posted
The cause of all suffering is sin. Without sin no (death, no evil, no pain, no clamor, no mourning. When God chore for Himself to suffer, He did it because of sin. Therefore God decided to suffer, when He made sin a part of His plan.
When God created Satan, the originator of sin, in order that He should introduce sin into His fair creation, He decided to suffer all that this would bring about.
Sin is an insult against God's majesty. He bears this indignity. Sin is disobedience, disregard of His revealed will. He bears this offense. Sin is defilement of His creation. Sin means torture for all creatures subject to vanity. God feels their pain, for He is the Father of compassion.
God's answer to our question: What did the creation of evil mean for Him! is "The greatest sacrifice imaginable, which He offered in His Son".
God foresaw Him as the Lamb that was to be slaughtered long before there were messengers or men, long before there was any sin. We do not doubt that God Himself chose to suffer long before there was any trace of sin. But God also saw in the Son the final repudiation of sin. Through Him He will reconcile the world.
And so can we, even in this mortal body, still sighing under pain and weakness, live in much closer communion with the Father than Adam in paradise. He knew no suffering, no sin and bad conscience, but also nothing of race or mercy. God's love was hidden from him. He could not cry like Paul: "The love of God is poured out into our hearts. "He could not grasp what it means: "To me, the first sinner, has mercy been shown".
And so the Scriptures testify to it, that all our suffering leads to a glory that cannot be described. Without it that superabundance of joy that God predestinated for us, would be impossible.
Only darkness can teach us what light is. Only through evil can we learn to know good. Only by suffering, and dying can we realize the glory of life and health.
God had in the beginning doomed man to be a sinner, for it was no accident in the purpose of God that Adam failed to obey the single and simple injunction of his Creator. At the cross God cursed His Son. It is a thought awful to contemplate, yet true, for He became a curse for our sakes (Gal.3:13).
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: The cause of all suffering is sin. Without sin no (death, no evil, no pain, no clamor, no mourning. When God chore for Himself to suffer, He did it because of sin. Therefore God decided to suffer, when He made sin a part of His plan.
When God created Satan, the originator of sin, in order that He should introduce sin into His fair creation, He decided to suffer all that this would bring about.
God created Satan, God created sin. God does not suffer, God is not a man.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While you are strictly right to say that God is not a man, Ayisha, I and several others believe that God became a man for our sakes. One of our Christmas Carols mentions it: "our God, contracted to a span, incomprehensibly made man". We don't pretend to fully understand God's ways, but our certainty of His love for us enables us to accept that which we cannot understand "by faith". Do Muslims know everything about God's purposes and ways? If so, where does faith come into your religion. (From your insistance that everything needs to be logical before you can accept it, one would assume that God is fully known to Muslims and there is no mysteriousness in Him.)
Posts: 430 | From: luxor | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
If Allah can "hate", be "jealous", be a "deciever", a "plotter" etc, why can't "He"? suffer?
Well that's because 'He' is the ALMIGHTY, the Creator of everything you know and don't even know yet.. Posts: 3219 | From: Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone. | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: While you are strictly right to say that God is not a man, Ayisha, I and several others believe that God became a man for our sakes. One of our Christmas Carols mentions it: "our God, contracted to a span, incomprehensibly made man". We don't pretend to fully understand God's ways, but our certainty of His love for us enables us to accept that which we cannot understand "by faith". Do Muslims know everything about God's purposes and ways? If so, where does faith come into your religion. (From your insistance that everything needs to be logical before you can accept it, one would assume that God is fully known to Muslims and there is no mysteriousness in Him.)
posted
God became man to make man God in life and nature but not in the Godhead March 10, 2010
[..] God brought divinity into humanity, mingling the two natures(without the third one being produced): divinity was expressed through humanity.
Through the process of incarnation, Christ brought God into man, and through the process of resurrection, He brought man into God.
The believers in Christ, the ones who receive Christ as their life, become children of God having His life and nature(John 1:12-13) BUT not His Godhead!
If something is born of a cat, it is a cat – it has the life and the nature and the characteristics of a cat. If a man begets something, it must be a man. In the same way, the Bible says that by believing into the Lord Jesus, we become children of God – born of God.
What are we then? We are God-men! We are both God and man – God mingled with man, man having another life added to him(the divine life). But we are not God in the sense of being worshipped/adored/omni-present/omni-potent/omni-scient. A father begets a child, and the child has the same likeness, life, nature, expression, but does not have the fatherhood – the child is not and will never be the father! We will never be God in His un-communicable attributes, but in life and nature, expression and function, we are just like Him!
And as we grow in life by enjoying Christ, we receive more of the divine element into our being – the divine life in us grows, spreads into every part of our being. We are daily being constituted with the divine life, and more and more live by the divine nature in us.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: If Allah can "hate", be "jealous", be a "deciever"
The idea of a jealous or hating God is simply ridiculous.
"How we see God is a direct reflection of how we see ourselves. If God brings to mind mostly fear and blame, it means there is too much fear and blame welled inside us. If we see God as full of love and compassion, so are we."
The Forty Rules of Love, Elif Shafak
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: If Allah can "hate", be "jealous", be a "deciever"
The idea of a jealous or hating God is simply ridiculous.
"How we see God is a direct reflection of how we see ourselves. If God brings to mind mostly fear and blame, it means there is too much fear and blame welled inside us. If we see God as full of love and compassion, so are we."
God had in the beginning doomed man to be a sinner, for it was no accident in the purpose of God that Adam failed to obey the single and simple injunction of his Creator.(Gal.3:13).
If you were God would you do this? If so, why?
Ayisha:
God created Satan, God created sin. God does not suffer, God is not a man.''
So do you have any thoughts on why God would do it this way?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
God had in the beginning doomed man to be a sinner, for it was no accident in the purpose of God that Adam failed to obey the single and simple injunction of his Creator.(Gal.3:13).
If you were God would you do this? If so, why?
It makes sense that God did this.
The Bible tell us that God is Love.
Interestingly people who have had near death experiences also describe God as unconditional pure Love:
"Near-death experiencers who have actually seen the brilliant light and experienced the ecstatic love, know without a doubt they have seen God. Once they enter into the light of God, they never want to leave." http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research21.html
Love expresses itself in relationships. Love can not be forced and so God had to offer man a choice.
It would have been pointless for God to create robot-like humans with no free will.
Man is an image of God. Our test in this life is to demonstrate our ability to love others as God loves us.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.
In granting us freedom of choice, God does not seek His own, He "suffers" with our choices.
God's sufferings are caused by His compassion with creation. The word "compassion" comes from the Latin and means "with-suffer" or "suffer-together".
The consequence of man's choice is Hell. Hell is basically a place of eternal separation from God. A person in hell is separated from all the love, for which we were created. Instead of knowing God as a loving father, one will know God as judge (Romans 2: 5-8).
A significant thing to note is that in the New Testament, hell is not described as a place of torture but rather a place of torment (Luke 16:23-28, Revelation 14:11). Torture is inflicted against one's will, while torment is self-inflicted by one's own will.
Everyone in hell will know that the pain he or she is suffering is self-induced. The flames of hell are generated by the individual who has rejected God. It is not a place where people are forced against their will to undergo agonizing pain.
Unbelievers often use this image to portray God as a cruel and vindictive being. However, the torment of hell comes from the individual who rejects Love, who chooses not to love God.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Hell is a spiritual condition we create by being away from God until we choose to return to God. Hell is a spiritual condition that is totally devoid of love. (Sandra Rogers) http://www.near-death.com/experiences/suicide03.htmlPosts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
vwwvv: ''It makes sense that God did this.''
Would I have to be spiritual to understand what you just said?
''Love can not be forced and so God had to offer man a choice.''
I agree love cannot be forced because it is ''natural'' to love. From my position then why do you think God gave man a choice... since a forced love is unnatural?
''It would have been pointless for God to create robot-like humans with no free will.''
Lack of ''free will'' would have meant no problems to solve; no heartache to deal with.
''Man is an image of God.''
There's the answer.
''Our test in this life is to demonstrate our ability to love others as God loves us.''
But God knew this was an impossibility at the creation... didn't he?
''In granting us freedom of choice, God does not seek His own, He "suffers" with our choices.''
God doesn't suffer with our choices because those choices aren't ours--He's the creator. Therefore he instilled in humans his choices.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are created with the capacity to both love and hate; it is part of our being created in the image of God. The fact that we are all tainted with sin does not negate the fact that the ability to love and hate is part of the image of God that was created within us all.
The object of God’s hatred is sin. God hates sin because it is contrary to His nature. God is holy and hates sin. If He did not hate sin, He would not be holy. God is love, but He is also holy, pure and righteous.
In fact, David writes, “For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you” (Psalm 5:4)
Agape is love which is of and from God, whose very nature is love itself. The Apostle John affirms this in 1 John 4:8: “God is love.” God does not merely love; He is love itself. Everything God does flows from His love.
He loves us, not because we deserve to be loved, but because it is His nature to do so, and He must be true to His nature and character.
His love was demonstrated when He sent His Son into the world to “seek and save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10), and to provide eternal life to those He sought and saved. He paid the ultimate sacrifice for those He loves.
Sacrificial love is not based on a feeling, but a determined act of the will, a joyful resolve to put the welfare of others above our own. But this type of love does not come naturally to humans. Because of our fallen nature, we are incapable of producing such a love. If we are to love as God loves, that love—that agape—can only come from its true Source. This is the love which “has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us” when we became His children (Romans 5:5).
Because God’s very nature is love, He must demonstrate love, just as He must demonstrate all His attributes because doing so glorifies Him.
Since it is God's essential nature to love, He demonstrates His love by lavishing it on undeserving people who are in rebellion against Him.
It is important to note that God’s love is a love that initiates; it is never a response. That is precisely what makes it unconditional. If God’s love were conditional, then we would have to do something to earn or merit it.
The biblical message—the gospel—is that God, motivated by love, moved unconditionally to save His people from their sin.
It is only because we are “partakers of the Divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) that we are able to love God and others, even our enemies. In our natural (unsaved) state, we are only able to act according to our fallen natures because we belong to the evil one. When we come to Christ in faith, God gives us a new nature (2 Corinthians 5:17).
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: We are created with the capacity to both love and hate; it is part of our being created in the image of God. The fact that we are all tainted with sin does not negate the fact that the ability to love and hate is part of the image of God that was created within us all.
The object of God’s hatred is sin. God hates sin because it is contrary to His nature. God is holy and hates sin. If He did not hate sin, He would not be holy. God is love, but He is also holy, pure and righteous.
In fact, David writes, “For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you” (Psalm 5:4)
Agape is love which is of and from God, whose very nature is love itself. The Apostle John affirms this in 1 John 4:8: “God is love.” God does not merely love; He is love itself. Everything God does flows from His love.
He loves us, not because we deserve to be loved, but because it is His nature to do so, and He must be true to His nature and character.
His love was demonstrated when He sent His Son into the world to “seek and save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10), and to provide eternal life to those He sought and saved. He paid the ultimate sacrifice for those He loves.
Sacrificial love is not based on a feeling, but a determined act of the will, a joyful resolve to put the welfare of others above our own. But this type of love does not come naturally to humans. Because of our fallen nature, we are incapable of producing such a love. If we are to love as God loves, that love—that agape—can only come from its true Source. This is the love which “has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us” when we became His children (Romans 5:5).
I cut and paste one of your sentences into google and ............... so many websites have the same sentence.
You are in essence spam. Brainless pathetic droid, who uses other ppls words.
Shame on you. low life plagiarist. Members here are giving you their opinions, and you cut and paste answers?
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't like my copy and pastes then DON'T read them! English is not my native language and it takes a lot more time for me to compose a reply with my own words. That's hard for you to understand, you being an native English speaker, but that's the way it is. I am definitely not going to spend my time composing my own replies when I can save so much time copying and pasting an article or a viewpoint that completely represents my own views. I will continue to do so and if you don't like it well, that's too bad for you. You can go fvck yourself. And be very careful who you are calling low-life, monkey.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Hell is a spiritual condition we create by being away from God until we choose to return to God. Hell is a spiritual condition that is totally devoid of love. (Sandra Rogers) http://www.near-death.com/experiences/suicide03.html
Near Death experiences have been documented across all cultures and continents by Jefferey Long MD, author of Evidence of the afterlife. From India, to Africa, in their own languages, those who have undergone near death have remarkably similar experiences. Near Death experiences are yet another type of witness to men, that after this life, there is that which must be faced, when they meet the power of God.
Long has these some of these experiences posted on his website: www.nderf.org
There is an interesting segment of Near Death Exper not often mentioned in the popular accounts of it. Long also documented these in a book called "Closer To the Light" I think. In them, about 20% of NDEs saw or became aware of another area, a zone of darkness and desolation. Many interpreted this as the area in which the lost were. It is not common among NDEs but frequent enough to be clear documented as part of the experience. This area or zone of darkness and desolation tracks with much of what religions around the world speak of, as coming after death, whether it be the Greeks, tribal religions speaking of wandering spirits unable to rest in the darkness, or the ancient Egyptians, and the elaborate preparations they made to face what they considered to be a passage of great danger, beyond death's portal.
Those who mock the power of God are toying with their entire future existence, one that bodes ill for them. The ancients spoke of being prepared in one way or another, of meeting some greater force. Hence in almost all religions the need for a guide, a mediator, someone to lean on thru the passage beyond the light. For tribal religions it was the shaman or witchdoctor. For ancient Egyptians it was he priests. For others, something else. Whatever the form, the fundamental principle of having to face something beyond this life is there. Humanity has always had a sense of something beyond, of an accountability that would come due. There are many who mock it at the present time. But inevitably, they will take their place in the grave, and then will face the power of the God they mocked.
There are some who object to "copy and paste" but show themselves hypocritical, as they themselves use copy and paste when it suits them. One such objector himself copied and pasted a salmon recipe as shown in the link below. Now why would they themselves copy and paste information, yet object when you provide information from elsewhere? Such hypocrisy speak volumes.
posted
"You are in essence spam. Brainless pathetic droid, who uses other ppls words."
Listen you rude prick: a spammer is someone who is posting long articles that have nothing to do with the questions asked. I have my own opinions and I search for articles that reflect my own opinions, I don't just mindlessly post "other peoples' words" as you say. Just because I hate writing long posts in English, it doesn't mean that I am "brainless" with no opinion of my own, only a brainless person like yourself would think that.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alan Lamoon: Near Death experiences have been documented across all cultures and continents by Jefferey Long MD, author of Evidence of the afterlife. From India, to Africa, in their own languages, those who have undergone near death have remarkably similar experiences. Near Death experiences are yet another type of witness to men, that after this life, there is that which must be faced, when they meet the power of God.
It is indeed remarkable that people of all cultures and faiths describe God in their near death experiences in the same way! They encounter a being of light and get a feeling indescribable love. Perhaps when Jesus said “No one comes to the Father except through me" he meant that "No one comes to the Father except through Love".
quote:Originally posted by Alan Lamoon: There are some who object to "copy and paste" but show themselves hypocritical, as they themselves use copy and paste when it suits them.
Some people just look for an excuse to divert the attention from the subject that is being discussed, so that other posters won't read your arguments. I think it is quite obvious. As soon as they run out of arguments or don't agree with your views they will find any excuse to personally attack you, belittle you, and mock you, anything to distract other posters from reading your posts. I find it amuzing how they "warn" other posters not to read my posts, because I am "brainless", "pathetic" with "no mind of my own". Notice how they emphasize my "brainlessness" to "warn" other posters about my posts and how it's my "brainlessness" that is their problem and not the copy and paste itself. Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Often when I have debated lets say a Muslim, They will start to use insults and attacks when there arguements get torn to shreds.
Simple Questions about there faith brings it out in them. You would think that there faith would make them more secure in themselves, yet sadly that is not the case.
You are a breath of fresh air for this forum so I urge you to continue to post because learning never stops.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"God doesn't suffer with our choices because those choices aren't ours--He's the creator. Therefore he instilled in humans his choices."
The Bible says "God is a Mystery". We don't know everything about God. We only know what God chose to reveal to us about Himself. So it is impossible to answer your questions. It could be that even the premise of your question is wrong. Perhaps there is no God vs Us. Perhaps God and us aren't really separate.
The following Near Death Experience testimony comes from Kevin Williams:
Ken's vision of a heavenly river made up of drops of water representing human experiences is an excellent description of our one-ness which many near-death experiencers bring back with them. In this instance, the heavenly river represents God and each drop is a human lifetime. A drop of water is both a part of the river and within itself is the nature of the Whole River itself. Our spirit is an individualized part of the Whole (God) and yet within it is the Whole itself (the fractal concept again). Near-death experiencers describe experiencing this one-ness when they merge fully into the light during their NDE. The drop of water merges once again with the sea to become the Whole Sea again.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
''The object of God’s hatred is sin. God hates sin because it is contrary to His nature. God is holy and hates sin. If He did not hate sin, He would not be holy.''
Yet you posted this:
God had in the beginning doomed man to be a sinner, for it was no accident in the purpose of God that Adam failed to obey the single and simple injunction of his Creator.At the cross God cursed His Son. It is a thought awful to contemplate, yet true, for He became a curse for our sakes (Gal.3:13).
That is a glaring contradiction between your comments and the Biblical verse? In other words since sin is contrary to His nature (your comment) but Galatians says God doomed man in the beginning, then how can your statement be true? Those comments oppose each other. Either yours cancels Galatians or Galatians cancels yours.
Since the Bible is the word from your position, then isn't it likely God deliberately fashioned Adam into sin and that even Eve had no choice in the matter? Galatians effectively stated this above.
My position tells me maybe God really didn't know the result of what his creation was until it was too late. Yet if he didn't know then He wouldn't be omniscient. But if He *is* omniscient then we have another problem; and a huge one that. And it all goes back to the Galatians verse above, which is troubling to say the least.
''So it is impossible to answer your questions.''
Not if you think in a reasoned and logical manner.
''It could be that even the premise of your question is wrong. Perhaps there is no God vs Us. Perhaps God and us aren't really separate.''
Then my premise wouldn't be wrong since you say this: ''Perhaps there is no God vs Us. Perhaps God and us aren't really separate.''Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Often when I have debated lets say a Muslim, They will start to use insults and attacks when there arguements get torn to shreds.
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv:I will continue to do so and if you don't like it well, that's too bad for you. You can go fvck yourself. And be very careful who you are calling low-life, monkey.
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: Listen you rude prick: only a brainless person like yourself would think that.
Example of vwwvv NOT plagiarising someone elses words. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
God did not "doom man to be a sinner" in the beginning, nor did he fashion Adam and Eve to be sinners. That is inaccurate and contrary to the plain speaking of the scriptures. He gave man a free will, but being God, knew the future, and knew that man would sin. This is wholly different from saying he "doomed" man to sin. There is nothing theologically complicated about this. A mother "knows" her child will pick up her neatly folded laundry and mess it up even when she says not to. But she doesn’t as a result keep the child in chains 24/7. She warns the child but allows it to play and live as usual. When the child disobeys, then the mother brings in corrective action. But "knowing" that the child will interfere with the laundry does not mean that the mother "forced" or "doomed" the child to do it. It is perfectly sensible to "know" certain things that will likely happen in advance. How much more the creator of man and the universe?
God as the creator of both man, and time and space, knows what will happen now and in the future. It is his prerogative entirely. He does not have to explain it to anyone. Stephen King does not have to “explain” every line in his book to anybody who shows up at the door, nor does he have to give out his credit card numbers to the same. It is his prerogative to keep that information to himself. He is under no obligation to share it with anybody. We would think it the height of foolishness to go to author Stephen King and demand he release his private credit card information. Why then do people think that the Creator of the universe will indulge their whims or idle questions simply because they say so? As if God is supposed to drop everything and pander to them?
And Galatians 3: vs 13, says nothing about God “dooming” man. 3:13 “Christ has redeemed us out of the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, (for it is written, Cursed is every one hanged upon a tree,)” It plainly speaks of the curse of the law. There is nothing there about God cursing man or cursing Christ. Any such notion is false and contradicted by the plain showing of the text. The curse of the law is how it exposed and showed up man’s wickedness and failure to put away sin. The curse of the law “thou shalt not” - is this a continual point of exposure and failure. But the failure is on man’s part, not god’s. Thou shalt not steal for example is a continual reproach to men, like a dagger. They know stealing is wrong but yet the go ahead and do it anyway. And always, always, the law exposes or sets a standard they have failed to meet. That is the curse of the law. Christ, by taking on the complete burden of that failure and exposure by his death, burial and resurrection, freed men from the curse of the law- that continual exposure and failure. There are those men who despise the mercy of God in Christ. They will find out when they pass death’s portal that the mercy of God has ceased, Then it will be a question of His power.
And God and man are separate, lets be clear about that. The scriptures make that clear. God is beyond the bounds of human wisdom or learning. He is not bound by man’s reasons, measurements or imagination. To say that “we all are one with God” is not scriptural at all. Men are not God, How can they be? Nor are angels God. They are separate creatures. The creature can be raised to the heights of divine bliss byt eh Creator, but ultimately, He always is and always will be the Creator.
Scripture always makes that distinction. To not make the distinction is the height of folly. Now, men, as being with Christ on the other side of death, can be embraced in the “oneness” of divine love where there is no barrier to them knowing that love, but that is altogether different, wholly different from saying that “God and us aren’t really separate.” It is right to say that believers are not separated from the love of God, but lets be clear. We are talking about God here. Men are creatures and will always be creatures. God is God, and as such, his ultimate nature cannot be fathomed by men. We can only go as far, or know as far as God Himself permits. That is His prerogative, and His right. He doesn’t have to explain it to anyone.
Finally there isn’t any “glaring contradiction” involved at all with Galatians or whatever. Grumman is tying himself in knots over something he don’t understand. Adam and Even always had the choice to obey God’s word. They chose not to, and thus bore the consequences. That’s fair, and that’s what the Day of Judgment is all about. In that day, as it says in Revelation, books will be opened, and those who despise God’s power will be judged according to their works. That is perfectly fair – it’s according to your works, and the books contain every detail with full accuracy, and the Creator has an absolute right to do that. There will be no fairer judgment in the universe than the Day of Judgment, because all will be open to scrutiny. Some people make a choice to dismiss the Revelation of God in Christ. Fine. They made their choice. They have to bear the consequences. Indeed, this is how life operates in general. We make choices as intelligent beings, and deal with the consequences. It’s called accountability.
Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bit disappointed in you Ayisha. Unprovoked attacks ("Brainless pathetic droid, who uses other ppls words. Shame on you. low life plagiarist.") are generally meant to ellicit some sort of response, so it's really no use vilifying someone when they actually do react!
Using carefully chosen references to get ones point across is not plagiarism, it's the way of scholars down the centuries. As such, it is much much more worthwhile than posting rubbishy YouTube videos, which you never complain about. I really don't think that we need to have each reference attributed, either. It's not as if vwwvv is expounding some sort of new theory or anything, it's just plain and simple opinion or experience which has been common to millions of us over the last two thousand years or so. Give her/him a break!!!!!
Posts: 430 | From: luxor | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: Using carefully chosen references to get ones point across is not plagiarism, it's the way of scholars down the centuries. As such, it is much much more worthwhile than posting rubbishy YouTube videos, which you never complain about. I really don't think that we need to have each reference attributed, either.
It's simply bad style to reply to each and every post with a flood of copy and paste texts. And not giving the reference is anything but "scholarly", it makes it look as if other people's words are being used as your own ones. If you don't want to purposefully mislead people, why not cite your references? It's just a few clicks more when you're in the process of copying and pasting anyway. Posts: 2803 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: I'm a bit disappointed in you Ayisha. Unprovoked attacks ("Brainless pathetic droid, who uses other ppls words. Shame on you. low life plagiarist.") are generally meant to ellicit some sort of response, so it's really no use vilifying someone when they actually do react!
Using carefully chosen references to get ones point across is not plagiarism, it's the way of scholars down the centuries. As such, it is much much more worthwhile than posting rubbishy YouTube videos, which you never complain about. I really don't think that we need to have each reference attributed, either. It's not as if vwwvv is expounding some sort of new theory or anything, it's just plain and simple opinion or experience which has been common to millions of us over the last two thousand years or so. Give her/him a break!!!!!
Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense: According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means
* to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own * to use (another's production) without crediting the source * to commit literary theft * to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward. But can words and ideas really be stolen?
According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file). All of the following are considered plagiarism:
* turning in someone else's work as your own * copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit * failing to put a quotation in quotation marks * giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation * changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit * copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)
Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. See our section on citation for more information on how to cite sources properly.
My own words: someone that does not have the ability to use their own words yet copies and pastes entire posts one after another in reply to someone that has used their own words is the work of a brainless pathetic droid who uses other peoples words. Amazing you see that as an attack and not "You can go fvck yourself." and "you rude prick:" Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry to have to disagree. I haven't read anything posted by the poster in question which could be described as "original thought", as I indicated, everything (or so it seems to me) is re-counting ideas or experiences which have been known to countless Christians for the past 2000 years! I do agree, however, that anything which was "new" or distinctly personal to only one person, would be a different kettle of fish. What vwwvv has posted is the same (or almost the same) as that which I or millions of others could have done, but in some cases put more eloquently. What possible harm is there? As for the bad language, I cannot condone it, but (and let's face it) that is certainly not new or even uncommon on this site. Finally, to vwwvv, if you ever find anything worth copying and pasting in my offerings on here or anywhere else, please feel free to use it without any reference to me at all!
Posts: 430 | From: luxor | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ourluxor, people like ' Ayisha' are not interested in hearing the 'other side'. You have seen yourself how she purposely twist your arguments and manipulate your own words, in order to give some false validity to her own. That is intellectually dishonest, and she knows that, and really it says a lot about her. I don't blame her though, I guess she's emulating her prophet's way of "refuting" arguments. Muhammad's dishonest tactic of "debating" Christianity can be seen in the Quran where he is attacking the Christian doctrines by purposely misinforming his audience about them.
Take the doctrine of Trinity for example. Muhammad "refutes" it by presenting the followers of Christ as believing Jesus and Mary as two other separate gods which are elevated to the level of God. Instead of adressing the real doctrine of Trinity, he denounces trinity as "God, Jesus and Mary", although the Christian doctrine of Trinity is completely different. In essence he 'refutes' nothing about the Christian doctrine of Trinity, instead he builds straw man's arguments and then knock them down.
Many posters in this forum do the same.
"I'm a bit disappointed in you Ayisha. Unprovoked attacks ("Brainless pathetic droid, who uses other ppls words. Shame on you. low life plagiarist.") are generally meant to ellicit some sort of response, so it's really no use vilifying someone when they actually do react!"
Do you see what a manipulating person she is? Notice how these people never adress the arguments that are being posted. Instead of adressing an argument, they divert the attention to the poster, hoping she or he will take the bait and react to their repeated personal attacks. They will then hasten to "warn" other posters not to read their posts, because a 'bad' person using 'foul' language is unworthy to be read.
Should that fail, they will try to discredit your source. If it comes from an anti-Islamic (or percieved anti-Islamic) source they will refuse to even read it or debate it with you.
If you post your argument with your own words, they will find fault with your grammar, they will accuse you of not 'comprehending' English properly, and again they will try to draw personal information out of you to divert the attention from your arguments. Anything to divert attention from your post.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: If you don't like my copy and pastes then DON'T read them! English is not my native language and it takes a lot more time for me to compose a reply with my own words. That's hard for you to understand, you being an native English speaker, but that's the way it is. I am definitely not going to spend my time composing my own replies when I can save so much time copying and pasting an article or a viewpoint that completely represents my own views. I will continue to do so and if you don't like it well, that's too bad for you. You can go fvck yourself. And be very careful who you are calling low-life, monkey.
Now I've heard everything. So you're justifying plagiarism because English is not your native language. Here's a novel idea, how about using quotes, cites references, a common courtesy on the net is to use a link to the source. How about starting your post with something along the lines of "These aren't my words but they accurately express my viewpoint." Replying in the manner that you do is deceptive to say the least.
I'm curious though, so when someone writes for example a post that states “Red is the best color”, but you disagree, do you then, search “Red is the worst color” and proceed to copy word for word that argument, how rich.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: Ourluxor, people like ' Ayisha' are not interested in hearing the 'other side'. You have seen yourself how she purposely twist your arguments and manipulate your own words, in order to give some false validity to her own. That is intellectually dishonest, and she knows that, and really it says a lot about her. I don't blame her though, I guess she's emulating her prophet's way of "refuting" arguments. Muhammad's dishonest tactic of "debating" Christianity can be seen in the Quran where he is attacking the Christian doctrines by purposely misinforming his audience about them.
Take the doctrine of Trinity for example. Muhammad "refutes" it by presenting the followers of Christ as believing Jesus and Mary as two other separate gods which are elevated to the level of God. Instead of adressing the real doctrine of Trinity, he denounces trinity as "God, Jesus and Mary", although the Christian doctrine of Trinity is completely different. In essence he 'refutes' nothing about the Christian doctrine of Trinity, instead he builds straw man's arguments and then knock them down.
Many posters in this forum do the same.
"I'm a bit disappointed in you Ayisha. Unprovoked attacks ("Brainless pathetic droid, who uses other ppls words. Shame on you. low life plagiarist.") are generally meant to ellicit some sort of response, so it's really no use vilifying someone when they actually do react!"
Do you see what a manipulating person she is? Notice how these people never adress the arguments that are being posted. Instead of adressing an argument, they divert the attention to the poster, hoping she or he will take the bait and react to their repeated personal attacks. They will then hasten to "warn" other posters not to read their posts, because a 'bad' person using 'foul' language is unworthy to be read.
Should that fail, they will try to discredit your source. If it comes from an anti-Islamic (or percieved anti-Islamic) source they will refuse to even read it or debate it with you.
If you post your argument with your own words, they will find fault with your grammar, they will accuse you of not 'comprehending' English properly, and again they will try to draw personal information out of you to divert the attention from your arguments. Anything to divert attention from your post.
wow I did all that in my very few posts on this thread?
If this is an example of your own words, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your English so why do you have to use other peoples words in all your replies? Can you not think for yourself?
I do not address any of the arguments you use, we can't call them your arguments, because I have no interest in talking to a copy paste droid devoid of original thought, and I have better things to do with my time.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Replying in the manner that you do is deceptive to say the least." Are you kidding? If the words describe vwwvv's feelings, beliefs, or experiences what can possibly be deceptive about them. Just because someone else has had the same beliefs etc. before doesn't make the words copywrite, surely? Anyway, the other posters, you included, wouldn't allow anyone to believe that these words were "original thought", would you?
"devoid of original thought" I cannot believe that there can be any original thought on Christianity after 2000 years of thinking, and (although I'm sorry to have to point it out) it's nonsense to imagine otherwise! You might as well agree with the younger generation which really believes that it has just invented sex!!!!!
Posts: 430 | From: luxor | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
''God did not "doom man to be a sinner" in the beginning, nor did he fashion Adam and Eve to be sinners. That is inaccurate and contrary to the plain speaking of the scriptures. He gave man a free will, but being God, knew the future, and knew that man would sin. This is wholly different from saying he "doomed" man to sin. There is nothing theologically complicated about this.'
You plainly state God *knew* what Adam was going to do in the garden after the dispensing of the free will, yet you say he didn't doom Adam. In order for this not to be theologically complicated you will have to come up with another explanation to make something you don't understand fit your theological interpretation of God's thoughts, i.e., was Adam was doomed from the start. I say he was. And you haven't done anything to relieve me of your burden of apologetic insight.
You also allowed God doesn't have to explain anything to anyone. Well of course not the religious community has seen fit to interject their own ideas as to why Adam ''sinned'' in the Garden.
''A mother "knows" her child will pick up her neatly folded laundry and mess it up even when she says not to. But she doesn’t as a result keep the child in chains 24/7. She warns the child but allows it to play and live as usual. When the child disobeys, then the mother brings in corrective action. But "knowing" that the child will interfere with the laundry does not mean that the mother "forced" or "doomed" the child to do it. It is perfectly sensible to "know" certain things that will likely happen in advance. How much more the creator of man and the universe?''
Here's a counter-analogy to your woefully inadequate application of ''knowing.''
Everyone knows, or should know, that a boiling pot of water on a stove, left unattended by adults, has no business being on the front burner with the handle in an easily grasped position where tiny young hands are in the immediate vicinity. And knowing the curiousness of that same innocent child far to young to understand what will happen until they pull the handle on the pot thereby releasing scalding water on their tiny little bodies, then how is your logic applicable in saying the kid had a choice to not pull the handle when the handle by any reasonable estimate of compassion should have been put on the back burner at the placement of the pot, long bfore the water reached its boiling point, not as something as simple as a period closing a sentence? But could it be that your Adam was a ''fully formed and functioning human'' and should have known better?
If this Adam was fully formed thereby giving him the requisite skills to differentiate ''right from wrong'' then you still have to explain why he (Adam) didn't see any harm in tampering with the tree simply because it was stated he shouldn't do it. Further, if you invoke death as a long-term result of Adams tampering then how do you explain death to Adam who had no concept of the idea.
''And Galatians 3: vs 13, says nothing about God “dooming” man.''
Vwwvv posted doomed, not me. But it doesn't matter, Adam was doomed from the beginning, according to rules of logic
Thus the glaring contradiction remains.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: "Replying in the manner that you do is deceptive to say the least." Are you kidding? If the words describe vwwvv's feelings, beliefs, or experiences what can possibly be deceptive about them. Just because someone else has had the same beliefs etc. before doesn't make the words copywrite, surely? Anyway, the other posters, you included, wouldn't allow anyone to believe that these words were "original thought", would you?
No I'm not kidding. Using other people's content as your own is “wrongful appropriation.” There is a standard that is universally adhered to, and that is to cite a reference when using other people's work/words. The internet is not an exception, and violations may be reported to DMCA, it's a big problem, and ES serial plagiarist is part of it.
It is deceptive, irregardless of the copied content agreeing with viewpoint of the poster. They are not his/her words and without citing references he/she is presenting the content as his/her own, very unethical.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: In other words since sin is contrary to His nature (your comment) but Galatians says God doomed man in the beginning, then how can your statement be true?
God doomed man in the sense that he granted him the freedom to disobey him.
Adam and Eve did not know what good and evil was until after they 'ate' from the forbidden tree of knowledge. They could have trusted God, but they didn't.
When Adam lost faith in God by disobeying him, he lost the Word of God which had been given him for the fulfillment of the condition to establish the foundation of faith. As a result, fallen people could no longer directly receive the Word of God to restore the foundation of faith. It then became necessary to offer objects for the condition as substitutes for the Word. Christ restored what Adam lost.
God being omniscient he knew that Adam and Eve would sin, but such fore-knowing should not be translated as being causative. One illustration to explain this is as follows (remembering that all illustrations about God must fall short—a symptom of the finite trying to explain the infinite).
Imagine a man in a car driving along a narrow country road. He passes a cow and is approaching a bend. On the other side of the bend is a large semi-trailer travelling at high speed on the wrong side of the road. A crash is inevitable. To the driver, approaching the bend, the cow is now in the past, he is experiencing the present, and his hitting the semi-trailer is in the future. Now imagine a pilot in a helicopter above the scene. The pilot can see the cow, the car, and the semi-trailer all at once, so in a sense, what is past, present and future to the driver is all one to the pilot. Furthermore the pilot can see that a crash is inevitable, even though the driver does not know it is going to happen. Does the pilot cause the crash just because he knows it is going to happen? Assuredly not!
Our problem in understanding these matters of God’s eternal perspective is encapsulated in Ecclessiastes 3:11:
‘He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot fathom what God has done from the beginning to the end.’
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: And knowing the curiousness of that same innocent child far to young to understand what will happen until they pull the handle on the pot thereby releasing scalding water on their tiny little bodies, then how is your logic applicable in saying the kid had a choice to not pull the handle when the handle by any reasonable estimate of compassion should have been put on the back burner at the placement of the pot, long bfore the water reached its boiling point, not as something as simple as a period closing a sentence?
God could have prevented Adam from disobeying him, but he chose not to. He could have created Adam and Eve as robots with no will of their own, "programmed" to love Him, however this "love" for God wouldn't have been love at all because love always involves a choice or a decision on our part.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Lack of ''free will'' would have meant no problems to solve; no heartache to deal with.
John in relevation says that there will be a time when "The saved, once glorified, will no longer sin throughout eternity" (Rev. 21:4,27).
Sin was a consequence of free will. Adam was given a free will and he chose to disobey God.
Christ, even though he didn't sin, had free will too. He refused to rely on his divine nature to make obedience easier for him:
John 10:17-18. "I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." Obviously, Jesus is here asserting that He can lay down His Life of His own volition. We can also point to the temptation in the wilderness (Matt. 4) as evidence that Jesus had freedom to do what He pleased. What he chose was not to sin.
The choice of Adam and Eve to sin against God resulted in drastic changes, physically as well as to their natures. They and their progeny would now have a sinful nature - their proclivity would be toward sin
Our belief in Jesus produces an irreversible change in us as well. We use the term "born again" from John 3:3 to describe our new relationship with God. Paul talks about the "new man" (Eph 4) and tells us "If any man is in Christ he is a new creation, all things have passed away, behold all has become new" (2 Cor. 5:17)
Paul writes, "We shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection." We see something similar in written in 1 John 3:2, "We know that, when he appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see him just as he is."
We have a new, divine nature in Christ. This nature cannot sin, just as Christ cannot sin. Even though Jesus could not sin, He was still free. Therefore, we can exist with free will in heaven and we will not sin. We know this is not an illogical idea, since no one argues that God has no free will, yet God cannot sin. So, it is possible for a being to exist, be truly free and not able to sin.
Many times people ask "Why would God allow evil in the world to begin with? Why wouldn't he just create beings who could not sin at the beginning?"
In a debate against Dr. Ray Bradley in 1994 William Lane Craig was asked why God didn't just create heaven as the world and forego the rest.
Craig responded: "No,Heaven may not be a possible world when you take it in isolation by itself. It may be that the only way in which God could actualize a heaven of free creatures all worshiping Him and not falling into sin would be by having, so to speak, this run-up to it, this advance life during which there is a veil of decision-making in which some people choose for God and some people against God. Otherwise you don't know that heaven is an actualizable world. You have no way of knowing that possibility."
Dr. Bradley: "You're saying, in effect, that when I characterize heaven as a possible world in which everybody freely receives Christ, I'm wrong insofar as that had to be preceded by this actual world, this world of vale of tears and woe in which people are sinful and the like."
Dr. Craig: "I'm saying that it may not be feasible for God to actualize heaven in isolation from such an antecedent world."
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: In other words since sin is contrary to His nature (your comment) but Galatians says God doomed man in the beginning, then how can your statement be true?
God doomed man in the sense that he granted him the freedom to disobey him.
Adam and Eve did not know what good and evil was until after they 'ate' from the forbidden tree of knowledge. They could have trusted God, but they didn't.
When Adam lost faith in God by disobeying him, he lost the Word of God which had been given him for the fulfillment of the condition to establish the foundation of faith. As a result, fallen people could no longer directly receive the Word of God to restore the foundation of faith. It then became necessary to offer objects for the condition as substitutes for the Word. Christ restored what Adam lost.
God being omniscient he knew that Adam and Eve would sin, but such fore-knowing should not be translated as being causative. One illustration to explain this is as follows (remembering that all illustrations about God must fall short—a symptom of the finite trying to explain the infinite).
Imagine a man in a car driving along a narrow country road. He passes a cow and is approaching a bend. On the other side of the bend is a large semi-trailer travelling at high speed on the wrong side of the road. A crash is inevitable. To the driver, approaching the bend, the cow is now in the past, he is experiencing the present, and his hitting the semi-trailer is in the future. Now imagine a pilot in a helicopter above the scene. The pilot can see the cow, the car, and the semi-trailer all at once, so in a sense, what is past, present and future to the driver is all one to the pilot. Furthermore the pilot can see that a crash is inevitable, even though the driver does not know it is going to happen. Does the pilot cause the crash just because he knows it is going to happen? Assuredly not!
Our problem in understanding these matters of God’s eternal perspective is encapsulated in Ecclessiastes 3:11:
‘He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot fathom what God has done from the beginning to the end.’
posted
Originally posted by Grumman: You plainly state God *knew* what Adam was going to do in the garden after the dispensing of the free will, yet you say he didn't doom Adam. In order for this not to be theologically complicated you will have to come up with another explanation to make something you don't understand fit your theological interpretation of God's thoughts, i.e., was Adam was doomed from the start. I say he was. And you haven't done anything to relieve me of your burden of apologetic insight.
I don't have to do anything to relieve you, nor do I need to come up with another explanation for that which you do not or choose not to understand. You can say whatever you want about Adam. It makes little difference, and will not affect what the scripture says. What it will affect is your final position as having to face the power of the God you reject.
You also allowed God doesn't have to explain anything to anyone. Well of course not the religious community has seen fit to interject their own ideas as to why Adam ''sinned'' in the Garden.
Again, you are free to come up with your own theory. It makes little difference.
Here's a counter-analogy to your woefully inadequate application of ''knowing.'' Everyone knows, or should know, that a boiling pot of water on a stove, left unattended by adults, has no business being on the front burner with the handle in an easily grasped position where tiny young hands are in the immediate vicinity. And knowing the curiousness of that same innocent child far to young to understand what will happen until they pull the handle on the pot thereby releasing scalding water on their tiny little bodies, then how is your logic applicable in saying the kid had a choice to not pull the handle when the handle by any reasonable estimate of compassion should have been put on the back burner at the placement of the pot, long bfore the water reached its boiling point, not as something as simple as a period closing a sentence? But could it be that your Adam was a ''fully formed and functioning human'' and should have known better?
The problem with your counter-analogy is that Adam knew that he was doing wrong. He had to go out of his way to disobey God. The "pot handle" in that case was not only on the back burner but turned away as well. Adam did not "have" to know every twist and turn of the final result thousands of years later, or even 2 years later, to know that he was doing wrong. Human beings don't "have" to know what will happen 50 years hence to decide on a good or bad action, now. In like manner, a child does not have to know, and cannot know the result of some disobedient act 40 years later. He has to trust his parents, who know better than he does. But you already know this.
Your own atheist situation is like your child example above. The word of God is before you warning you of the judgment to come. You do not know when your time will be up- it may be in 2 years, or 50 years. You do not know how you will die, or exactly what the scene will look like at the other end. The choice is up to you at the present time to accept or reject the word of God. If you reject it, you will have to pay the price. That's perfectly fair. You have free choice. You have been informed of the dangers, and you choose to dismiss the information. Fine. But again, you will have to face the power of God later on.
If this Adam was fully formed thereby giving him the requisite skills to differentiate ''right from wrong'' then you still have to explain why he (Adam) didn't see any harm in tampering with the tree simply because it was stated he shouldn't do it. Further, if you invoke death as a long-term result of Adams tampering then how do you explain death to Adam who had no concept of the idea.
Who says Adam "didnt see any harm" in tampering with it? Eve certainy was as shown by the scripture.
Vwwvv posted doomed, not me. But it doesn't matter, Adam was doomed from the beginning, according to rules of logic
According to the rules of YOUR logic, which will reap its harvest when you face the power of God.
Thus the glaring contradiction remains.
If it remains thus for you, suit yourself.
Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
''It makes little difference, and will not affect what the scripture says. What it will affect is your final position as having to face the power of the God you reject.''
But my interpretation does affect how I see scripture. So what makes your view right and mine wrong. You will recall you said God is a mystery. You should also take note of your saying God doesn't need to explain anything yet you are doing it for Him. Since that be the case then how is it you think you know what scripture definitively means without specific input fom God? And how did you come to the conclusion I reject the power of God? I reject no such thing, just your interpretation as the only means to come to a conclusion that no one seems to be able to arrive at except with faith and no logic; a logic by the way that raises too many questions with no answers from you nor anyone else on this planet.
''The problem with your counter-analogy is that Adam knew that he was doing wrong. He had to go out of his way to disobey God.''
Again, all the blame goes to Adam simply because of a command? A command that apparently had no substance to it other than a ''thou shalt surely die'', which still wasn't a sufficient explanation from Adam's point of view to make him control his impulse to disobey. Adam had no choice in the matter because he *did* disobey. Adam was designed to obey and disobey. There is nothing mysterious about that.
So whose's at fault here? Is it Adam for disobeying a command that to him didn't have substantive meaning--because he did disobey. Or isn't it highly likely God, as a causitive agent, set things in motion and that Adam and Eve are simply the unwitting tools in the creation process. vwwvv, are you reading?
''The "pot handle" in that case was not only on the back burner but turned away as well.''
...not to such a degree that it prevented Adam and Eve from disobeying.
''Adam did not "have" to know every twist and turn of the final result thousands of years later, or even 2 years later, to know that he was doing wrong.''
If Adam had had a demonstration of God's power showing the ultimate results of his lack of attention to important details then Adam probably wouldn't have taken the course he did; neither would Eve. I said probably; which isn't a gaurantee of anything.
''Human beings don't "have" to know what will happen 50 years hence to decide on a good or bad action, now.''
If those human beings knew that as a result of their actions in the present that it would cause untold misery to their families a couple of generations hence then they may not take a reckless course of action in the present that would cause that future misery. Maybe.
''He has to trust his parents, who know better than he does. But you already know this.
As a child yes. As an adult? Maybe. All parents aren't created equally.
''Your own atheist situation is like your child example above.''
Explain to me how you arrived at an atheist conclusion for me. Am I unnerving you with my questions?
''According to the rules of YOUR logic, which will reap its harvest when you face the power of God.''
Do you think God will single me out for special retribution simply because he gave me the capacity to ask questions that you don't think I should be asking because I know they have no answer and after dialoging with you you don't either. No harm in that though.
vwwvv you're too metaphysical.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alan Lamoon: "God did not "doom man to be a sinner" in the beginning, nor did he fashion Adam and Eve to be sinners."
Grumman: "You plainly state God *knew* what Adam was going to do in the garden after the dispensing of the free will, yet you say he didn't doom Adam."
When we are having children we can't be certain that our children will go through life without making mistakes, nor are we given guarantees that our children will listen to us, yet that doesn't stop us from procreating. Isn't it kind of selfish to bring children into this world?
God’s purpose was to create a world in which His glory could be manifest in all its fullness. The glory of God is the overarching goal of creation. In fact, it is the overarching goal of everything He does.
The universe was created to display God’s glory (Psalm 19:1) The universe was created to display Love's glory since God is Love.
Grumman: "But God knew this was an impossibility at the creation... didn't he?"
It was not an impossibility. Jesus too had a free will. He could have sinned but he didn't. In fact, he was tempted by Satan but he chose not to sin. Adam could have trusted God but he chose not to. He lost his faith, Jesus restored our lost faith.
Grumman: "Everyone knows, or should know, that a boiling pot of water on a stove, left unattended by adults"
God did not prevent Satan from tempting Adam and Eve. However, when man fell into sin, God’s mercy was immediately displayed in not killing him on the spot.
The ultimate exhibition of God’s glory was at the cross where His justice, and mercy met. The righteous judgment of all sin was executed at the cross, and God’s grace was on display in pouring His wrath for sin on His Son, Jesus, instead of on us.
A classic objection is if God created mankind with full knowledge of the impending fall into sin, how can man be responsible for his sin? The best answer to this question can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter III:
“God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established” (WFC, III.1)
What this is saying is that God ordains future events in such a way that our freedom and the working of secondary causes (e.g., laws of nature) are preserved. Theologians call this “concurrence.” God’s sovereign will flows concurrently with our free choices in such a way that our free choices always result in the carrying out of God’s will (by 'free choices' we mean that our choices are not coerced by outside influences).
Wrapping this up, God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin in the Garden of Eden. With that knowledge, God still created Lucifer and Adam and Eve because creating them and ordaining the fall was part of His sovereign plan to manifest His glory in all its fullness. Even though the fall was foreknown, our freedom in making choices is not violated because our free choices are the means by which God’s will is carried out.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:So whose's at fault here? Is it Adam for disobeying a command that to him didn't have substantive meaning--because he did disobey. Or isn't it highly likely God, as a causitive agent, set things in motion and that Adam and Eve are simply the unwitting tools in the creation process. vwwvv, are you reading?
God allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve to force them to make the choice. God wanted to force mankind into making a choice, whether or not to obey him.
Adam and Eve wouldn't have even thought twice -in their heavenly estate- about God's command not to eat of the fruit from the tree. They had no ability within themselves to question God's command. An outside force was necessary in order to present an alternative option. This is the same thing with God's Spirit working upon mankind in the earth today.
These two spirits - the Holy Spirit and satan - have both influenced choices in mankind. Satan influenced men in a holy state to rebel, and the Spirit influences men in a sinful state to choose God. Both spirits influence man to make a choice he would in no wise be able to make of his own power.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: If Adam had had a demonstration of God's power showing the ultimate results of his lack of attention to important details then Adam probably wouldn't have taken the course he did; neither would Eve. I said probably; which isn't a gaurantee of anything.
There is no way that God could show a sinless man - who only knew holiness and no evil – exactly what sin and rebellion would entail. Just showing Adam these things would possibly have made Adam sinful. Adam and Eve had to experience the sensations of rebellion for themselves and then make a choice. Had they experienced ideas contrary to God at any point before satan gave them, they would have been aware of more sins to abstain from than that of just eating the fruit. But witnessing sin would corrupt their mentality. There was no other method available whereby God could give mankind free will, except by the way it has actually happened.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
We know that even before the foundations of the world God chose us in Jesus to be holy and blameless.
Ephesians 1
4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
Romans 8: "20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 thatthe creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."
Romans 8 verse says it was actually God's will to subject the creation to this 'frustration'. We also see that before the world was even made we were chosen in Christ to be holy and blameless.
So maybe the fall was just a step in God's creative process towards him choosing us in Christ to be holy and blameless. Maybe he put the tree in the garden because that was a step in his overall creative process of choosing us in Christ, which he clearly had planned even before the foundations of the world?
Some might ask, well if this is part of the creative process towards choosing us in Jesus, isn't it kinda messy?
Well, when you're baking a cake, you gotta break perfectly good eggs in order to get a great cake. Maybe in God's creative process, it works that way too?
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:So whose's at fault here? Is it Adam for disobeying a command that to him didn't have substantive meaning--because he did disobey. Or isn't it highly likely God, as a causitive agent, set things in motion and that Adam and Eve are simply the unwitting tools in the creation process. vwwvv, are you reading?
God allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve to force them to make the choice. God wanted to force mankind into making a choice, whether or not to obey him.
Adam and Eve wouldn't have even thought twice -in their heavenly estate- about God's command not to eat of the fruit from the tree. They had no ability within themselves to question God's command. An outside force was necessary in order to present an alternative option. This is the same thing with God's Spirit working upon mankind in the earth today.
These two spirits - the Holy Spirit and satan - have both influenced choices in mankind. Satan influenced men in a holy state to rebel, and the Spirit influences men in a sinful state to choose God. Both spirits influence man to make a choice he would in no wise be able to make of his own power.
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: We know that even before the foundations of the Bworld God chose us in Jesus to be holy and blameless.
Ephesians 1
4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
Romans 8: "20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 thatthe creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."
Romans 8 verse says it was actually God's will to subject the creation to this 'frustration'. We also see that before the world was even made we were chosen in Christ to be holy and blameless.
So maybe the fall was just a step in God's creative process towards him choosing us in Christ to be holy and blameless. Maybe he put the tree in the garden because that was a step in his overall creative process of choosing us in Christ, which he clearly had planned even before the foundations of the world?
Some might ask, well if this is part of the creative process towards choosing us in Jesus, isn't it kinda messy?
Well, when you're baking a cake, you gotta break perfectly good eggs in order to get a great cake. Maybe in God's creative process, it works that way too?
quote:There is no way that God could show a sinless man - who only knew holiness and no evil – exactly what sin and rebellion would entail. Just showing Adam these things would possibly have made Adam sinful. Adam and Eve had to experience the sensations of rebellion for themselves and then make a choice. Had they experienced ideas contrary to God at any point before satan gave them, they would have been aware of more sins to abstain from than that of just eating the fruit. But witnessing sin would corrupt their mentality. There was no other method available whereby God could give mankind free will, except by the way it has actually happened.
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alan Lamoon: "God did not "doom man to be a sinner" in the beginning, nor did he fashion Adam and Eve to be sinners."
Grumman: "You plainly state God *knew* what Adam was going to do in the garden after the dispensing of the free will, yet you say he didn't doom Adam."
When we are having children we can't be certain that our children will go through life without making mistakes, nor are we given guarantees that our children will listen to us, yet that doesn't stop us from procreating. Isn't it kind of selfish to bring children into this world?
God’s purpose was to create a world in which His glory could be manifest in all its fullness. The glory of God is the overarching goal of creation. In fact, it is the overarching goal of everything He does.
The universe was created to display God’s glory (Psalm 19:1) The universe was created to display Love's glory since God is Love.
Grumman: "But God knew this was an impossibility at the creation... didn't he?"
It was not an impossibility. Jesus too had a free will. He could have sinned but he didn't. In fact, he was tempted by Satan but he chose not to sin. Adam could have trusted God but he chose not to. He lost his faith, Jesus restored our lost faith.
Grumman: "Everyone knows, or should know, that a boiling pot of water on a stove, left unattended by adults"
God did not prevent Satan from tempting Adam and Eve. However, when man fell into sin, God’s mercy was immediately displayed in not killing him on the spot.
The ultimate exhibition of God’s glory was at the cross where His justice, and mercy met. The righteous judgment of all sin was executed at the cross, and God’s grace was on display in pouring His wrath for sin on His Son, Jesus, instead of on us.
A classic objection is if God created mankind with full knowledge of the impending fall into sin, how can man be responsible for his sin? The best answer to this question can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter III:
“God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established” (WFC, III.1)
What this is saying is that God ordains future events in such a way that our freedom and the working of secondary causes (e.g., laws of nature) are preserved. Theologians call this “concurrence.” God’s sovereign will flows concurrently with our free choices in such a way that our free choices always result in the carrying out of God’s will (by 'free choices' we mean that our choices are not coerced by outside influences).
Wrapping this up, God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin in the Garden of Eden. With that knowledge, God still created Lucifer and Adam and Eve because creating them and ordaining the fall was part of His sovereign plan to manifest His glory in all its fullness. Even though the fall was foreknown, our freedom in making choices is not violated because our free choices are the means by which God’s will is carried out.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:So whose's at fault here? Is it Adam for disobeying a command that to him didn't have substantive meaning--because he did disobey. Or isn't it highly likely God, as a causitive agent, set things in motion and that Adam and Eve are simply the unwitting tools in the creation process. vwwvv, are you reading?
God allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve to force them to make the choice. God wanted to force mankind into making a choice, whether or not to obey him.
Adam and Eve wouldn't have even thought twice -in their heavenly estate- about God's command not to eat of the fruit from the tree. They had no ability within themselves to question God's command. An outside force was necessary in order to present an alternative option. This is the same thing with God's Spirit working upon mankind in the earth today.
These two spirits - the Holy Spirit and satan - have both influenced choices in mankind. Satan influenced men in a holy state to rebel, and the Spirit influences men in a sinful state to choose God. Both spirits influence man to make a choice he would in no wise be able to make of his own power.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: If Adam had had a demonstration of God's power showing the ultimate results of his lack of attention to important details then Adam probably wouldn't have taken the course he did; neither would Eve. I said probably; which isn't a gaurantee of anything.
There is no way that God could show a sinless man - who only knew holiness and no evil – exactly what sin and rebellion would entail. Just showing Adam these things would possibly have made Adam sinful. Adam and Eve had to experience the sensations of rebellion for themselves and then make a choice. Had they experienced ideas contrary to God at any point before satan gave them, they would have been aware of more sins to abstain from than that of just eating the fruit. But witnessing sin would corrupt their mentality. There was no other method available whereby God could give mankind free will, except by the way it has actually happened.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
We know that even before the foundations of the world God chose us in Jesus to be holy and blameless.
Ephesians 1
4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
Romans 8: "20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 thatthe creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."
Romans 8 verse says it was actually God's will to subject the creation to this 'frustration'. We also see that before the world was even made we were chosen in Christ to be holy and blameless.
So maybe the fall was just a step in God's creative process towards him choosing us in Christ to be holy and blameless. Maybe he put the tree in the garden because that was a step in his overall creative process of choosing us in Christ, which he clearly had planned even before the foundations of the world?
Some might ask, well if this is part of the creative process towards choosing us in Jesus, isn't it kinda messy?
Well, when you're baking a cake, you gotta break perfectly good eggs in order to get a great cake. Maybe in God's creative process, it works that way too?
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny about vwvwv, I thought I was going daft!
I've just been watching "A Christmas Carol" starring Alistair Simm. You know; the one with Tiny Tim? So I'll just say "A merry Christmas, and God bless us, every one!"
Posts: 430 | From: luxor | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic