'why did god...' I will only be able to answer what would seem a logical reason to my own limited human mind. I cannot claim to know the thinking patterns of god, or any other being, I can only assume.

1. If God has Free Will and his Will is Good - given that He is all-powerful - why does He or did He allow Evil to enter the world at all? This may be a redundant question, I realize, but I encourage thought on it because it seems God could have prevented the entrance of the Serpent into the Garden and could have not planted the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the mist of the Garden: yet, knowing full well what was to happen, these things were done. Did God's own foreknowledge override his Free Will and Will to Good?

The fact that God allows things to happen hardly overrides his ability to exercise free-will, he is actually exercising free-will by restraining himself from acting upon Lucifer’s rebellious activities. He also exercised his free will in placing a tree within the world, he did not create it without any control over himself, and he made a conscious effort to include the tree in the Garden of Eden. I assume God did this to see man come to him despite what circumstances man finds himself in (perfect or not).

2. Assuming God created Free Will in man (or transferred it to man) and man was capable of choosing disobedience and thus Evil - was God capable of choosing wickedness as well? If not is this because he is only Good or for some other reason? And if so why did He not choose Evil as man did? If God cannot choose evil and wickedness why can man if man is in His image?

I feel the answer for this would be in the actually definition of evil. Not a dictionary definition however but a biblical one. Biblically the definition of evil is any works that are done in the name of Satan. This is because Satan does works in direct opposition to what God does. Therefore with a bit of interpolation between these facts we come to the conclusion that evil is everything that god is not. When evil is works not done for god, and then it is obviously impossible for God to do them, because if he did, they would no longer be evil.

Man can choose the way of God, which would be 'good', or he could choose the direct opposition, Satan, which would be the works of 'evil'.

I feel the problem you face with you philosophy on this one is due to the fact that you are taking your definition from a secular standpoint, and not from a biblical one. Hopefully this clarifies things a bit.

3. In giving Free Will to man God seems to have handcuffed himself: if the choice of Man to disobedience and the entrance of Sin into the world was a result of our freedom to choose and God did not stop nor did he divinely "delete" this mistake are we to assume that God could not intervene? That freedom of choice - as a Divine creation - could not be undone: was God constrained by this action as a result of Him fashioning Free will? How does this jive with God being all-powerful?

It does not mean that he doesn't have the ability to do it; it just means he chooses not to, if he did he would be interfering with the free-will of man. He can choose, in his free-will, to eliminate the free-will of man by interfering, or he can restrain himself, and let man continue to exercise free-will on there own.

Also if god did intervene this doesn't alter mans free will, rather just man's circumstances. Man just finds himself in a world with no evil and the ability to have free-will within it, rather then the world we are in now. If god intervenes, the world changes, not the choices people can make in their minds.

themuzicman

September 20th 2005, 08:04 AM

The human fact that our choices (free will) can limit our power. Such as in a society of law where the passions are restrained by punishment or diplomacy restraining the insanity of nuclear destruction (as it seems). The TO is the human restrictions on our behavior by choice. Is it anthropomorphic or is there another relation that might help clarify God's omnipotence being willfully restrained to allow free will to run its course?

If God chooses to restrain Himself, does that make him less than omnipotent? Again, Omnipotent only means that He is ABLE to do anything.

Phillipians 3:21; Romans 8:23; 1 Cor. 15:40+

Again unless I'm missing some major clues...

Take care!

Well, these are references to the resurrection. Obviously all those who have died and their bodies decayed will require a new body. This is, I suppose, an indirect result of sin, since, because of sin, we all must die, and our bodies decay.

The point is that there simply isn't a need to see an ontological change to the human body (or nature) at the moment of the fall. (Frequently I'll ask who had the power to change God's word in relationship to creation...)

Michael

mentored1

September 20th 2005, 04:40 PM

I appreciate your responses!

The following series of questions is quite interesting, I know that I can give answers on how I believe things work in regards to free will and the like, however if the question is asking 'why did god...' I will only be able to answer what would seem a logical reason to my own limited human mind. I cannot claim to know the thinking patterns of god, or any other being, I can only assume.

Well said: I would agree that if the God of the Bible exists as He is described then we are woefully inadequate to understand his ways and thoughts... (Isaiah?)

The fact that God allows things to happen hardly overrides his ability to exercise free-will, he is actually exercising free-will by restraining himself from acting upon Lucifer’s rebellious activities.

Or arguably he has already acted by creating and consigning Lucifer to the Lake of Fire at the end of the age... So perhaps it is a matter of God's action culminating at the designated time? Nonetheless if God foreknew the fall of man and the suffering to come as a result of it why not avoid that possibility and not plant the Tree nor allow Satan to enter the Garden? Mankind was still created in God's image and capable of fellowship with Him regardless of these tests of faith wasn't He? Did an all-knowing and all-powerful God really need to test man's love for Him, what did He need to see - or is there a different reason?

I feel the answer for this would be in the actually definition of evil. Not a dictionary definition however but a biblical one. Biblically the definition of evil is any works that are done in the name of Satan. This is because Satan does works in direct opposition to what God does. Therefore with a bit of interpolation between these facts we come to the conclusion that evil is everything that god is not. When evil is works not done for god, and then it is obviously impossible for God to do them, because if he did, they would no longer be evil.

While I respect your answer here it collapses in on itself. I am familiar with the Biblical definition and facets of evil but without the element of belief such an explanation gives way. Here's why I think so: Satan represents God's opposite in terms of value (e.g. good and evil) thus he becomes the embodiement (the being) of evil... Yet Satan himself arose and was brought forth from God (a chief angel, I believe) and was created, seemingly, with the capacity for rebellion (choice?)... The simple problem I am pondering here is if God is the source of all things created - including Satan, free will, and so forth - the possibility, whether acted on or not, for evil emanates from God as well. How can something exist - even evil - apart from the Creator of all things?

I feel the problem you face with you philosophy on this one is due to the fact that you are taking your definition from a secular standpoint, and not from a biblical one. Hopefully this clarifies things a bit.

I can see why you might address this: but in actuality I am a born-again Bible believer. In the past year or so I have entered into this realm of doubt and inquiry. So the definitions and the Biblical teaching is familiar to me. A 100% secular viewpoint is as futile as a 100% theistic one (IMO), because neither one suffices to explain and reveal mysterious problems. Hope that helps us keep the bridge working!

It does not mean that he doesn't have the ability to do it; it just means he chooses not to, if he did he would be interfering with the free-will of man. He can choose, in his free-will, to eliminate the free-will of man by interfering, or he can restrain himself, and let man continue to exercise free-will on there own.

I've encoutered a few explanations regarding this that 'God respects free will' or 'God wants man to come to him willingly'.... And I understand these argumetns but in the face of an all-mighty God of Scipture how can we explain why such a Being would want mankind's willing devotion? So much so that he is willing to let him suffer from horrible choices?

Now I understand that Love plays a big part in the Gospel - but why does an all-sufficient God require the love of finite creatures? Indeed it would seem the creation requires the Creator for sustenance but why would the Creator want or need the love of mortal man?

Also if god did intervene this doesn't alter mans free will, rather just man's circumstances. Man just finds himself in a world with no evil and the ability to have free-will within it, rather then the world we are in now. If god intervenes, the world changes, not the choices people can make in their minds.

If you excise the option for wrong, evil, crime, etc what choice remains? All choice is based on the simple reality of cause and effect, left and right: the dance of opposites. By removing one of a pair of opposites how can we explain what a choice is like; or even choice in general? Without the possibility of separation from God in the Lake of Fire what is the purpose for choosing salvation and Heaven?

This ties in with my wonder about the nature and origin of evil being in God himself as a proper reflection of choice, the essence of two sides... For if there is only Good in God how does he know the measure of evil?

Take care!

Rani

September 21st 2005, 12:13 AM

Or arguably he has already acted by creating and consigning Lucifer to the Lake of Fire at the end of the age... So perhaps it is a matter of God's action culminating at the designated time? Nonetheless if God foreknew the fall of man and the suffering to come as a result of it why not avoid that possibility and not plant the Tree nor allow Satan to enter the Garden? Mankind was still created in God's image and capable of fellowship with Him regardless of these tests of faith wasn't He? Did an all-knowing and all-powerful God really need to test man's love for Him, what did He need to see - or is there a different reason?

I suspect God would want us to come to him through choice, however if all other options away from his are non-existant then this would mean it is impossible for anyone to have any other choice but to love him. Basically when you have one answer then can never be a choice, you are forced to choose the only option. In much the same way a man would prefer his wife to marry him volenteerily rather then being forced, God wishes us to come to him through choice rather then forcefully.

While I respect your answer here it collapses in on itself. I am familiar with the Biblical definition and facets of evil but without the element of belief such an explanation gives way. Here's why I think so: Satan represents God's opposite in terms of value (e.g. good and evil) thus he becomes the embodiement (the being) of evil... Yet Satan himself arose and was brought forth from God (a chief angel, I believe) and was created, seemingly, with the capacity for rebellion (choice?)... The simple problem I am pondering here is if God is the source of all things created - including Satan, free will, and so forth - the possibility, whether acted on or not, for evil emanates from God as well. How can something exist - even evil - apart from the Creator of all things?

If God has all knowledge (omniscience) then he does indeed have knowledge of what he has consered evil. Evil comes from a state of mind, God didn't create evil, as it is not an object, he merely had the knowledge of it, and passed it on to those in heaven, so they knew what to avoid doing with their heavenly bodies. Lucifer chose freely to defy the will of God, this was merely a concious thought. He then went into earth and used his free will to tempt others to go against free will. When you think of any evil it is never the result of an object, it is the result of a state of mind, and God had knowledge of what he considered wrong, or abuses of what he created.

I can see why you might address this: but in actuality I am a born-again Bible believer. In the past year or so I have entered into this realm of doubt and inquiry. So the definitions and the Biblical teaching is familiar to me. A 100% secular viewpoint is as futile as a 100% theistic one (IMO), because neither one suffices to explain and reveal mysterious problems. Hope that helps us keep the bridge working!

I was not trying to alienate you with that comment or box you up and label you as a 'stupid non-believer'. I was only talking about the interprutation of the word 'evil' it's definition can come from various sources, I was only interpolating various points on evil found in the bible. I was never inteded as an attack on you, merely a redefining of the word 'evil'. My appologies.

I've encoutered a few explanations regarding this that 'God respects free will' or 'God wants man to come to him willingly'.... And I understand these argumetns but in the face of an all-mighty God of Scipture how can we explain why such a Being would want mankind's willing devotion? So much so that he is willing to let him suffer from horrible choices?

I supose that God wan't our love to be stronger then anything that can come in the way of that love. He wan't our love to be unconditional, so it is true love, not just love based on what God gives us.

Now I understand that Love plays a big part in the Gospel - but why does an all-sufficient God require the love of finite creatures? Indeed it would seem the creation requires the Creator for sustenance but why would the Creator want or need the love of mortal man?

We are made in God's likeness, therefore he has imparted the ability to have feelings on to human beings. When humans don't have anyone else with them, they get lonely. This is a part of God that we have inherited, God created man because he was lonely, he wan't to share a relationship with other beings.

If you excise the option for wrong, evil, crime, etc what choice remains? All choice is based on the simple reality of cause and effect, left and right: the dance of opposites. By removing one of a pair of opposites how can we explain what a choice is like; or even choice in general? Without the possibility of separation from God in the Lake of Fire what is the purpose for choosing salvation and Heaven?

I suppose I was refering to God's inteference with the world, if he chose to remove a tree, man would find a way to live without that tree. If he alters the circumstances or options may narrow, but we have the will to do what we like within the enviroment that we are given.

This ties in with my wonder about the nature and origin of evil being in God himself as a proper reflection of choice, the essence of two sides... For if there is only Good in God how does he know the measure of evil?

There is the knowledge of both good and evil, or what God defines as good and evil. As God within his knowledge decided what he would deam good and what he would deem evil, then he passed the definitions, along with free will, to those who he had given free will too.

mentored1

September 21st 2005, 04:42 PM

I appreciate your replies and your time amigo

I suspect God would want us to come to him through choice, however if all other options away from his are non-existant then this would mean it is impossible for anyone to have any other choice but to love him. Basically when you have one answer then can never be a choice, you are forced to choose the only option. In much the same way a man would prefer his wife to marry him volenteerily rather then being forced, God wishes us to come to him through choice rather then forcefully.

Indeed this must be so... So then mankind was created with free will but how is known to be free until the temptation of the tree and the serpent arrives? If God could not know mankind's choice and love but by testing him then mankind was not created with free will: for free will would have allowed mankind to love God from the beginning without the necessity of a test. A husband need not test his wife by placing her in an adulterous affair if she is free to choose.

It seems that mankind did not have free will because if he would only have chosen God because God was the only option then that is not free at all. Is there another explanation for how man could have been created prior to the Fall with free will?

If God has all knowledge (omniscience) then he does indeed have knowledge of what he has consered evil. Evil comes from a state of mind, God didn't create evil, as it is not an object, he merely had the knowledge of it, and passed it on to those in heaven, so they knew what to avoid doing with their heavenly bodies. Lucifer chose freely to defy the will of God, this was merely a concious thought. He then went into earth and used his free will to tempt others to go against free will. When you think of any evil it is never the result of an object, it is the result of a state of mind, and God had knowledge of what he considered wrong, or abuses of what he created.

There is a difference then between the possibility of evil and the action of evil? If God had knowledge of murder where did this knowledge come from before it was carried out by Cain? If God did have knowledge of it then the possibility for murder was passed from God to Man... Man may have acted on that possibility but without it being present it would not have been acted upon... God is ultimately the source of the knowledge of evil and thus the possibility without which action cannot take place... ???

I was not trying to alienate you with that comment or box you up and label you as a 'stupid non-believer'. I was only talking about the interprutation of the word 'evil' it's definition can come from various sources, I was only interpolating various points on evil found in the bible. I was never inteded as an attack on you, merely a redefining of the word 'evil'. My appologies.

Did it seem that way? Crap... I'm not the least bit perturbed at you! Please don't concern yourself with that 'offending' nonsense while talking to me: I simply stated my past experience so we could have a common frame of reference. So your apology is respectfully returned to you, unneeded.

I supose that God wan't our love to be stronger then anything that can come in the way of that love. He wan't our love to be unconditional, so it is true love, not just love based on what God gives us.

Okay so here's something I've been wrestling with: the unconditional love of God (Agape) in the form of his Son dying for our sins would not be necessary or even possible without the fall of Man and our need for redemption correct? Assuming so what was lacking in the way of love between God and Man before the Fall? If Man's love for God is shown now by trusting and loving Christ as the Savior then does that mean it couldn't be shown before unless the Fall happened? Was the Fall of Man necessary? Without it would mankind have needed redemption and the Love of God?

We are made in God's likeness, therefore he has imparted the ability to have feelings on to human beings. When humans don't have anyone else with them, they get lonely. This is a part of God that we have inherited, God created man because he was lonely, he wan't to share a relationship with other beings.

An eternal infinite God was lonely? Didn't the Trinity exist always - God couldn't keep himself company? I don't mean to sound overly sarcastic but I honestly don't understand this. Isn't attributing human feelings to a deity what they call 'anthropomorphic'?

I suppose I was refering to God's inteference with the world, if he chose to remove a tree, man would find a way to live without that tree. If he alters the circumstances or options may narrow, but we have the will to do what we like within the enviroment that we are given.

And your reference made sense but I'm wondering, for instance, if there never was a tree... If there never was evil... this plays around the edges of that classic 'which came first the chicken or the egg?' - not something easily answered unless you presuppose the existence or non-existence of a Creator. But to try and explain one in terms of the other when one doesn't exist defies human knowledge. What is the Truth without the Lie? What is Redemption without the Fall? Can it even make sense?

There is the knowledge of both good and evil, or what God defines as good and evil. As God within his knowledge decided what he would deam good and what he would deem evil, then he passed the definitions, along with free will, to those who he had given free will too.

This seems a reasonable explanation - some of which I have asked about in preceding points. I'll address one thought to this then: If God foresaw what was to come about as a result of mixing free will with the knowledge of good and evil why not withhold the knowledge of good and evil and just grant free will - or are those two synonymous?

Take care!

Rani

September 22nd 2005, 09:53 AM

So then mankind was created with free will but how is known to be free until the temptation of the tree and the serpent arrives? If God could not know mankind's choice and love but by testing him then mankind was not created with free will: for free will would have allowed mankind to love God from the beginning without the necessity of a test. A husband need not test his wife by placing her in an adulterous affair if she is free to choose.

It seems that mankind did not have free will because if he would only have chosen God because God was the only option then that is not free at all. Is there another explanation for how man could have been created prior to the Fall with free will?

You are right in saying that man would exercise their free will to choose God without a test. That choice would still be based on a condition though.

In Genesis 1:31 we read that "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Considering that Eden was given the thumbs up from an omniscent being I would say that Eden would have been quite a nice place, especially for man who was not omniscent and therefore not overally knowledgable in matters of beauty. In fact, the amazement of man would be so intense that I would believe that it would lead to man loving God on the basis of the beauty of Eden alone. If man did love God on the basis of what God had provided, then that love would be conditional, love only of what God has given, not for who he is.

Therefore to counteract this, God planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil as a challange to see if Adam and Eve truly loved him and did not merely love material things. I relise that it would be hard to make the connection between the tree of knowledge of good and evil and a test from God in matters to material things, but one such connection can be made. Adam and Eve had everything sans the tasting of the forbiden fruit. Eventually through Eve and later Adam, who have virtually everything, go in pursuit of the one material thing they did not have, and in doing so they demonstrated that they desired the things of God ("For God knows your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil") more then God himself.

So to answer you question they would have exercised free will to love God, but that love may be conditional, the tree of knowledge of good and evil was God's testing grounds to see if Adam and Eves love was conditional or not.

There is a difference then between the possibility of evil and the action of evil? If God had knowledge of murder where did this knowledge come from before it was carried out by Cain? If God did have knowledge of it then the possibility for murder was passed from God to Man... Man may have acted on that possibility but without it being present it would not have been acted upon... God is ultimately the source of the knowledge of evil and thus the possibility without which action cannot take place... ???

We agree that God had the knowledge of what evil was from the very begining of time. And yes God did give his created beings the ability to act upon their evil thoughts. However acting upon our evil desires in all cases that I can think of is the perversion of using what could be used for good, in a way that can be used for bad.

Considering you used Cain and Abel for the question you posed I find it fitting to use them as an example. "...Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him - Genesis 4:8" now lets say Cain had stabed Abel to death with a sharp rock, this rock was solid and could be made into many tools, however Cain used it in an evil way (as a weapon), further Cain would have done these acts with the strength of his own body, his body can do good, however Cain followed his evil mindset and again used something that could have been used for good, into something that can be used for evil. Then in verse 9 Cain lies to God, he uses something that can be used to speak truth (the tounge) in an evil way.

This is what I mean by evil being a mindset, sure we have the tools to carry out our evils but they were never intended to be used that way. I mind is the control unit and God has allowed us to do what ever the mind intends for the body to do within the physical limitations of the world we live. It is our choice whether or not we pervert what God has made for good, to be used for evil.

Okay so here's something I've been wrestling with: the unconditional love of God (Agape) in the form of his Son dying for our sins would not be necessary or even possible without the fall of Man and our need for redemption correct? Assuming so what was lacking in the way of love between God and Man before the Fall? If Man's love for God is shown now by trusting and loving Christ as the Savior then does that mean it couldn't be shown before unless the Fall happened? Was the Fall of Man necessary? Without it would mankind have needed redemption and the Love of God?

God gave man the chance to be in a loving relationship with him through demonstration of mans unconditional love by obeying God's only rule. Back in that time the weight of the sins of man were passed down from generation to generation, man had always had blood on their hands ever since the disobeying of God in the Garden of Eden. Therefore ever since the fall man has never been able to reconnect the same way that they once did, this lead to the need for a savior, and the gospel of Christ 'washed the blood of Adam and Eveoff our hands', restoring man to the former relationship, if man chooses to cast his sin to the cross.

An eternal infinite God was lonely? Didn't the Trinity exist always - God couldn't keep himself company? I don't mean to sound overly sarcastic but I honestly don't understand this. Isn't attributing human feelings to a deity what they call 'anthropomorphic'? God's mentioned numerous times throughout the bible being 'pleased' or 'angry', those are feelings are they not?

And your reference made sense but I'm wondering, for instance, if there never was a tree... If there never was evil... this plays around the edges of that classic 'which came first the chicken or the egg?' - not something easily answered unless you presuppose the existence or non-existence of a Creator. But to try and explain one in terms of the other when one doesn't exist defies human knowledge. What is the Truth without the Lie? What is Redemption without the Fall? Can it even make sense?

I have no gripes with this at all, we would not need redemption if the Fall never happened as we were ok before God before the advent of the Fall. And if we were without the ability to Lie then there would be no need to for the definiton or knowledge of Truth. Your statement is fine by me! :wink:

This seems a reasonable explanation - some of which I have asked about in preceding points. I'll address one thought to this then: If God foresaw what was to come about as a result of mixing free will with the knowledge of good and evil why not withhold the knowledge of good and evil and just grant free will - or are those two synonymous?

Free will implies that the future is somewhat random, hence it is impossible to see into the future, and if God had given Adam and Eve free will from the start, then he would not have known how what was going to happen, because it was random, under the laws he created of free will. I relise this may seem heretical, however free will is the ability to choose, God knows how things will turn out if you choose a path, but I believe that in the defintion of free will the choices someone will make is not forseen.

Thanks mentored1 this is my first theological discussion here at TW and it's good to have my brain doing hammer curls so early on. I have enjoyed this so far. :teeth:

mentored1

September 22nd 2005, 04:34 PM

You are right in saying that man would exercise their free will to choose God without a test. That choice would still be based on a condition though.

In Genesis 1:31 we read that "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Considering that Eden was given the thumbs up from an omniscent being I would say that Eden would have been quite a nice place, especially for man who was not omniscent and therefore not overally knowledgable in matters of beauty. In fact, the amazement of man would be so intense that I would believe that it would lead to man loving God on the basis of the beauty of Eden alone. If man did love God on the basis of what God had provided, then that love would be conditional, love only of what God has given, not for who he is.

Therefore to counteract this, God planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil as a challange to see if Adam and Eve truly loved him and did not merely love material things. I relise that it would be hard to make the connection between the tree of knowledge of good and evil and a test from God in matters to material things, but one such connection can be made. Adam and Eve had everything sans the tasting of the forbiden fruit. Eventually through Eve and later Adam, who have virtually everything, go in pursuit of the one material thing they did not have, and in doing so they demonstrated that they desired the things of God ("For God knows your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil") more then God himself.

So to answer you question they would have exercised free will to love God, but that love may be conditional, the tree of knowledge of good and evil was God's testing grounds to see if Adam and Eves love was conditional or not.

Interesting explanation... It fits with the Biblical picture and I'll accept it as a good interpolation of what is presented in Scripture...

Of course you realize I'll have some points of discussion though! :wink:

Okay so mankind's appreciation and love for God before the testing of the Tree/serpent may have been a result of his awe and admiration of the splendor of God's work, on the love of the creation rather than of the Creator - I'm hoping that I got the jist of it? So the placement of the Tree and the entrance of the Serpent is a method for God to test whether this possibility is true: to test the theory that Man loves the Creations of God and not the Creator...

Assuming the above is true I'll pose a couple of questions:
... God presumably had the ability to know the thoughts and feelings of Adam & Eve and in so doing God would have already known whether or not they loved Him or His creation - knowing the results of choosing the love of the Creation more why did He continue with the test? It seems troubling to think that He was doing it for his own knowledge if the knowledge was already known.

... I grant you that the free choice to Love God or not contains conditions: but the answer that was the Fall could have been seen by God without the repercussions couldn't they? Why create the condition to counteract the awe of Adam & Eve when the knowledge of the consequence and the knowledge of Man's heart was already known to God?

... If man was void of the knowledge of good & evil (innocent?) before his introduction to the Tree/Serpent then was man aware of his Love for God being conditional? Could he have known or perceived the difference between conditional and unconditional without having the 'mental state' of good & evil? Wouldn't this realization be beyond his faculties at this point - at least until after he had tasted the fruit?

We agree that God had the knowledge of what evil was from the very begining of time. And yes God did give his created beings the ability to act upon their evil thoughts. However acting upon our evil desires in all cases that I can think of is the perversion of using what could be used for good, in a way that can be used for bad.

Ahh... This is exactly what is implied by potential, possible in terms of action... A tool, a body, and so forth has the potential for good & evil doesn't it? God possessed the knowledge of good & evil yet by His 'character' we are told he could not choose the evil. But the potential for both is present in God as well as in Man. We derive the potential for each from the knowledge of good & evil (we are as gods knowing good & evil?)...

Doesn't this imply that a tool, a body, and so forth are inherently neutral? If this be the case then only after the knowledge of good & evil do good & evil exist at all! If man was neutral / innocent before the Fall then his action at the Tree could not have been evil because such was not known to him at that point was it?

God gave man the chance to be in a loving relationship with him through demonstration of mans unconditional love by obeying God's only rule. Back in that time the weight of the sins of man were passed down from generation to generation, man had always had blood on their hands ever since the disobeying of God in the Garden of Eden. Therefore ever since the fall man has never been able to reconnect the same way that they once did, this lead to the need for a savior, and the gospel of Christ 'washed the blood of Adam and Eveoff our hands', restoring man to the former relationship, if man chooses to cast his sin to the cross.

Is the nature of sin inherited in a genetic sense? Are you conceived with the weight of sin already on your soul?
If so why are you responsible for the sins of Adam of which you did not participate in (each soul accountable for its own actions)? And how are children unequipped with the faculty of language and morality responsible?
If not how is it acquired given that you are born innocent / neutral which implies that your first action of evil would not be known as such?

With regards to 'reconnecting' through Christ: if the initial state of mankind is innocent or neutral then the return to that state could be described as the undoing of the knowledge of good & evil? A place of neutrality or the absence of values?

I'm not saying this is so but the default state of man seems very elusive to pin down without the foundation of faith...
I've noticed myself doing this (as well as many others) thing where you have a belief or faith in something being so and tend to reverse engineer or 'back-in' to an interpretation...
For instance with the redemption on the Cross: it requires that everyone have something to be redeemed for and therefore original sin is a necessary correlate... On the other hand assuming evolution of the universe requires that a supernatural creator be discarded (for the average version at least) which requires one to go back and undo many of the mystical concepts...

I certainly do not claim that you do this but only that it plays a part for all of us to some degree... My difficulty in understanding man's condition prior to the fall, his accountability, his understanding of his actions as evil, all stem from my quest to avoid looking at it from a believing mind or a non-believing mind and trying to find reasonable arguments that don't involve speculation from either of those two towers: is that possible?

God's mentioned numerous times throughout the bible being 'pleased' or 'angry', those are feelings are they not?

There is certainly no doubt at all that God is described with emotional and intellectual terms all throughout the Scripture: my question is simply that we are throwing anthropomorphic statements at something that, by implication, should not resemble man's mind or heart at all. If our heart is deceitfully wicked and our thoughts not His thoughts etc, then our understanding of his 'emotions' or 'thoughts' is severely handicapped...

Without faith one reads of God ordering the deaths of women or children, or drowning millions in a flood and see a monstrosity of a being - faith helps to accept that contradiction by trusting that God knows what he is doing but it doesn't answer the question why that kind of Wrath is present at all in a divine being and if we even understand it the same way that such a God would.

Free will implies that the future is somewhat random, hence it is impossible to see into the future, and if God had given Adam and Eve free will from the start, then he would not have known how what was going to happen, because it was random, under the laws he created of free will. I relise this may seem heretical, however free will is the ability to choose, God knows how things will turn out if you choose a path, but I believe that in the defintion of free will the choices someone will make is not forseen.

Very interesting... So do you think that God does not see the future? If such is random and not known until it occurs can it be seen by God? If it can be doesn't that sort of negate free will: if it is seen to happen before and we do it as it seen then it has, in a sense, already happened... But yet God is outside of time and there are prophecies in Scripture that some say are very accurate and some yet to come... How does this all fit together?

Thanks mentored1 this is my first theological discussion here at TW and it's good to have my brain doing hammer curls so early on. I have enjoyed this so far. :teeth:

I wouldn't settle for anything less! The only way to exercise the brain is to go for broke!

Take care!

GZUSFREK

September 22nd 2005, 05:23 PM

OK, I'm new here, and not too sure of the protocol, but here goes:

When we talk about the goodness of God, we must first define good by God's definition. What we humans think of as good usually will not coincide with God's view. I know a guy that is a really good guy. He loves his wife and kids, pays taxes and his mortgage on time, but he is a self-proclaimed atheist. By American standards, he is a 'good' man because he is relatively moral and doesn't break the law. In God's eyes, he's a sinner in need of repentance.

Good in God's eyes is God. God Himself is the ultimate good. Because He is so good, it is right for him to share His goodness with all of humanity. Wouldn't it be wrong to know of something that is completely good and not share it?

Ultimately, God allowed A&E to sin, and all sin to spawn from that act, because it would create a need in the human race. It brought about a crisis for humanity, and God then had the opportunity to share His goodness by offering grace to those who would receive Him.

How would we know we prefered ice cream over a salt lick if we hadn't tried both?

-GZUSFREK

mentored1

September 22nd 2005, 08:09 PM

Welcome GZUS... Pleasure to meet you, look forward to some good chats...

When we talk about the goodness of God, we must first define good by God's definition. What we humans think of as good usually will not coincide with God's view.

While I agree with you that the definitions are needed this definition has a couple of gaps in it...

- Unless you've personally spoken with God in a sensible and testable sense the definition of goodness is, more accurately, what is presented in the Biblical accounts. It is believed that those accounts are directly inspired by God's Spirit: but for purposes of speaking with people who may deny or doubt God's inspiration it would difficult to gain acceptance of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God...

- Having said that we are faced with a few issues one of which I will try to discuss: throughout Scripture we are faced with a God that displays qualities of both good and evil. The commands to slaughter women & children, the flood of the world, the examples of suffering made for the sake of testimony, and so forth display a God who is capable of wielding what we would normally consider to be evil. Now it is acceptable to believers because it is understood to them that God knows what he is doing and has the best intentions in mind. This is accepted on faith; but one who lacks faith does not see the trust of the intent only the consequence of the act. So the goodness of God as portrayed in the Bible is a goodness that requires a leap of faith on the part of the reader: otherwise the consequences show a goodness that is ambiguous at best...

I know a guy that is a really good guy. He loves his wife and kids, pays taxes and his mortgage on time, but he is a self-proclaimed atheist. By American standards, he is a 'good' man because he is relatively moral and doesn't break the law. In God's eyes, he's a sinner in need of repentance.

As I mentioned above the more accurate statement is in the Bible's eyes (which I know believers equate to God's eyes, that's not dismissed here); for to that man in your example his morality is not based on God because the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God and the Bible is the only record by which the goodness of God is discovered. Experience in faith will also provide that witness, granted, but the personal experience of God as it cannot be shared with an unbelieving person doesn't lend credence to the reality of God's goodness. How do you go about bridging the gap between this atheist and yourself without the benefit of common experience?

Good in God's eyes is God. God Himself is the ultimate good. Because He is so good, it is right for him to share His goodness with all of humanity. Wouldn't it be wrong to know of something that is completely good and not share it?

In reading this something came to mind that I often consider in relation to God and Satan, hence Good and Evil... Is there evil in God? If I recall the Bible says there is no darkness in God, no shadow of turning... If God is nothing but Good how then does He know that He is the ultimate good? Without possessing the experience or potential for evil his goodness could be composed of anything couldn't it? Without the contrast of light and dark how then does God realize he is the light? And if it is because Satan and Sin exist from whence did their existence arise if God possesses no darkness nor evil?

Ultimately, God allowed A&E to sin, and all sin to spawn from that act, because it would create a need in the human race. It brought about a crisis for humanity, and God then had the opportunity to share His goodness by offering grace to those who would receive Him.

I'm sure you didn't intend this meaning but it sounds as if God brought about the crisis of sin (i.e. caused the problem) and then offered the redemptive solution... Just something that popped out, not really relevant... :wink:

As I mentioned above if there is no Sin in God, no Evil, no darkness how then did He realize what Sin was when it occurred? Was it simply that it was something He was not? If so from whence came the possibility for Sin if all things are from God? If we posit God as the First Cause, the Originator of all things then logically speaking the possibility and actuality of Sin orginates from God as well... If we deny that then from whence did it arise - what has the power to create something that is outside God's will?

How would we know we prefered ice cream over a salt lick if we hadn't tried both?

If the salt lick is the analogy for evil/sin then something comes to mind: if we had tasted neither of those (absence of knowledge of good & evil) then why would we be responsible for the reaction of our taste buds? Or by analogy if Adam & Eve were without good or evil (or a newborn babe by extension) why were they - or the babe - responsible for the first 'taste' of evil? How would they know what it was if the knowledge was absent up that point?

Take care!

Rani

September 25th 2005, 08:42 AM

Sorry about my lateness in reply, I had a semi-busy weekend with an attitude that didn't feel like getting to deep in conversation. I just wasn't up for debate/conversation this weekend; however I have recovered and continued with our exchange of thoughts.

Interesting explanation... It fits with the Biblical picture and I'll accept it as a good interpolation of what is presented in Scripture...

Of course you realize I'll have some points of discussion though! :wink:

Okay so mankind's appreciation and love for God before the testing of the Tree/serpent may have been a result of his awe and admiration of the splendor of God's work, on the love of the creation rather than of the Creator - I'm hoping that I got the jist of it? So the placement of the Tree and the entrance of the Serpent is a method for God to test whether this possibility is true: to test the theory that Man loves the Creations of God and not the Creator...

Assuming the above is true I'll pose a couple of questions:
... God presumably had the ability to know the thoughts and feelings of Adam & Eve and in so doing God would have already known whether or not they loved Him or His creation - knowing the results of choosing the love of the Creation more why did He continue with the test? It seems troubling to think that He was doing it for his own knowledge if the knowledge was already known.

... I grant you that the free choice to Love God or not contains conditions: but the answer that was the Fall could have been seen by God without the repercussions couldn't they? Why create the condition to counteract the awe of Adam & Eve when the knowledge of the consequence and the knowledge of Man's heart was already known to God?

... If man was void of the knowledge of good & evil (innocent?) before his introduction to the Tree/Serpent then was man aware of his Love for God being conditional? Could he have known or perceived the difference between conditional and unconditional without having the 'mental state' of good & evil? Wouldn't this realization be beyond his faculties at this point - at least until after he had tasted the fruit?

God had instructed both Adam & Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit, obviously they would have known that the right thing to do is obey the will of God. You can see that Eve was aware of this in Genesis 3:2-3 where she is somewhat suspicious with what the serpent is telling her. She would have never argued if she felt it could be wrong to disobey God. Basically pre-fall law was comprised of one rule (Genesis 2:17 - God talking about forbidden fruit). So they had a more limited version of free will whereby there was only 1 sinful act that could be committed. Unfortunately that one rule was broken, and since then things have become much more complicated.

Now in response to the other part of you question I would assume that God wanted a physical representation of Adam & Eve's fall to make it clear for future generations to come that both Adam & Eve did in fact sin, and their consequences were justified. Furthermore I would think that a physical manifestation of the breaking of the law is less debatable, and a clear indicator the law-breakers wrongdoing.

Ahh... This is exactly what is implied by potential, possible in terms of action... A tool, a body, and so forth has the potential for good & evil doesn't it? God possessed the knowledge of good & evil yet by His 'character' we are told he could not choose the evil. But the potential for both is present in God as well as in Man. We derive the potential for each from the knowledge of good & evil (we are as gods knowing good & evil?)...

Doesn't this imply that a tool, a body, and so forth are inherently neutral? If this be the case then only after the knowledge of good & evil do good & evil exist at all! If man was neutral / innocent before the Fall then his action at the Tree could not have been evil because such was not known to him at that point was it?

I suppose God is without any restrictions when it comes to what he has the ability to do, so God would have the ability to do evil. But we must bear in mind his character is strong enough that no evil is taken part in). God is so strong in his character that he is incorruptible by any other source, so unlike humans he cannot be persuaded to do things by ulterior sources.

Adam & Eve had the ability to choose, and felt some mild form of guilt in disobeying God, they were not mindless when they disobeyed, they did so through choice, therefore they were not neutral, and they were loved by God due to their obedience to him.

Is the nature of sin inherited in a genetic sense? Are you conceived with the weight of sin already on your soul?
If so why are you responsible for the sins of Adam of which you did not participate in (each soul accountable for its own actions)? And how are children unequipped with the faculty of language and morality responsible?
If not how is it acquired given that you are born innocent / neutral which implies that your first action of evil would not be known as such?

With regards to 'reconnecting' through Christ: if the initial state of mankind is innocent or neutral then the return to that state could be described as the undoing of the knowledge of good & evil? A place of neutrality or the absence of values?

I'd say the weight of sin is inherent in all of us from birth without our say in the matter, therefore if we know of a way to rid ourselves of such sins we should pursue it by all means. I know this is a concept that seems unfair, but at the time it was quite normal for one mans punishments to be passed on to the son.

When were are ridded of this sin we our relationship with our father in heaven is restored to it's former state, it does not mean that we lose the effects of the knowledge of good and evil, that's hardly a matter of real importance, more so we are in close connection with God.

I certainly do not claim that you do this but only that it plays a part for all of us to some degree... My difficulty in understanding man's condition prior to the fall, his accountability, his understanding of his actions as evil, all stem from my quest to avoid looking at it from a believing mind or a non-believing mind and trying to find reasonable arguments that don't involve speculation from either of those two towers: is that possible?

It's hard to find an unbiased source, it was something a wrestled with for some time, I suppose the best thing to do is read both sides of the story and make your mind up based on the weight of both sides. Unfortunately direct relationship holds some merit on the believer’s side, and it would be unfair not to take this into your equation. Relationship requires a choice however, and so the rotunda of decision making begins.

There is certainly no doubt at all that God is described with emotional and intellectual terms all throughout the Scripture: my question is simply that we are throwing anthropomorphic statements at something that, by implication, should not resemble man's mind or heart at all. If our heart is deceitfully wicked and our thoughts not His thoughts etc, then our understanding of his 'emotions' or 'thoughts' is severely handicapped...

Without faith one reads of God ordering the deaths of women or children, or drowning millions in a flood and see a monstrosity of a being - faith helps to accept that contradiction by trusting that God knows what he is doing but it doesn't answer the question why that kind of Wrath is present at all in a divine being and if we even understand it the same way that such a God would.

I'm ill-equipped to answer this, it's hard for me to talk on the behalf of God without knowing why he has done these seemly contradictory things. I'd love to make up some conceivable answer but I really don't have any passages in the bible to interpolate from. So I would most probably be giving you a false answer. I could give you an answer on what I would assume however, but I admit my assumptions on this topic hardly cater as a substantial answer.

I do know that God had used these experiences as a guide to moral living however, but I really couldn't tell you why he deemed it appropriate to rid people of their lives in order to get his point across. I suppose those people were deliberately disobedient and God would have detected firm stubbornness in their character. This is but a wild guess on my part however, it's hardly biblical.

Very interesting... So do you think that God does not see the future? If such is random and not known until it occurs can it be seen by God? If it can be doesn't that sort of negate free will: if it is seen to happen before and we do it as it seen then it has, in a sense, already happened... But yet God is outside of time and there are prophecies in Scripture that some say are very accurate and some yet to come... How does this all fit together?

I'm not too sure, this is a concept I wrestle with myself, the problems become more apparent when you take Jesus foreseeing the future into the equation as well. Maybe God has foreseen the future, he's seen already how everyone used their free-will. This predetermined end is somewhat uninspiring though, but it seems more logical then my former assumption.

Doubting John

September 25th 2005, 08:21 PM

Does the God of the Bible have Free Will?

Did God have a choice in adopting his own moral code? Did he freely choose to abide by a certain moral code that we humans describe as Good?

Did he?

If he did, then could he have adopted a different moral code and called that "good?" What would actually prohibit him from doing that?

If he didn't, then where did the moral code come from? And where is God's free choice in the matter? We usually think someone is praiseworthy when they freely choose to do good and freely refrain from doing evil.

mentored1

September 26th 2005, 12:06 PM

Sorry about my lateness in reply, I had a semi-busy weekend with an attitude that didn't feel like getting to deep in conversation. I just wasn't up for debate/conversation this weekend; however I have recovered and continued with our exchange of thoughts.

No worries mate: pleasure having you back!

God had instructed both Adam & Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit, obviously they would have known that the right thing to do is obey the will of God. You can see that Eve was aware of this in Genesis 3:2-3 where she is somewhat suspicious with what the serpent is telling her. She would have never argued if she felt it could be wrong to disobey God. Basically pre-fall law was comprised of one rule (Genesis 2:17 - God talking about forbidden fruit). So they had a more limited version of free will whereby there was only 1 sinful act that could be committed. Unfortunately that one rule was broken, and since then things have become much more complicated.

I read this passage through for the umpteenth time again, carefully observing how things happen... The dilemma I face is thus: if mankind did not have the knowledge of Good & Evil until then ate of the fruit (only after then does God say that man is like Him, knowing good & evil) then Adam nor Eve would have realized that disobeying the command from God was evil - the notion of good & evil was not yet part of mankind was it? How then do they know that disobedience is evil?

Now in response to the other part of you question I would assume that God wanted a physical representation of Adam & Eve's fall to make it clear for future generations to come that both Adam & Eve did in fact sin, and their consequences were justified. Furthermore I would think that a physical manifestation of the breaking of the law is less debatable, and a clear indicator the law-breakers wrongdoing.

Perhaps adam & eve were more an example? Like Job? But the Fall is a critical point of Chrisitan doctrine isn't it? Without the Fall into Sin there is no Salvation from Sin. My previous point ties in here: accountability for evil if there is no knowledge of evil.

I suppose God is without any restrictions when it comes to what he has the ability to do, so God would have the ability to do evil. But we must bear in mind his character is strong enough that no evil is taken part in). God is so strong in his character that he is incorruptible by any other source, so unlike humans he cannot be persuaded to do things by ulterior sources.

Granted from what we know in Scripture God appears incapable of Sin... This may be a weak argument but I've often wondered why God is described as omni-potent if He is unable to wield wickedness: if its inherently against his Character then that is a limitation of a certain type of power isn't it? Although as we mention later in this message God does appear capable of using acts we might consider evil... but yet for Good ends... ?

What is it about God's character that allows him to wield this power, good & evil, without acquiring Sin? If God has the knowledge that led to man's downfall then why has God not also fallen? What prevents him from straying and committing Sin? Is it that God made the rules and the rule-maker is absolved from the consequences of his own rules? I know that is harsh to say but it crossed my mind... Is God without Sin because He defines Sin and punishes Sin - thus unable to punish himself? Or did He?

Adam & Eve had the ability to choose, and felt some mild form of guilt in disobeying God, they were not mindless when they disobeyed, they did so through choice, therefore they were not neutral, and they were loved by God due to their obedience to him.

Were they guilty or ashamed? When I read it seemed they were more ashamed of their nakedness than guilty. Granted they hid from God as he 'walked' in the Garden... but was it from nakedness or conscience? They never did confess their guilt - it was relayed to the serpent... I can see how the shame might equate to guilt, but if the passage is read literally it appears their nakedness is to blame; if read symbolically perhaps the nakedness is the nakedness of their mind or heart... ? What's your take?

I'd say the weight of sin is inherent in all of us from birth without our say in the matter, therefore if we know of a way to rid ourselves of such sins we should pursue it by all means. I know this is a concept that seems unfair, but at the time it was quite normal for one mans punishments to be passed on to the son.

Very interesting - a hot topic for theological circles... So babies that die at birth or shortly thereafter suffer for sin due to the sin nature? I don't mean to corner you and I don't intend to criticize your point on this; I've encountered many different views and am curious about yours.

When were are ridded of this sin we our relationship with our father in heaven is restored to it's former state, it does not mean that we lose the effects of the knowledge of good and evil, that's hardly a matter of real importance, more so we are in close connection with God.

IF the knowledge of good & evil is retained and that is the catalyst for our sin then what will prevent us from choosing the evil of which the knowledge remains even in paradise?

I do know that God had used these experiences as a guide to moral living however, but I really couldn't tell you why he deemed it appropriate to rid people of their lives in order to get his point across. I suppose those people were deliberately disobedient and God would have detected firm stubbornness in their character. This is but a wild guess on my part however, it's hardly biblical.

This is a tough issue - I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you don't know... You'd be surprised how many folks who don't know will pretend that they do know! Or maybe you wouldn't be surprised!

If God can detect their character then such ability could have been used at the beginning to know if Adam & Eve loved God or not.... If so it seems a decent assumption that they were an example as well...

I'm not too sure, this is a concept I wrestle with myself, the problems become more apparent when you take Jesus foreseeing the future into the equation as well. Maybe God has foreseen the future, he's seen already how everyone used their free-will. This predetermined end is somewhat uninspiring though, but it seems more logical then my former assumption.

The paradox is astounding! God has foreseen the future and seen how everyone used their free-will... :yikes: I'll grant that it is a very difficult issue to resolve. If God is outside of time then the problem of determination and freedom comes into question and is not easily answered... I appreciate your stab at it!

Take care!

mentored1

September 26th 2005, 12:12 PM

Hey John... I've bumped into a few times on here but we've never chewed the fat have we? Shame!

Did God have a choice in adopting his own moral code? Did he freely choose to abide by a certain moral code that we humans describe as Good?

That is a cornerstone argument against Evolution - the presence of objective moral values... I won't deny the argument but I find it a bit dubious: can an objective anything be determined? If so, how? How do we know that God's morality isn't radically different and hasn't been utterly misinterpreted by man? :shrug:

If he did, then could he have adopted a different moral code and called that "good?" What would actually prohibit him from doing that?

Or for that matter not adopting any code because, by assumption, God is infinite and boundless... Does he, like man, impose boundaries on his own freedom? If so who enforces them?

If he didn't, then where did the moral code come from? And where is God's free choice in the matter? We usually think someone is praiseworthy when they freely choose to do good and freely refrain from doing evil.

When the assumption of God as the Primary Mover, the First Cause, is adopted then a great many things become possible. Creation, Morality, and Life are part of this assumption... I'll admit that I don't deny the possibility of God's existence or non-existence only that the traditional understanding doesn't float without faith...

Take care DJ

Rani

September 27th 2005, 09:45 AM

I read this passage through for the umpteenth time again, carefully observing how things happen... The dilemma I face is thus: if mankind did not have the knowledge of Good & Evil until then ate of the fruit (only after then does God say that man is like Him, knowing good & evil) then Adam nor Eve would have realized that disobeying the command from God was evil - the notion of good & evil was not yet part of mankind was it? How then do they know that disobedience is evil?

Perhaps adam & eve were more an example? Like Job? But the Fall is a critical point of Chrisitan doctrine isn't it? Without the Fall into Sin there is no Salvation from Sin. My previous point ties in here: accountability for evil if there is no knowledge of evil.

I think that Adam & Eve would have had knowledge that eating of the fruit is wrong, otherwise it would be of no point for God to instruct them not too, nor would he punish them so harshly if he knew they had the ability not to eat of the fruit. I cannot say for certain of course, but this would be the most logical assumption from what I can see within the book of Genesis, although Eve seems awfully gullible.

Granted from what we know in Scripture God appears incapable of Sin... This may be a weak argument but I've often wondered why God is described as omni-potent if He is unable to wield wickedness: if its inherently against his Character then that is a limitation of a certain type of power isn't it? Although as we mention later in this message God does appear capable of using acts we might consider evil... but yet for Good ends... ?

What is it about God's character that allows him to wield this power, good & evil, without acquiring Sin? If God has the knowledge that led to man's downfall then why has God not also fallen? What prevents him from straying and committing Sin? Is it that God made the rules and the rule-maker is absolved from the consequences of his own rules? I know that is harsh to say but it crossed my mind... Is God without Sin because He defines Sin and punishes Sin - thus unable to punish himself? Or did He?

This is actually similar to what I had spoke of earlier, the idea that god defines sin and punishes sin and is unable to punish himself is an ideology that I think fits the bill quite nicely. God has given man commands throughout the bible, eg. The Ten Commandments, showing that he does define, and redefine what is sinful and what is not.

Were they guilty or ashamed? When I read it seemed they were more ashamed of their nakedness than guilty. Granted they hid from God as he 'walked' in the Garden... but was it from nakedness or conscience? They never did confess their guilt - it was relayed to the serpent... I can see how the shame might equate to guilt, but if the passage is read literally it appears their nakedness is to blame; if read symbolically perhaps the nakedness is the nakedness of their mind or heart... ? What's your take? Well as you read in my reply above I believe that they had knowledge that disobedience to God is not a good thing to do, I suppose guilt would be part of this, for guilt is an emotion rather then some form of knowledge, and hence would be present within both Adam & Eve before the fall. Therefore the bible would not make mention of their guilt as it was not a new byproduct of their sin, but rather something they had prior to the fall.

Very interesting - a hot topic for theological circles... So babies that die at birth or shortly thereafter suffer for sin due to the sin nature? I don't mean to corner you and I don't intend to criticize your point on this; I've encountered many different views and am curious about yours.

I would say they would come under the different category for salvation whereby they are assessed on their purity in life. Bare in mind this category only applies to those who never hear of salvation in Christ so doesn’t go around preaching a new way to get saved. This is biblical, it’s somewhere in the New Testament and it’s frustrating not knowing the verse location.

IF the knowledge of good & evil is retained and that is the catalyst for our sin then what will prevent us from choosing the evil of which the knowledge remains even in paradise?

1 Corinthians 15:51 – Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will be changed – In a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and will be changed. I gather from this, and many of the other writings in 1 Corinthians 15 that sin will be defeated, and therefore will no longer tempt man, nor would man ever both with sin after seeing Gods face (1 Corinthians 13:12).

If God can detect their character then such ability could have been used at the beginning to know if Adam & Eve loved God or not.... If so it seems a decent assumption that they were an example as well...

I don’t know if they were intended as an example, but if they chose to disobey they would be. That assumption’s not too biblical though, it just kind of fits with everything else I said.

mentored1

September 27th 2005, 04:39 PM

Appreciate the replies Rani... Lots to ponder on and add to my ongoing exploration!

I think that Adam & Eve would have had knowledge that eating of the fruit is wrong, otherwise it would be of no point for God to instruct them not too, nor would he punish them so harshly if he knew they had the ability not to eat of the fruit. I cannot say for certain of course, but this would be the most logical assumption from what I can see within the book of Genesis, although Eve seems awfully gullible.

It's certain they knew that God told them not to; but until, for instance, a child suffers the consequences of disobedience imposed by their parents do they realize that doing what they are told not to do is disobedience? Without first experiencing the consequences how does one know they did something wrong? If this is the first act where a wrong needs to be punished then how and from where did Adam & Eve get the knowledge and experience needed to know it was wrong?

I don't know if see it as logical... I think it is accepted simply because the Bible says that God condemned it as Sin... I think logic shows a different picture: one where they could not have known what was to happen without prior experience of worng-doing and consequence. They certainly had the ability, if we accept they had free will, to choose to do what they wanted to do; but the boundaries of that will were unrealized going on what we have in the story.

This is actually similar to what I had spoke of earlier, the idea that god defines sin and punishes sin and is unable to punish himself is an ideology that I think fits the bill quite nicely. God has given man commands throughout the bible, eg. The Ten Commandments, showing that he does define, and redefine what is sinful and what is not.

It's interesting to hear a sentiment that expresses this idea has fitting... You're honest in your assesment, that's refreshing. Granted it's, at present, impossible for our finite mind to ascertain what God's position is in relation to Sin!

Well as you read in my reply above I believe that they had knowledge that disobedience to God is not a good thing to do, I suppose guilt would be part of this, for guilt is an emotion rather then some form of knowledge, and hence would be present within both Adam & Eve before the fall. Therefore the bible would not make mention of their guilt as it was not a new byproduct of their sin, but rather something they had prior to the fall.

The manifestation of that shame, of that guilt, is not presented or realized until they have obtained the knowledge of good & evil though... Before then the thought of disobeying God's command doesn't manifest itself in emotion of any sort that we read in Genesis. It's only after the knowledge is gleaned from the tree that they realize the act as disobedient and evil... How then can we know if they acted out of ignorance and innocence or out of rejection and disregard?

I would say they would come under the different category for salvation whereby they are assessed on their purity in life. Bare in mind this category only applies to those who never hear of salvation in Christ so doesn’t go around preaching a new way to get saved. This is biblical, it’s somewhere in the New Testament and it’s frustrating not knowing the verse location.

I agree that it would be difficult to support that a different way of salvation is being presented... I think the contradictions that hang me up regard that God does not respect persons (does not discriminate in regard to sin/salvation?); that all humans are conceived in Sin and are born speaking lies (OT?); that all must repent and trust of Christ to be saved - that there is NO other way nor name under Heaven... Yet we have the kingdom of God likened to children; one must become as a child... If Sin is separate from God and a child is conceived with Sin then are they not conceived separated from God?

Even if one never hears the gospel aren't there clues to God's existence found in the creation? That it testifies to the power of God? That God's Law is written in the conscience and that every man is born with some knowledge of the light? How is there any possibility of excuse?

Again I don't mean to seem argumentative: these are genuine difficulties in interpretation and understanding that I continue to wrestle with.

1 Corinthians 15:51 – Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will be changed – In a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and will be changed. I gather from this, and many of the other writings in 1 Corinthians 15 that sin will be defeated, and therefore will no longer tempt man, nor would man ever both with sin after seeing Gods face (1 Corinthians 13:12).

The gateway for Sin was through the Knowledge of Good & Evil wasn't it? Satan introduced the concept of such knowledge as desirable to man and man desired such knowledge: and when he gained it, it seems only then, he realized Sin had entered. If the knowledge of good & evil remains in the human soul and Sin is destroyed (presumably Satan and temptation) then we're back at Adam & Eve again aren't we? But given the difficulties I've ntoed about the disposition of our first parents how do we know that they had free will at all prior to the fall? And by extension will those who enter in paradise have the same 'free' will?

I don’t know if they were intended as an example, but if they chose to disobey they would be. That assumption’s not too biblical though, it just kind of fits with everything else I said.

That's a tough battle: finding what fits the events and keeping with the Spirit of the Scripture...

Thanks and take care!

Rani

September 28th 2005, 08:38 AM

It's certain they knew that God told them not to; but until, for instance, a child suffers the consequences of disobedience imposed by their parents do they realize that doing what they are told not to do is disobedience? Without first experiencing the consequences how does one know they did something wrong? If this is the first act where a wrong needs to be punished then how and from where did Adam & Eve get the knowledge and experience needed to know it was wrong?

I don't know if see it as logical... I think it is accepted simply because the Bible says that God condemned it as Sin... I think logic shows a different picture: one where they could not have known what was to happen without prior experience of wrong-doing and consequence. They certainly had the ability, if we accept they had free will, to choose to do what they wanted to do; but the boundaries of that will were unrealized going on what we have in the story.

The manifestation of that shame, of that guilt, is not presented or realized until they have obtained the knowledge of good & evil though... Before then the thought of disobeying God's command doesn't manifest itself in emotion of any sort that we read in Genesis. It's only after the knowledge is gleaned from the tree that they realize the act as disobedient and evil... How then can we know if they acted out of ignorance and innocence or out of rejection and disregard?

I suppose that you would be right with that assumption, it does seem to fit with the way both Adam & Eve act in Genesis, and obviously God had punished them to show how he does not like disobedience to his commandments. It seems to be the same way with any child who has no knowledge of good or evil when they are born, and are disciplined to be brought up as a moral human being. Also I see that it is impulse to feel the impulse of guilt if you have know knowledge that what you are doing is essentially wrong; they would be without guilt as the serpent had reassured them, so I’ll have to agree with you on this one.

I agree that it would be difficult to support that a different way of salvation is being presented... I think the contradictions that hang me up regard that God does not respect persons (does not discriminate in regard to sin/salvation?); that all humans are conceived in Sin and are born speaking lies (OT?); that all must repent and trust of Christ to be saved - that there is NO other way nor name under Heaven... Yet we have the kingdom of God likened to children; one must become as a child... If Sin is separate from God and a child is conceived with Sin then are they not conceived separated from God?

It depends what context the term children is used in, do you think that the scripture is supposed to be about how children are sin free and obedient? Or is it possible that maybe they refer to the faithfulness of a child, or how a child sees everything with so much more awe, or is it representational of dependence, there are so many different ways these passages could be taken. I really don’t think that passage contradicts the idea of original sin at all, but is more based on an attitude or used in a symbolic sense.

Even if one never hears the gospel aren't there clues to God's existence found in the creation? That it testifies to the power of God? That God's Law is written in the conscience and that every man is born with some knowledge of the light? How is there any possibility of excuse?

This could be an outlet for which God uses to show others proper living, they must also be born with the knowledge of good & evil engrained in them, so as you say, ‘man is born with some knowledge of the light’. The thing is it would be difficult for them to gather anything else except morals from their surroundings; it’s very difficult to know about repentance in Jesus through observation in nature.

The gateway for Sin was through the Knowledge of Good & Evil wasn't it? Satan introduced the concept of such knowledge as desirable to man and man desired such knowledge: and when he gained it, it seems only then, he realized Sin had entered. If the knowledge of good & evil remains in the human soul and Sin is destroyed (presumably Satan and temptation) then we're back at Adam & Eve again aren't we? But given the difficulties I've ntoed about the disposition of our first parents how do we know that they had free will at all prior to the fall? And by extension will those who enter in paradise have the same 'free' will?

It would seem that we would in a way go back to Adam & Eve when looking at the definition of salvation. The bible tells us that we may once again speak with God and be without any trace of sin, this sounds remarkably like Adam & Eve both were. However there is one fundamental difference between the way Adam & Eve lived and they way a ‘saved’ Christian lives, and that would be that we would still retain that understanding of what is right and what is wrong that Adam & Eve first lacked, so it’s like we had eaten of the fruit and had the weight of that sin erased. In fact from what my answers have come to so far it is actually that in a literal sense, knowledge of good and evil minus the tick in the sin box on our score card.

I am not really sure about how ‘free will’ will manifest itself in heaven as it would require being their to find out, it’s hard to find a passage that really speaks on this so again this is one of those, I can take a wild guess but it’s in no way biblical kind of questions.

It’s been excellent having this conversation; it really helps me understand how deep the works of God are, and how much I haven’t ever considered. Thanks for making things so interesting. Later mate!

mentored1

September 28th 2005, 05:06 PM

I suppose that you would be right with that assumption, it does seem to fit with the way both Adam & Eve act in Genesis, and obviously God had punished them to show how he does not like disobedience to his commandments. It seems to be the same way with any child who has no knowledge of good or evil when they are born, and are disciplined to be brought up as a moral human being. Also I see that it is impulse to feel the impulse of guilt if you have know knowledge that what you are doing is essentially wrong; they would be without guilt as the serpent had reassured them, so I’ll have to agree with you on this one.

Having at least assumed this (for I no more pretend that it is fact than you!) does it not appear that Adam & Eve were more about an example of obedience to God rather than willful sinners? That the nature of original sin is not so much sinning with knowledge (as A&E appeared to lack) but willingness to disobey God... and that such disobedience has it consequences... This is difficult only because accountability for sin requires free choice to do sin: but can a sin done in complete ignorance be reckoned against a soul? The story of Adam & Eve may possibly show this...

It depends what context the term children is used in, do you think that the scripture is supposed to be about how children are sin free and obedient? Or is it possible that maybe they refer to the faithfulness of a child, or how a child sees everything with so much more awe, or is it representational of dependence, there are so many different ways these passages could be taken. I really don’t think that passage contradicts the idea of original sin at all, but is more based on an attitude or used in a symbolic sense.

Hmmmm... I'll have to just tie all of the comments together because some of this enters into what we've already discussed in the previous comment (above). Perhaps children are more willing to obey than adults - which would fit with commonsense as habits become increasingly difficult to break with age. Disobedience in particular. Doesn't it sort of negate the idea of original sin then? Unless original sin is viewed to include disobedience to God ignorantly (such as Adam & Eve) and thus is redefined as the ability or capacity to disobey God with or without knowledge. The symbolic nature, as you indicated, lends it ambiguity (which creates different interpretations and conflict) but also lends it flexibility for broader application...

... Original Sin = the ability or capacity to disobey God?

This could be an outlet for which God uses to show others proper living, they must also be born with the knowledge of good & evil engrained in them, so as you say, ‘man is born with some knowledge of the light’. The thing is it would be difficult for them to gather anything else except morals from their surroundings; it’s very difficult to know about repentance in Jesus through observation in nature.

Indeed perhaps the clues mentioned that are seen without knowledge of the gospel form a sort of roadmap for man to seek a meaning to his life - a Creator?

Having said that it is not likely that the Savior would be realized by the clues in nature and in the soul how then does a human being who is born separated from God, grows up from the trusting childhood, and enters adulthood and eventually death without ever hearing the gospel stand before God? How are they judged in their ignorance - are they accountable, as it seems Adam & Eve might have been, for their disobedience to the gospel which they never encountered?

It would seem that we would in a way go back to Adam & Eve when looking at the definition of salvation. The bible tells us that we may once again speak with God and be without any trace of sin, this sounds remarkably like Adam & Eve both were. However there is one fundamental difference between the way Adam & Eve lived and they way a ‘saved’ Christian lives, and that would be that we would still retain that understanding of what is right and what is wrong that Adam & Eve first lacked, so it’s like we had eaten of the fruit and had the weight of that sin erased. In fact from what my answers have come to so far it is actually that in a literal sense, knowledge of good and evil minus the tick in the sin box on our score card.

I am not really sure about how ‘free will’ will manifest itself in heaven as it would require being their to find out, it’s hard to find a passage that really speaks on this so again this is one of those, I can take a wild guess but it’s in no way biblical kind of questions.

So perhaps a definition of Sin might help here? If Sin is accounted in ignorance then a disobedience to God ('missing God's mark') whether known or not is Sin. The very capacity or willingness to disobey seems to be at the heart of Sin: the pride? What the self wants rather than what God wants?

Assuming that something like what I suggested above is useful how then is the knowledge of right and wrong kept (we would still know that disobedience to God is wrong and obedience is right) and yet not have the burden of sin? Wouldn't just knowning that disobedience is wrong give us the capacity to act on that disobedience?

Would choice have to be abolished? If not how could it be prevented? Or would the self have to be dissolved? Is this the concept of a Christian becoming more like Christ, giving up their self ('dying to self daily') and "merging" into God? If so what then becomes of individuality?

It’s been excellent having this conversation; it really helps me understand how deep the works of God are, and how much I haven’t ever considered. Thanks for making things so interesting. Later mate!

Same here! Your honesty and consideration of the topics has been engaging and has left a lot of room for further thoughts. You have stated your beliefs and opinions with equal candor and have not, as far as I can tell, thrown up any insurmoutnable obstacles to friendly banter. So thank you as well.

Take care

GZUSFREK

September 28th 2005, 07:21 PM

mentored1

September 28th 2005, 08:19 PM

Good to meet you, too! Thanks for the welcome!

If I told you that I had personally spoken with God would you believe me? Most people would say I was nuts! Apparently we disagree on wether the Bible is the Word of God, therefore we will never be able to come to a concensus on who/what God is.

It might be helpful to mention that my background includes faith. I accepted Christ and lived faithfully for Him through a lot: the toughest times were the best ones... But a lot didn't make sense and my lack of understanding and reason won the toss - for the time being at least.

I would not - could not - claim you were crazy if you heard God... Knowing full well that insanity is a measure of man against man so the definition is a relative one... Suffice to say that making such a claim is not normal... But it is also not proveable beyond your testimony of such.

The option, I think is for us to discuss the reliability of the Bible, and that probably needs to happen in a new thread.

Let's say that I don't dismiss the concept of divine inspiration in regard to the Bible. I understand the points, indeed I defended them at one time, that underscore the Bible's reliability. But reliability in physical facts do not necessarily equate reliability in spiritual ones. The question has been posed "If the Bible is trustworthy in physical matters isn't it trustworthy in spiritual ones?" - to which I ask 'why should it be?' We can't prove or disprove the spiritual claims in the same way we prove/disprove the physical ones. Those must be taken on faith. The physical reliability provides aid in deciding to place that trust or not place that trust in the spiritual.

Let me pose this question: if the physical evidence of the Bible's reliability and other proofs exist that prove the existence of God then faith is no longer necessary. Why hope for something that is evident? Why believe in something that is seen? I accept that there are clues that can conduct someone to a belief in God - but is there evidence, is there proof that those clues point directly at God?

Again, what is good and what is evil? If good is God, then evil must be anything opposed to God. God cannot be evil, for that would mean He would be contradicting Himself. He is perfect and unchanging, and therefore never evil.

Then from whence comes evil? Is God the ultimate source of ALL things or only of ALL things - evil? If Satan created evil then he as power that God does not have. Unless I'm missing something (which is possible) it doesn't make sense to assume evil was created by a being other than God. Can anything come into being apart and separate from God? Do not all things consist by Him?

For those who don't trust in God, their condemnation is just in God's eyes. For without faith, it is impossible to please God (Heb.11:6) and every act we commit that is not a result of our faith in Him is sin (Ro.14:23). Also, the sinful nature (human nature, apart from the redemptive qualities of God's grace) is hostile to God. (Ro.8:7)

This involves a couple of thoughts on my part:
1. This condemnation arises from Adam's curse - the nature of Sin passed upon all mankind. Why are we accountable for a choice that Adam made when the Bible also seems to indicate that each soul will be accountable for its own sin? Are we conceived with Sin and in Sin and thus cursed from conception? If so how then have we chosen to sin against God? If not, if we are conceived in innocence, then is there not at least a remote possibility of not choosing sin?
2. Without the grace of God we cannot choose to have faith can we? That God has mercy on whom he pleases and wrath on whom he chooses... If God's grace is the enabler of this choice and it cannot be made without this Grace how then does it consist as a free choice?
3. Given 1 & 2 (as assumptions, not facts) how can there be accountability? Accountability requires free will unless the real nature of the situation is that God will hold us accountable for sins that we are ignorant of and for choices that are destined.

The goodness of God as portrayed in the Bible does indeed require faith, but it's not much of a leap! Careful scrutiny and attempts to disprove the Bible's claims have not ever succeeded. There's a reason it's the most published, most sold and most read book in all of history... people believe it. Now, obviously, popular opinion does not constitute truth, but it does raise some important questions... I really need to quit so we can talk about this in another thread!

Indeed I won't dispute that many of the Bible's physical evidences have been validated or at least have resisted being disproven. But aside from the accounts in Scripture how have the supernatural events in the Bible been tested and proven? They can't be can they? Something intangible can resist being disproven for a long time and sprinkled with physical evidence must be taken seriously - and I agree it should.

The leap of faith is trusting that the physical proofs are enough to validate the supernatural ones: believing what cannot be proven based on what can is a leap. It contradicts the senses and common experience - it leaps beyond the natural boundaries of human experience. Will you deny that the act of accepting a Savior is not a leap - from all that you knew into what you didn't on trust?

My question regarding the supernatural is how to explain their commonality with some older myths, the proverbial archetypes that have been with the human journey for so long - since the dawn of civilization, arguably. The themes, images, and stories could easily be so embedded in our mental make-up that engaging the symbols acts as hypnosis... I'm not asserting that is the case only that it is a possibility.

Unfortunately I've extended the discussion a bit myself! So be it... I think I started this thread anyway! :teeth:

GZUSFREK

September 30th 2005, 04:34 PM

I love the way your mind works! I wish I were that smart!

Let me pose this question: if the physical evidence of the Bible's reliability and other proofs exist that prove the existence of God then faith is no longer necessary. Why hope for something that is evident? Why believe in something that is seen? I accept that there are clues that can conduct someone to a belief in God - but is there evidence, is there proof that those clues point directly at God?

By physical tests do you include the past fulfillment of prophecies? For example, Daniel foretold in c. 535 B.C. what nations would rise up to rule the world. (Daniel 8) He claimed to know these and many other events as they were revealed to him by the God of the Jews. Daniel's God predicted the future with astounding accuracy, and also claimed to be the only true God. We could also study the life of Jesus and see that he fulfilled more than 850 Old Testament prophecies concerning the messiah. Some of these were things other people said and did to him. (Psalm 22, for instance) With so many prophecies fulfilled, and unrivaled truth throughout, there is no logical reason to believe that any of canonical scripture is false, or not what it claims to be. The burden here is clearly on the dissenter.

Is God the ultimate source of ALL things or only of ALL things - evil? If Satan created evil then he as power that God does not have. Unless I'm missing something (which is possible) it doesn't make sense to assume evil was created by a being other than God. Can anything come into being apart and separate from God? Do not all things consist by Him?

This is a great question that a lot of Christians can't answer. It's a tough question! Yes, God is creator of all things. I can't explain it, but it's true. In the King James Version, Proverbs 16:4: "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Absolutely, all things consist by Him.
Romans 11:33-36 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

This condemnation arises from Adam's curse - the nature of Sin passed upon all mankind. Why are we accountable for a choice that Adam made when the Bible also seems to indicate that each soul will be accountable for its own sin? Are we conceived with Sin and in Sin and thus cursed from conception? If so how then have we chosen to sin against God? If not, if we are conceived in innocence, then is there not at least a remote possibility of not choosing sin?

It is not the condemnation for Adam's sin that is for us a curse. The effect of Adam's sin is that we, like him, are naturally opposed to the good things of God. However, we are not judged based on the fact that we have a sinful nature. We are judged because of our own sin. Every human being chooses to sin. Because of our willing participation in acts of sin that our concience confirms are not right, we will all be judged unless we repent and claim the blood of Jesus.

Without the grace of God we cannot choose to have faith can we? That God has mercy on whom he pleases and wrath on whom he chooses... If God's grace is the enabler of this choice and it cannot be made without this Grace how then does it consist as a free choice?

You are correct that God's grace is the enabler of choice. I don't know of any passage in the Bible that refers to man's free choice in regard to salvation. BUT, we all do make decisions based upon the information we have.

Given 1 & 2 (as assumptions, not facts) how can there be accountability? Accountability requires free will unless the real nature of the situation is that God will hold us accountable for sins that we are ignorant of and for choices that are destined.

Sinners will be held accountable for willfully choosing NOT to submit to God. For choosing to do wrong. Of this every human is guilty.

Indeed I won't dispute that many of the Bible's physical evidences have been validated or at least have resisted being disproven. But aside from the accounts in Scripture how have the supernatural events in the Bible been tested and proven? They can't be can they? Something intangible can resist being disproven for a long time and sprinkled with physical evidence must be taken seriously - and I agree it should.

People can argue back and forth about what caused a huge flood thousands of years ago, but ultimately I think you're right. We can't prove the distant past. Nor can we prove major 'acts of God' today actually to be acts of God. Did God pour out his wrath on the casino industry and the drunken revelry in New Orleans by whipping up a storm we named Katrina? We're certainly not in the place to say, but if the Bible was being written right now, it might say just that.
By the way, I feel for the victims of the storm. In no way do I wish to make light of the terrible plight of those people, I was just using that as an example. My point is that we must look forward and depend on God to reveal his power in ways we can understand. For me, He proved himself by putting his Spirit in me and making me spiritually alive. That's a miracle.

The leap of faith is trusting that the physical proofs are enough to validate the supernatural ones: believing what cannot be proven based on what can is a leap. It contradicts the senses and common experience - it leaps beyond the natural boundaries of human experience. Will you deny that the act of accepting a Savior is not a leap - from all that you knew into what you didn't on trust?

In the Greek text, 1 John 5:1 says that whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ HAS BEEN born of God. Faith is a reaction to what God does in us. Our salvation does not depend on us, but on God. No jumping required.

My question regarding the supernatural is how to explain their commonality with some older myths, the proverbial archetypes that have been with the human journey for so long - since the dawn of civilization, arguably. The themes, images, and stories could easily be so embedded in our mental make-up that engaging the symbols acts as hypnosis... I'm not asserting that is the case only that it is a possibility.

Indeed, that's a possibility. I think it is much more probable, however, that any similarities in the beliefs and customs of people separated by vast distances throughout the globe is a clue to their common ancestry. If all people alive today are the descendants of one man named Noah about 4500 years ago, (Genesis 6-8) then it is no wonder they have some similarities in old stories they tell.

Thanks for getting me thinking! I'm no scholar, all this discussion is pretty new to me. God bless!
-FREK

mentored1

September 30th 2005, 07:52 PM

I love the way your mind works! I wish I were that smart!

:blush: Yikes... Smart is only an artificial construct in the guise of an empirical truth! You got the beans too amigo!

With so many prophecies fulfilled, and unrivaled truth throughout, there is no logical reason to believe that any of canonical scripture is false, or not what it claims to be. The burden here is clearly on the dissenter.

You make a good case here... While I cannot out and out say you're full of bologne I do have a couple of thoughts regarding this:

The fulfilled prophecies, from what I remember, do have the possibility of other interpretations don't they? Not saying they haven't been fulfilled in the manner in which you suggest (some seemingly have) but is there a possibility of a duality in their interpretation and subsequent application?

The burden is not necessarily on the dissenter for a couple of reasons (and not necessarily on the believer either!): it is at least possible (however remote) that men may have had visions of the future and attributed them to their God(s) when an otherwise unknown event caused it; an observation of history shows patterns and cycles which could be exploited by wise observers and predicted as prophecy; the prophecies may be a clue to the validity of the Bible but the interpretation of Biblical passages may or may not be what it was intended as - the message we have received may not be the one that was intended; it may be that the power of faith was such that belief in the prophecies were brought to fruition by the faith and not necessarily the prophecy...

Again I state that this does not mean the burden is on the dissenter or the believer: but the burden is on neither one. The believer has a valid case for their belief just as a dissenter has a valid case for their dissent: if both have a valid case then neither one does. It just is.

This is a great question that a lot of Christians can't answer. It's a tough question! Yes, God is creator of all things. I can't explain it, but it's true. In the King James Version, Proverbs 16:4: "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Absolutely, all things consist by Him.

The existence of absolutes like good and evil are tough when the source of all of things is singular. Either the absolutes are artificial as perceived by man or God possesses all of the attributes but in such balance that God cannot be seen as moral or immoral, but amoral. Indeed can God wield evil as well as good without being overcome by evil? It would seem so if he was able to raise up the wicked for the day of wrath, to display his glory, that he can indeed wield what would corrupt man without the corruption.

It is not the condemnation for Adam's sin that is for us a curse. The effect of Adam's sin is that we, like him, are naturally opposed to the good things of God. However, we are not judged based on the fact that we have a sinful nature. We are judged because of our own sin. Every human being chooses to sin. Because of our willing participation in acts of sin that our concience confirms are not right, we will all be judged unless we repent and claim the blood of Jesus.

Sinners will be held accountable for willfully choosing NOT to submit to God. For choosing to do wrong. Of this every human is guilty.

Naturally opposed? Doesn't that more or less guaratee that we will sin against God - or is there a possibility that we won't? That's the crux of my question. Either we are destined to Sin with no possibility of avoiding that choice; or we have the ability to freely choose and thus the ability to not Sin. Is it free choice or fate? If every human will sin without any exception then that is fate; if that is not fate, if we are genuinely free to choose, then there is a possibility that a human may not sin. I might be utterly lost but there seems a contradiction embedded deep in this whole situation.

Indeed, that's a possibility. I think it is much more probable, however, that any similarities in the beliefs and customs of people separated by vast distances throughout the globe is a clue to their common ancestry. If all people alive today are the descendants of one man named Noah about 4500 years ago, (Genesis 6-8) then it is no wonder they have some similarities in old stories they tell.

Similiarities based on common ancestry is certainly plausible. But what I wanted to probe at was the possibility of myths that predate the earliest known Biblical texts (I wish I had examples for you - Gilgamesh?): how do we know that the themes present in these early myths, which have repitition in newer forms in the Bible, aren't the original ideas behind what later become the Scriptures of Christianity as a whole.

Thanks for getting me thinking! I'm no scholar, all this discussion is pretty new to me. God bless!
-FREK

You have me thinking as well amigo! I keep a running tab on all this stuff and try to sit down each day to let it all come together in contemplation. I appreciate your input!

GZUSFREK

October 1st 2005, 12:51 PM

The fulfilled prophecies, from what I remember, do have the possibility of other interpretations don't they? Not saying they haven't been fulfilled in the manner in which you suggest (some seemingly have) but is there a possibility of a duality in their interpretation and subsequent application?
The burden is not necessarily on the dissenter for a couple of reasons (and not necessarily on the believer either!): it is at least possible (however remote) that men may have had visions of the future and attributed them to their God(s) when an otherwise unknown event caused it; an observation of history shows patterns and cycles which could be exploited by wise observers and predicted as prophecy; the prophecies may be a clue to the validity of the Bible but the interpretation of Biblical passages may or may not be what it was intended as - the message we have received may not be the one that was intended; it may be that the power of faith was such that belief in the prophecies were brought to fruition by the faith and not necessarily the prophecy...

The argument can probably be made about at least some of the Bible's prophecies, but it would be a stretch. For instance, Daniel 8, written during babylonian rule specifically tells the names of future nations that would be world empires. He calls the Medo-Perisan Empire by name, (v20) even describing how there was an imbalance of power between the two kings. In verse 21 he says the next nation is Greece. The amazing thing here is that Greece wasn't even hinting of a threat to anyone, and it was over 300 years later before Alexander the Great made Greece a world power.

In Daniel 11:5-28 he describes in intimate detail the battles between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires. It is so detailed, the only way it can be discounted is for people to say the book must have been written hundreds of years later than it was. Unfortunately for them, archaeology seems to confirm otherwise.

Again I state that this does not mean the burden is on the dissenter or the believer: but the burden is on neither one. The believer has a valid case for their belief just as a dissenter has a valid case for their dissent: if both have a valid case then neither one does. It just is.

The problem here is that there can only be one truth. If two plus two equals four....

The existence of absolutes like good and evil are tough when the source of all of things is singular. Either the absolutes are artificial as perceived by man or God possesses all of the attributes but in such balance that God cannot be seen as moral or immoral, but amoral. Indeed can God wield evil as well as good without being overcome by evil? It would seem so if he was able to raise up the wicked for the day of wrath, to display his glory, that he can indeed wield what would corrupt man without the corruption.

You're assuming that good and evil are both absolutes. God is the absolute good, but what is the absolute evil? Evil is not the opposite of good. Evil is the absence of good. If I were to ask the average person "does cold exist?" - their answer would likely be yes. However, this is incorrect. Cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly, darkness does not exist. Darkness is the absence of light. Similarly, evil is the absence of good, or better, evil is the absence of God. God did not have to create evil, but rather only allow for the absence of good. So, if man has perceived that there is an absolute called evil, yes, he has misunderstood.

Naturally opposed? Doesn't that more or less guaratee that we will sin against God - or is there a possibility that we won't? That's the crux of my question. Either we are destined to Sin with no possibility of avoiding that choice; or we have the ability to freely choose and thus the ability to not Sin. Is it free choice or fate? If every human will sin without any exception then that is fate; if that is not fate, if we are genuinely free to choose, then there is a possibility that a human may not sin. I might be utterly lost but there seems a contradiction embedded deep in this whole situation.

This is a great question that brings hot debate even between Evangelicals. All humans have a sinful nature inherited from Adam. Because of this, we are dead spiritually. Because we are spiritually dead, we need a resurrector. We need a spiritual life-giver. Certainly all of humanity is destined or fated to hell, apart from the redemptive work of God's grace. That's what grace is, giving something to someone unworthy of the gift.

Ephesians 2:1-10:
1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Similiarities based on common ancestry is certainly plausible. But what I wanted to probe at was the possibility of myths that predate the earliest known Biblical texts (I wish I had examples for you - Gilgamesh?): how do we know that the themes present in these early myths, which have repitition in newer forms in the Bible, aren't the original ideas behind what later become the Scriptures of Christianity as a whole.

That, too, is an interesting point. However, the proliferation of biblical manuscripts far outweighs any and every opposing claim. There are thousands (if not tens of thousands!) of early copies of the pentateuch and other Old Testament books, and copies of other materials are neither anywhere close to as numerous, nor dated any earlier. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that other nonbiblical writings are earlier than biblical writings. To dismiss this is to deny logic.

God bless!
--FREK

mentored1

October 3rd 2005, 06:47 PM

Once more, a pleasure to have this discourse with you!

The argument can probably be made about at least some of the Bible's prophecies, but it would be a stretch. For instance, Daniel 8, written during babylonian rule specifically tells the names of future nations that would be world empires. He calls the Medo-Perisan Empire by name, (v20) even describing how there was an imbalance of power between the two kings. In verse 21 he says the next nation is Greece. The amazing thing here is that Greece wasn't even hinting of a threat to anyone, and it was over 300 years later before Alexander the Great made Greece a world power.

In Daniel 11:5-28 he describes in intimate detail the battles between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires. It is so detailed, the only way it can be discounted is for people to say the book must have been written hundreds of years later than it was. Unfortunately for them, archaeology seems to confirm otherwise.

I agree - I've read up on what I guess is loosely called 'Biblical Archaeology' and it certainly suggests that what was foretold bears close resemblance to what unfolded. To understand that nature and source of this foresight is beyond my comprehension. I did once believe it to be God - and anyone doing so now has a very strong case - but stretching things a bit is necessary.

There may very well be another explanation - even something as mundane as a 'lucky guess'; but I don't claim to have that answer and the answer that it is God working in human history is as good as any. Even if a stretch is needed (and is it anymore of a stretch that a personal Deity?) the possibility exists for a prediction based on intuition or perhaps a type of perception that supercedes time...

Of course accepting the existence of supernatural / paranormal events is needed for this: but accepting supernatural events is also part and parcel with accepting the possibility of God. It all works in some direction to require an acceptance of the supernatural at some point. Working within the realm of only naturally observed phenomena leaves a lot to be explained; a lot of question marks - which we, as a race, don't like very much.

Does that make it fact? :shrug: I tend to have issues with folks denying the possibility of such foretold events being divine revelation... The possibility exists - at least that must be on the table.

The problem here is that there can only be one truth. If two plus two equals four....

I have to counter with the question of why there can only be one truth? Granted that to discuss Truth in any form seems to suppose the existence of one such concept: but without the comparison of a lie or error as opposed to Truth where do we get the notion of there being one such unalterable concept? This begs the question of how to demonstrate an objectivity of any kind.

You're assuming that good and evil are both absolutes.

Actually I assume nothing :wink: Good and evil appear to be relative and dependent on each other and a great many other abstractions.

God is the absolute good, but what is the absolute evil? Evil is not the opposite of good. Evil is the absence of good.

You're saying the same thing here. Whether it's an absence or an opposite it is something that Good is NOT... it is a negation, another form of 'good'. We can very lost in the rabbit-hole of terms and definitions but something is always plainly visible: we speak in circles. We oppose, negate, re-word, and compare in order to understand. Good and evil operate in this same arena. To understand what Good is you need to understand what Good is NOT; to understand Evil you need to understand what Evil is NOT... Round and round it goes. In the end where does it stop?

If I were to ask the average person "does cold exist?" - their answer would likely be yes. However, this is incorrect. Cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly, darkness does not exist. Darkness is the absence of light.

:eh: Alright I see your point... but if the absence of Heat wasn't possible, or didn't exist, then neither would the Heat. Why refer to something when there is no difference or opposition or absence of it? It's a necessary relation, it's contingent. One supposes the other.

I'll pick your brain on this then: If the entire universe was filled with light, no darkness, where would the distinction be made that would allow to say "this is light and this is dark" unless you had both phenomena?

Similarly, evil is the absence of good, or better, evil is the absence of God. God did not have to create evil, but rather only allow for the absence of good. So, if man has perceived that there is an absolute called evil, yes, he has misunderstood.

Evil is the absence of Good and God allowed that absence... So from whence does the 'absence' which is evil come from? I'll confess I don't comprehend the reasoning here. In order for Good to be perceived at all then the absence, the contrast, must become perceived as well. Only when man has perceived his need for God (his absence of Good) will he seek to fill that absence... isn't that a legitimate argument? So without that absence what possible meaning would Good have?

I certainly agree that absolute evil doesn't help to understand... but neither does absolute good. To reference one without the framework of its "absence" (or opposite or some such reference) is, to the human mind at least, an exercise in absurdity. When you define what is Good where do you get that definition from? And would it be the same if you never saw the absence of it?

This is a great question that brings hot debate even between Evangelicals. All humans have a sinful nature inherited from Adam. Because of this, we are dead spiritually. Because we are spiritually dead, we need a resurrector. We need a spiritual life-giver. Certainly all of humanity is destined or fated to hell, apart from the redemptive work of God's grace. That's what grace is, giving something to someone unworthy of the gift.

Thus we are fated to experience the absence of God, the absence of good, are we not? And thus fated we must fill that absence. Fate, in the case of a sinful nature (an absence of Good, a deficiency of God) seems necessary in order to perceive what we lack. If we born without this absence or deficiency would we seek to fill it? :shrug:

That, too, is an interesting point. However, the proliferation of biblical manuscripts far outweighs any and every opposing claim. There are thousands (if not tens of thousands!) of early copies of the pentateuch and other Old Testament books, and copies of other materials are neither anywhere close to as numerous, nor dated any earlier. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that other nonbiblical writings are earlier than biblical writings. To dismiss this is to deny logic.

I certainly agree that the multitude of writings available help us to get a clearer and better understanding of the Biblical writings. But I must ask how this shows that it is the source, or the original ideas, apart from possibly older - though scanter - materials? Abundance of something doesn't necessarily guarantee it's originality does it? The English translations of the Bible outnumber the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts: does that mean the English meanings (which do differ in many places) are the original ideas?

It certainly presents a better understanding - but possibly a better understanding of ideas which are not original in Scripture. Without the texts to confirm this we are of course unable to reach that conclusion and I won't assert that. Perhaps I've read different studies on the myths that 'predate' the Biblical accounts - but it's not something I'm certain enough to dispute your claim there is no evidence so I'll accept your stance.

What does it have to do with logic? The abundance of a certain text in relation to others means it is logical to accept the abundant one as the original one? I dunno about that. When you have stories spun from the same cloth that could possibly be older or similiar the logical conclusion seems to be that the original story might have been lost in the retelling and transmission of it: or at least distorted into its related offshoots. Perhaps the one with most devoted believers is the one that survives.

Thanks for the information and the chat!

Take care

roddmann

October 3rd 2005, 07:05 PM

These arguments rank closely to the "if God is all powerful He should be able to create a rock he cannot lift," in which case of course He is not all powerful. Anthropomorphic arguments around what God can and cannot do presumes the individual making the arguments can understand and transcend an infinite God. You're not alone. Job, perhaps one of the first of 66 books collectively called the Bible, wrestled with similar limited mental capability:

"Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said, Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it. Then Job answered the LORD, and said, Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee?
I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.
Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?"

mentored1

October 3rd 2005, 08:03 PM

Hey rodd... Nice to meet you...

These arguments rank closely to the "if God is all powerful He should be able to create a rock he cannot lift," in which case of course He is not all powerful.

If that is the impression my humblest apologies... That is not the case - the arguments are not anthropomorphic in their intent. The arguments are part of the difficulties in understanding a God that supercedes - that is outside the boundaries - of human experience. How does the limited hope to understand the unlimited? If God does indeed exist then to presume he operates under human conditions is absurd; however to folks who don't accept God's existence such a being can be nothing but an anthropomorphic phenomenon.

Anthropomorphic arguments around what God can and cannot do presumes the individual making the arguments can understand and transcend an infinite God.

:eh: How so? Anthropomorphic arguments don't presume that we understand and transcend God - only that we understand ourselves. In making such statements all we are doing is taking commonly accepted facts about the human race and using them to interpret things that are not common experience. I would think it is a faulty way of going about such unfathomables as infinity or God but it can at least be seen as natural.

But I must thus ask how else does one inquire into the existence or composition of God if not from a limited human perspective? These are the tools and abilities we have to use unless someone claims to have something more. Thus I must ask you - What is not anthropomorphic in some sense?

You're not alone. Job, perhaps one of the first of 66 books collectively called the Bible, wrestled with similar limited mental capability:

I would certainly hope not since all of the human race is with me in this misunderstanding collectively called 'thinking'. With the exception, Biblically speaking, of Christ.

Every attempt we make to reach God fails - all have fallen short have they not? Does that say that we are inherently deficient (sinful) or that there is nothing to reach for (man is the measure)? That depends on where your faith has been placed doesn't it?

Job is one of the best displays of man's attempt to grasp what is forever beyond his reach - at least in the earthly life. Having broached this topic what is your source which is not limited and anthropomorphic in understanding God?

Take care!

GZUSFREK

October 7th 2005, 09:57 PM

Hey mentored1! Sorry for the pause in discussion, it's been a busy week. Great response! I'll attempt to answer your thoughts...

I agree - I've read up on what I guess is loosely called 'Biblical Archaeology' and it certainly suggests that what was foretold bears close resemblance to what unfolded. To understand that nature and source of this foresight is beyond my comprehension. I did once believe it to be God - and anyone doing so now has a very strong case - but stretching things a bit is necessary.
Stretching things is hardly a necessity! Of course there are questions we will never fully understand in this life. God is above and beyond us. We are His creation, and it is impossible for us to grasp the magnitude of His being. The fact that He exists outside of time is difficult to contemplate. Here we are on this 'time line' with a past, present and future. It's hard to imagine how anything or anyone could exist beyond the realm of what we call time, but God does. Here we are right now, and someday will be no more, but God is. He always has been, and always will be. The name He chose for Hmself is just that: "I AM" (translated "THE LORD" in the O.T.)

There may very well be another explanation - even something as mundane as a 'lucky guess'; but I don't claim to have that answer and the answer that it is God working in human history is as good as any. Even if a stretch is needed (and is it anymore of a stretch that a personal Deity?) the possibility exists for a prediction based on intuition or perhaps a type of perception that supercedes time...
That's just it! Things have taken place in history that are beyond our understanding. Things that need a better explanation than mere coincidence. The God of the Bible is the only answer that holds up to intense scrutiny.

Of course accepting the existence of supernatural / paranormal events is needed for this: but accepting supernatural events is also part and parcel with accepting the possibility of God. It all works in some direction to require an acceptance of the supernatural at some point. Working within the realm of only naturally observed phenomena leaves a lot to be explained; a lot of question marks - which we, as a race, don't like very much.
Very true. Just the fact that we have intangible feelings and thoughts is difficult to explain by humanists and naturalists. The fact that well over 95% of humanity worldwide believes in a spiritual realm certainly implies that humans for some reason long for something more than this life offers. Biblicists would say that is because we were created for fellowship with God. Naturalists don't seem to have a good explanation.

Does that make it fact? :shrug: I tend to have issues with folks denying the possibility of such foretold events being divine revelation... The possibility exists - at least that must be on the table.
I agree. If we are going to be open minded, we must consider all the options.

I have to counter with the question of why there can only be one truth? Granted that to discuss Truth in any form seems to suppose the existence of one such concept: but without the comparison of a lie or error as opposed to Truth where do we get the notion of there being one such unalterable concept? This begs the question of how to demonstrate an objectivity of any kind.
There can only be one truth because that is the definition of truth. Webster's definition: "Reality; actuality." (or) "often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence."
For example, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me." (John 14:6) If there is ever an occasion in which someone comes to God by any way other than Jesus Christ, his statement is rendered invalid. An all-encompassing statement like that is either true or false.

Good and evil appear to be relative and dependent on each other and a great many other abstractions.
How so? It may appear as though good and evil are battling it out in the trenches, but are they truly dependent on one another? How does good need evil in order to be good, and vice versa? Could they not be isolated? The Bible says they will be.

You're saying the same thing here. Whether it's an absence or an opposite it is something that Good is NOT... it is a negation, another form of 'good'. We can very lost in the rabbit-hole of terms and definitions but something is always plainly visible: we speak in circles. We oppose, negate, re-word, and compare in order to understand. Good and evil operate in this same arena. To understand what Good is you need to understand what Good is NOT; to understand Evil you need to understand what Evil is NOT... Round and round it goes. In the end where does it stop?
.... if the absence of Heat wasn't possible, or didn't exist, then neither would the Heat. Why refer to something when there is no difference or opposition or absence of it? It's a necessary relation, it's contingent. One supposes the other.
I see your point, but please allow me to clarify mine. I agree that evil is something that good is not. However, my point was that God is infinite, and evil is not. God has no limit to His goodness. He has no limit to His power. Satan has a finite amount of power that has been given to him by God. His power is limited by time and limited in quality and quantity. Therefore, he is not God's opposite, he is only God's nemesis. A better explanation of my earlier example: nowhere in the known universe can it get colder than absolute zero, (about -458 degrees, I think) but there is no known limit to how hot it can get. We may need to experience both cold and hot (or light and dark) to understand the difference between the two, but the sun doesn't NEED the polar ice caps to shine. Another example is physical quantities. How many apples can you grow if you decided to start an apple farm? The least you could grow is zero. There is no real limit to how many trees you can plant or how many apples you can harvest.

I'll pick your brain on this then: If the entire universe was filled with light, no darkness, where would the distinction be made that would allow to say "this is light and this is dark" unless you had both phenomena?
Evil is the absence of Good and God allowed that absence... So from whence does the 'absence' which is evil come from? I'll confess I don't comprehend the reasoning here. In order for Good to be perceived at all then the absence, the contrast, must become perceived as well. Only when man has perceived his need for God (his absence of Good) will he seek to fill that absence... isn't that a legitimate argument? So without that absence what possible meaning would Good have?

One reason, I believe, that God has allowed evil to pervade the world is so that we would see His goodness by comparison to Satan's evil. All people can attest that some things are good and some are bad. At least, all people know that there are things they like and things they don't. At the end of life as we know it, we will have witnessed both and will therefore no longer need evil to appreciate good.

I certainly agree that absolute evil doesn't help to understand... but neither does absolute good. To reference one without the framework of its "absence" (or opposite or some such reference) is, to the human mind at least, an exercise in absurdity. When you define what is Good where do you get that definition from? And would it be the same if you never saw the absence of it?

I agree that one is hard to reference without the other. Again, I believe that's why God has allowed both in this life -- that we might witness the (perceived) struggle between the two, and all behold His power and might when He wins the battle at the end of time.
As for my definition of good, Jesus said in Matthew 19:17, Luke 18:19, and Mark 10:18, "No one is good—except God alone."

I certainly agree that the multitude of writings available help us to get a clearer and better understanding of the Biblical writings. But I must ask how this shows that it is the source, or the original ideas, apart from possibly older - though scanter - materials? Abundance of something doesn't necessarily guarantee it's originality does it? The English translations of the Bible outnumber the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts: does that mean the English meanings (which do differ in many places) are the original ideas?
Good point.

What does it have to do with logic? The abundance of a certain text in relation to others means it is logical to accept the abundant one as the original one? I dunno about that. When you have stories spun from the same cloth that could possibly be older or similiar the logical conclusion seems to be that the original story might have been lost in the retelling and transmission of it: or at least distorted into its related offshoots. Perhaps the one with most devoted believers is the one that survives.

Another good point. Still, though, it's true that the Bible's preponderance of early texts that are unrivaled. Also, the 39 O.T. books were written by at least 30 different authors separated by more than 1,000 years, on three different continents. The amzing thing is that they all describe the same themes of God's sovereignty and majesty, and they never contradict one another. There's more to this, but I'm tired! Great discussion, amigo! I'm off to bed.

--FREK

basicbeliever

October 12th 2005, 12:25 AM

Indeed one cannot argue with those except on one premise:

As a finite creature how can we understand and thus explain what is available or not available to the infinite? Perhaps infinity is infinite because it lacks diversity / choice?
We cannot explain what is available to the infinite, we don't have the capacity. This is why the Bible, being the word of God, is a revelation and a look at this infinite being. It helps us to understand a little about what and who God is.

Geisler has put out some interesting stuff... In making evil possible is that a realization for us that the possibility of evil exists for God as well? How can the possibility of something arise from a source (God) that does not itself have that possibility? Again I go to the question of why didn't this possibility in God become actualized?
First we have to realize that evil isn't a something. Evil is a lack of something. When good that should be there is missing from something, that is evil. Evil cannot exist except as a hole in something that should be solid.

God is good, there is no hole in Him, so there is no evil.

We reach the question of what is God's nature? Man has "nature" which is defined in various ways of which I think we are aware: but isn't it a classic anthropomorpic argument to say that God has a nature? If man is God's image (as your paper describes well, kudos) then the possibility for evil exists for God and man: yet there is a distinct "nature" which allowed man to actualize this possibility and God to avoid it. What is the essence of this difference in "nature" if one arose from the other?

Certainly assumptions are hazardous.... As I mentioned a few questions in above comments regarding this I'll summarize here: man in God's image - the possibility of evil actualized by man but not God due to different "natures" - the possibility of evil in God not actualized, why not? Where is the difference in "nature" if one arose from the other (man from God)?
As the image bearer of God, man was created with true free will and was not mechanistically determined by internal or external factors, because he was created to reflect God’s free and sovereign will in subduing the world.

“The image of God” simply meant that man was created to be and do on a finite level what God was and did on the infinite level.

What my questions are pointing at simply the limits of human knowledge and understanding when dealing with some questions. Belief and faith seem to play the glue or the bridge between the gaps in understanding: is belief and faith a possibility that some men actualize? If so is the possibility for faith and belief part of man's nature and thus of God's image? Then what could God have faith in? Granted the question is absurd in a sense but the fact remains that I actualized such a question and it is entirely plausible given some basic tenets of Scipture... The resolution of such is the bridge of faith...
Yes, faith takes over where our knowledge ends. This is done in more than just the religous realm. This is done in every tenet of life. God has given humanity the gift of faith. God, being all knowing, does not need the faith, because the limits of His knowledge is limitless.

I appreciate your comments and discussion - keep 'em coming!
I am enjoying our discussion, it is keeping me on my toes.

mentored1

October 12th 2005, 07:55 PM

Hey mentored1! Sorry for the pause in discussion, it's been a busy week. Great response! I'll attempt to answer your thoughts...

Yes life has a way of interrupting the pursuit of knowledge... :sigh:

Stretching things is hardly a necessity! Of course there are questions we will never fully understand in this life. God is above and beyond us. We are His creation, and it is impossible for us to grasp the magnitude of His being.

I agree... Having said that aren't we then forced to "stretch" a bit to understand such a magnitude? Anything we can't fully understand requires a certain reaching or stretching on our part, whether through belief or imagination. If God should exist as the Bible shows Him then trying to grasp such a God requires a stretching out doesn't it?

The fact that He exists outside of time is difficult to contemplate. Here we are on this 'time line' with a past, present and future. It's hard to imagine how anything or anyone could exist beyond the realm of what we call time, but God does. Here we are right now, and someday will be no more, but God is. He always has been, and always will be. The name He chose for Hmself is just that: "I AM" (translated "THE LORD" in the O.T.)

I agree that if God exists in this fashion - outside of time - then your statement above is sensible. But the murky areas of such a statement are where the "stretching" of faith comes in: we are trapped in time, God is not; we are subject to all the natural laws and causation of time, God is not; we are impermanent, God is permanent... God is the fullness of what we lack - how can a lack possibly conceive of the fullness? It is a hope, it is a reaching out by faith to something that cannot be properly understood in this existence.

That's just it! Things have taken place in history that are beyond our understanding. Things that need a better explanation than mere coincidence. The God of the Bible is the only answer that holds up to intense scrutiny.

I think disputing the point that more than chance is at work is foolish - so we're in agreement on that. I do have to bring up a few thoughts about the latter part of your comment though. God himself does not hold up to scrutiny does he? If we could directly study and perceive God then it is no more a matter of faith or hope but of science and study. What does get scrutinized are the circumstances and evidences brought forth by the Bible - and I agree a great many of them do hold up against scrutiny.

This goes along with the idea that faith itself cannot be apprehended thus works are needed to display that faith (faith is dead without works - no visible life)... If God existed without any recorded clues to scrutinize where would we look and how would we be directed to God? It seems more that the Bible leaves us clues which can be followed to form a picture of the God that left them - but it still requires faith, a stretch, to accept the existence of God based on the clues left behind. I'm not saying its a foolish thing or a wrong thing: only that God himself cannot be directly scrutinized...

"Follow the yellow brick road..."

Does that mean the God that is reached at the end of this road of clues is the God of the Bible and that we have an accurate understanding of the clues, enough to understand God in some way? :shrug:

Very true. Just the fact that we have intangible feelings and thoughts is difficult to explain by humanists and naturalists. The fact that well over 95% of humanity worldwide believes in a spiritual realm certainly implies that humans for some reason long for something more than this life offers. Biblicists would say that is because we were created for fellowship with God. Naturalists don't seem to have a good explanation.

They're certainly hunting for one that leaves a spiritual component out though aren't they? Tragic... Even if all of these things are locked in vaults of the complex human mind there is still some substance, something that has locked it there. I have a very strange theory about this - but that's for another thread... :wink:

There can only be one truth because that is the definition of truth. Webster's definition: "Reality; actuality." (or) "often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence."
For example, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me." (John 14:6) If there is ever an occasion in which someone comes to God by any way other than Jesus Christ, his statement is rendered invalid. An all-encompassing statement like that is either true or false.

For the sake of argument I'll concur... but you must keep in mind you're operating within the framework of the world as we know it. A dualistic nightmare of a place in which all knowledge is relative... I have a ball watching people try to explain the comprehension of light and dark as the absence of one or the other... Without one we don't understand the other, it's a simple as that. Without truth we don't understand a lie and vice versa...

Unfortunately human knowledge is riddled with this trap door... Now I understand that most folks don't go about their day with this trap door open - and for good reason - but in this case I'll open it. To put out a definition fashioned by a human mind for words and concepts fashioned by a human mind leaves all of this knowledge (true-false, etc) in a relative state. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying this invalidates anything, I really don't know... but without the relations, the mirror of opposition, understanding these types of concepts is difficult at best.

How so? It may appear as though good and evil are battling it out in the trenches, but are they truly dependent on one another? How does good need evil in order to be good, and vice versa? Could they not be isolated? The Bible says they will be.

I certainly understand your statement and position (I stood in the same place not too long ago)... Perhaps I'll share a few thoughts on why I have trouble with this...

- There is only one source for everything: God. If that is so then the possibility of evil, or the seed or germ or mechanism which allowed it to appear, must also be from God. If we say no to this then we allow for another entity or force which has the power to create something - evil - which is outside of God... i.e. they have power as God being able to create what he cannot (or will not)... God had the knowledge of good and evil ("behold they have become like us, knowing good and evil") and this seems, keeping in mind God as the one source, to be the source of evil as well.

- If we have no evil in the world... As in the creation God said it was Good... how do we understand and define Good at all? When we read that in Genesis how do we know what God means? Do we not compare what is NOT good? In the absence of all evil where only good is present what makes it good? There is nothing lacking goodness in such a state so there is no opposition, there is no deficiency, there is no evil. If there is no evil at all why would good be called or understood to be good?

- How is it that good and evil can exist in the same body in the form of a believer? That the nature of sin is ever present along with the holy Spirit and that this dualistic existence creates a struggle... Again as a believer I felt this every day but until I believed that good and evil were separate and apart I did not. Why not? The capacity to do good and evil is present in everyone is it not? It is realized, Biblically speaking, upon salvation; evil is realized the moment one willingly defies God... Either way the capacity exists because something (good/evil) cannot come from nothing can it? The two seem to be omnipresent which suggests... ?

I see your point, but please allow me to clarify mine. I agree that evil is something that good is not. However, my point was that God is infinite, and evil is not. God has no limit to His goodness. He has no limit to His power. Satan has a finite amount of power that has been given to him by God. His power is limited by time and limited in quality and quantity. Therefore, he is not God's opposite, he is only God's nemesis. A better explanation of my earlier example: nowhere in the known universe can it get colder than absolute zero, (about -458 degrees, I think) but there is no known limit to how hot it can get. We may need to experience both cold and hot (or light and dark) to understand the difference between the two, but the sun doesn't NEED the polar ice caps to shine. Another example is physical quantities. How many apples can you grow if you decided to start an apple farm? The least you could grow is zero. There is no real limit to how many trees you can plant or how many apples you can harvest.

I appreciate the clarification - we may agree to disagree. :teeth:

- God is infinite: by what measure? By the finite - only with a comparison to everything that we are NOT (everything we Lack) do we understand the infinite. Without our own temporal nature as a reference we struggle in vain to understand what we are not...
- God certainly has limits to his power (whether self-imposed or imposed by his own nature): God cannot lie, God cannot change, and cannot let anyone enter Heaven that has not been "born-again"... unless I'm mistaken?
- Isn't a nemesis an opposite? One who is opposed to your very nature, your very values? Where did Satan get this power? Why is he allowed to wield it at all? Is his existence as God's "nemesis" necessary?
- the issue I have with expressing infinity is that no matter how high the number (or whatever we express) we can at some point measure it - it may keep increasing or expanding but it is measurable. It's only the concept of infinity that makes it so majestic. The only thing that escapes expression or measurement is an absolute lack of everything - a void, a nothingness (of which even "void" and "nothing" are not valid descriptions)... I'm not sure what that means but it popped in my head! :demure:

One reason, I believe, that God has allowed evil to pervade the world is so that we would see His goodness by comparison to Satan's evil. All people can attest that some things are good and some are bad. At least, all people know that there are things they like and things they don't. At the end of life as we know it, we will have witnessed both and will therefore no longer need evil to appreciate good.

This statement is a beautiful summary of some of my problems with understanding this whole dilemma.

- God allowed Satan's evil to flourish so the world could compare it to God's goodness - is then the existence of Satan allowed by God intentionally? Is it necessary so that God may be properly perceived?
- People attest to what is good and bad because they have that frame of reference. They know what they like (pleasure), what they don't like (pain), and what their social environment tells them is right and wrong. The whole paradigm of this left-right, light-dark knowledge is embedded in the Garden of Eden account (which is really riveting!)
- If we need evil now to appreciate Good then evil is necessary isn't it? If it is necessary then why be held accountable for something that cannot be avoided? I certainly agree that people should be accountable for their action - this question is more of a curious inquiry.

I agree that one is hard to reference without the other. Again, I believe that's why God has allowed both in this life -- that we might witness the (perceived) struggle between the two, and all behold His power and might when He wins the battle at the end of time.

And God is destined to win isn't he? So we're perceiving a struggle between these forces that is more like a play, a drama unfolding to a script (the Bible)... If God wrote the script and is directing the play then what reality does anything have?

As for my definition of good, Jesus said in Matthew 19:17, Luke 18:19, and Mark 10:18, "No one is good—except God alone."

God possesses the knowledge of Good and evil (unless I'm mistaken) how does he avoid being responsible for that knowledge or acting upon it? How can we understand something to possesses good and evil and yet not act upon one of them?

Another good point. Still, though, it's true that the Bible's preponderance of early texts that are unrivaled. Also, the 39 O.T. books were written by at least 30 different authors separated by more than 1,000 years, on three different continents. The amzing thing is that they all describe the same themes of God's sovereignty and majesty, and they never contradict one another. There's more to this, but I'm tired! Great discussion, amigo! I'm off to bed.

Since we've already discussed some points about the preponderance of texts I'll let that one lie :wink: but I do have to agree with you that separation of time and space between the authors is a marvel. It's one of those things we discussed earlier that make it difficult to attribute to coincidence or something natural. Again I don't know if it's a clue that points to the God of the Bible or to something that we really don't understand right now but for the moment it must leave that door to the supernatural open.

I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion - take care! :cheers:

mentored1

October 12th 2005, 08:07 PM

Hey BB! Hope you're well!

We cannot explain what is available to the infinite, we don't have the capacity. This is why the Bible, being the word of God, is a revelation and a look at this infinite being. It helps us to understand a little about what and who God is.

When you say we don't have the capacity I am going to assume all of human nature and experience as well... That must include language right? Then how can we have a glimpse of the infinite, given we don't have the capacity, through a medium that is an expression of a finite being without the capacity to understand the infinite? And if we don't have the capacity to understand then what good would a look at the infinite through a text written by finite beings do?

Unless we pull the escape hatch of divine inspiration and assume God wrote the book for man this seems difficult to understand. Not that I denounce such inspiration only that operating within the finite realm is often a futile exercise isn't it?

First we have to realize that evil isn't a something. Evil is a lack of something. When good that should be there is missing from something, that is evil. Evil cannot exist except as a hole in something that should be solid.

We'll have to disagree on this one... If evil isn't a something then neither is good because the "hole" or "lack" of which you speak is only perceived with the existence of good. If evil derives its expression from Good then we must know the substance of good and then see that it is lacking. The fact that we talk of evil, describe evil, and embody evil in some form shows that we have substantiated this "hole" at least in our mind.

As the image bearer of God, man was created with true free will and was not mechanistically determined by internal or external factors, because he was created to reflect God’s free and sovereign will in subduing the world.

Then do we still have this true free will or has it changed?

Did we possess the knowledge of good & evil from the moment of our creation with this true free will?

Yes, faith takes over where our knowledge ends. This is done in more than just the religous realm. This is done in every tenet of life. God has given humanity the gift of faith. God, being all knowing, does not need the faith, because the limits of His knowledge is limitless.

I think your statement "faith takes over where our knowledge ends" is a honest and succint summary of that point where one follows the clues to God and is forced with that moment of faith. There is a limit to knowledge and you've put it well here - kudos. :bravo:

I'll have to say tongue-in-cheek: how do you know the limitlessness of God's knowledge? And where did he acquire all of this knowledge?

I am enjoying our discussion, it is keeping me on my toes.

rest assured it is keeping me on my toes as well... I don't get opportunities of this type in everyday life...

Take care

shunyadragon

October 13th 2005, 01:15 AM

Hello folks... Let's try this on and see how it fits...

Does the God of the Bible have Free Will? It would seem so given that we have free will and the source must be from God as we are made in his Image... Given that notion (which if you wish to dispute knock yourself out) I'd like to pose a couple of questions:

1. If God has Free Will and his Will is Good - given that He is all-powerful - why does He or did He allow Evil to enter the world at all? This may be a redundant question, I realize, but I encourage thought on it because it seems God could have prevented the entrance of the Serpent into the Garden and could have not planted the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the mist of the Garden: yet, knowing full well what was to happen, these things were done. Did God's own foreknowledge override his Free Will and Will to Good?

2. Assuming God created Free Will in man (or transferred it to man) and man was capable of choosing disobedience and thus Evil - was God capable of choosing wickedness as well? If not is this because he is only Good or for some other reason? And if so why did He not choose Evil as man did? If God cannot choose evil and wickedness why can man if man is in His image?

3. In giving Free Will to man God seems to have handcuffed himself: if the choice of Man to disobedience and the entrance of Sin into the world was a result of our freedom to choose and God did not stop nor did he divinely "delete" this mistake are we to assume that God could not intervene? That freedom of choice - as a Divine creation - could not be undone: was God constrained by this action as a result of Him fashioning Free will? How does this jive with God being all-powerful?

Thanks for the replies - rest assured I'm not posting for argument's sake but simply wrestling with some theological / philosophical "daemons"...

Take care!

I had not responded before because any answer I thought of seemed to fall short of what would be the nature of God in terms of free will. The simplist answer whould be yes, but than again free will would not really describe the nature of the Source' of existence, which would best be reflected in thenature of the universe. Our limited worldview and the concept of free will probably applies only to our own 'sand box'.

mentored1

October 17th 2005, 06:35 PM

I had not responded before because any answer I thought of seemed to fall short of what would be the nature of God in terms of free will. The simplist answer whould be yes, but than again free will would not really describe the nature of the Source' of existence, which would best be reflected in thenature of the universe. Our limited worldview and the concept of free will probably applies only to our own 'sand box'.

Once more I must agree with the statement that free will most likely only applies to our little 'sand box'... but even then I am thrown by the facticity of some prophecies in scripture and even more so by the day to day premonitions and precognitive faculties that seem to exist in each of us. Who hasn't had the sense of something happening - sometimes specific - that soon does? Whether it is made to happen by the sense of it or it is "foreseen" poses a formidable question regarding time and free will.

Take care

shunyadragon

October 18th 2005, 09:11 AM

Once more I must agree with the statement that free will most likely only applies to our little 'sand box'... but even then I am thrown by the facticity of some prophecies in scripture and even more so by the day to day premonitions and precognitive faculties that seem to exist in each of us. Who hasn't had the sense of something happening - sometimes specific - that soon does? Whether it is made to happen by the sense of it or it is "foreseen" poses a formidable question regarding time and free will.

Take care

I do not believe it is a formidable problem unless you try to hard to define time, freewill, future and the past. Time is sort of a medium of progression and a continuom through which the present moment passes. The past, present and future are only persieved in a relative sense from our point of view. The degree of our awareness of the present moment will determine our awareness of what we call the future. By increasing our awareness of the present moment we increase our awareness of what we call the future. Freewill is more like a rudder to make choices. The problem is with most people, they have decided to lock their rudder in one position and let other forces make their decisions for them. Their ship travels in circles, they are not even aware of the present until it is the past, and their future and past repeat like a broken record.

mentored1

October 18th 2005, 04:31 PM

I do not believe it is a formidable problem unless you try to hard to define time, freewill, future and the past. Time is sort of a medium of progression and a continuom through which the present moment passes. The past, present and future are only persieved in a relative sense from our point of view. The degree of our awareness of the present moment will determine our awareness of what we call the future. By increasing our awareness of the present moment we increase our awareness of what we call the future. Freewill is more like a rudder to make choices. The problem is with most people, they have decided to lock their rudder in one position and let other forces make their decisions for them. Their ship travels in circles, they are not even aware of the present until it is the past, and their future and past repeat like a broken record.

Interesting... Here is a possibility for a very interesting discussion. How can the present moment be demonstrated? Everything that happens becomes an immediate past doesn't it? Even as it is happening it is becoming the immediate past - there is no immediate present, there is no now.

As I press the light switch and turn on the light above me I know it has happened because I remember the immediate past. I expect it to be on a minute from now but that is a projection of the past into the future.

The present seems to be an artificial extension, an illusion, that my mind makes by extending a moment to include the immediate past and the anticipated immediate future. But as each thing comes and goes there is only the past and what is expected next: where is the present?

Take care

shunyadragon

October 20th 2005, 05:32 AM

Interesting... Here is a possibility for a very interesting discussion. How can the present moment be demonstrated? Everything that happens becomes an immediate past doesn't it? Even as it is happening it is becoming the immediate past - there is no immediate present, there is no now.

As I press the light switch and turn on the light above me I know it has happened because I remember the immediate past. I expect it to be on a minute from now but that is a projection of the past into the future.

The present seems to be an artificial extension, an illusion, that my mind makes by extending a moment to include the immediate past and the anticipated immediate future. But as each thing comes and goes there is only the past and what is expected next: where is the present?

Take care

It does represent a tangent in time from the topic, but I guess it is okay. I believe the present moment exists in transition, but is only known by our awareness of it. Other than that the present is in the past.

GZUSFREK

October 22nd 2005, 05:41 PM

Yes life has a way of interrupting the pursuit of knowledge... :sigh:

I agree... Having said that aren't we then forced to "stretch" a bit to understand such a magnitude? Anything we can't fully understand requires a certain reaching or stretching on our part, whether through belief or imagination. If God should exist as the Bible shows Him then trying to grasp such a God requires a stretching out doesn't it?

I agree that if God exists in this fashion - outside of time - then your statement above is sensible. But the murky areas of such a statement are where the "stretching" of faith comes in: we are trapped in time, God is not; we are subject to all the natural laws and causation of time, God is not; we are impermanent, God is permanent... God is the fullness of what we lack - how can a lack possibly conceive of the fullness? It is a hope, it is a reaching out by faith to something that cannot be properly understood in this existence.

I think disputing the point that more than chance is at work is foolish - so we're in agreement on that. I do have to bring up a few thoughts about the latter part of your comment though. God himself does not hold up to scrutiny does he? If we could directly study and perceive God then it is no more a matter of faith or hope but of science and study. What does get scrutinized are the circumstances and evidences brought forth by the Bible - and I agree a great many of them do hold up against scrutiny.

This goes along with the idea that faith itself cannot be apprehended thus works are needed to display that faith (faith is dead without works - no visible life)... If God existed without any recorded clues to scrutinize where would we look and how would we be directed to God? It seems more that the Bible leaves us clues which can be followed to form a picture of the God that left them - but it still requires faith, a stretch, to accept the existence of God based on the clues left behind. I'm not saying its a foolish thing or a wrong thing: only that God himself cannot be directly scrutinized...

"Follow the yellow brick road..."

Does that mean the God that is reached at the end of this road of clues is the God of the Bible and that we have an accurate understanding of the clues, enough to understand God in some way? :shrug:

They're certainly hunting for one that leaves a spiritual component out though aren't they? Tragic... Even if all of these things are locked in vaults of the complex human mind there is still some substance, something that has locked it there. I have a very strange theory about this - but that's for another thread... :wink:

For the sake of argument I'll concur... but you must keep in mind you're operating within the framework of the world as we know it. A dualistic nightmare of a place in which all knowledge is relative... I have a ball watching people try to explain the comprehension of light and dark as the absence of one or the other... Without one we don't understand the other, it's a simple as that. Without truth we don't understand a lie and vice versa...

Unfortunately human knowledge is riddled with this trap door... Now I understand that most folks don't go about their day with this trap door open - and for good reason - but in this case I'll open it. To put out a definition fashioned by a human mind for words and concepts fashioned by a human mind leaves all of this knowledge (true-false, etc) in a relative state. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying this invalidates anything, I really don't know... but without the relations, the mirror of opposition, understanding these types of concepts is difficult at best.

I certainly understand your statement and position (I stood in the same place not too long ago)... Perhaps I'll share a few thoughts on why I have trouble with this...

- There is only one source for everything: God. If that is so then the possibility of evil, or the seed or germ or mechanism which allowed it to appear, must also be from God. If we say no to this then we allow for another entity or force which has the power to create something - evil - which is outside of God... i.e. they have power as God being able to create what he cannot (or will not)... God had the knowledge of good and evil ("behold they have become like us, knowing good and evil") and this seems, keeping in mind God as the one source, to be the source of evil as well.

- If we have no evil in the world... As in the creation God said it was Good... how do we understand and define Good at all? When we read that in Genesis how do we know what God means? Do we not compare what is NOT good? In the absence of all evil where only good is present what makes it good? There is nothing lacking goodness in such a state so there is no opposition, there is no deficiency, there is no evil. If there is no evil at all why would good be called or understood to be good?

- How is it that good and evil can exist in the same body in the form of a believer? That the nature of sin is ever present along with the holy Spirit and that this dualistic existence creates a struggle... Again as a believer I felt this every day but until I believed that good and evil were separate and apart I did not. Why not? The capacity to do good and evil is present in everyone is it not? It is realized, Biblically speaking, upon salvation; evil is realized the moment one willingly defies God... Either way the capacity exists because something (good/evil) cannot come from nothing can it? The two seem to be omnipresent which suggests... ?

I appreciate the clarification - we may agree to disagree. :teeth:

- God is infinite: by what measure? By the finite - only with a comparison to everything that we are NOT (everything we Lack) do we understand the infinite. Without our own temporal nature as a reference we struggle in vain to understand what we are not...
- God certainly has limits to his power (whether self-imposed or imposed by his own nature): God cannot lie, God cannot change, and cannot let anyone enter Heaven that has not been "born-again"... unless I'm mistaken?
- Isn't a nemesis an opposite? One who is opposed to your very nature, your very values? Where did Satan get this power? Why is he allowed to wield it at all? Is his existence as God's "nemesis" necessary?
- the issue I have with expressing infinity is that no matter how high the number (or whatever we express) we can at some point measure it - it may keep increasing or expanding but it is measurable. It's only the concept of infinity that makes it so majestic. The only thing that escapes expression or measurement is an absolute lack of everything - a void, a nothingness (of which even "void" and "nothing" are not valid descriptions)... I'm not sure what that means but it popped in my head! :demure:

This statement is a beautiful summary of some of my problems with understanding this whole dilemma.

- God allowed Satan's evil to flourish so the world could compare it to God's goodness - is then the existence of Satan allowed by God intentionally? Is it necessary so that God may be properly perceived?
- People attest to what is good and bad because they have that frame of reference. They know what they like (pleasure), what they don't like (pain), and what their social environment tells them is right and wrong. The whole paradigm of this left-right, light-dark knowledge is embedded in the Garden of Eden account (which is really riveting!)
- If we need evil now to appreciate Good then evil is necessary isn't it? If it is necessary then why be held accountable for something that cannot be avoided? I certainly agree that people should be accountable for their action - this question is more of a curious inquiry.

And God is destined to win isn't he? So we're perceiving a struggle between these forces that is more like a play, a drama unfolding to a script (the Bible)... If God wrote the script and is directing the play then what reality does anything have?

God possesses the knowledge of Good and evil (unless I'm mistaken) how does he avoid being responsible for that knowledge or acting upon it? How can we understand something to possesses good and evil and yet not act upon one of them?

Since we've already discussed some points about the preponderance of texts I'll let that one lie :wink: but I do have to agree with you that separation of time and space between the authors is a marvel. It's one of those things we discussed earlier that make it difficult to attribute to coincidence or something natural. Again I don't know if it's a clue that points to the God of the Bible or to something that we really don't understand right now but for the moment it must leave that door to the supernatural open.

I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion - take care! :cheers:
It's been enlightening and a pleasure! We need to pick this up again another time! Thanks for getting me thinking...
--FREK