miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,725
2,781
USA
✟101,174.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
HE DECIDED TO CREATE A SCENARIO WHERE HE WOULD LATER SACRIFICE HIMSELF TO HIMSELF TO APPEASE HIMSELF, AND CREATE A LOOPHOLE FOR A SCENARIO HE BOTH KNEW WOULD ALREADY HAPPEN, BUT STILL CREATE. HE THEN DEMANDED THAT ALL TAKE IT ON FAITH ALONE, LACKING EVIDENCE, AND THE ONES WHOM DON'T, WILL FRY FOREVER.
No HE provided a scenario in which HE took on our covering so that we might take on and be hidden in HIS
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,725
2,781
USA
✟101,174.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You missed the entire point. Please try again. Let me add to your response, so you can catch up.

'Adam' committed a sin before he knew it was a 'sin'. It does not matter that his 'eyes were open' <afterwards>. It only matters that <when> he went again God, he was not aware he was doing so.


You with me now? If not, I can elaborate more.
Don´t condescend me, sir...I am in no mood for your twisted speech.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Adam committed a sin and knew it...since his behavior changed...he knew and felt the guilt and hid himself.

It is clear that the moment he ate, his eyes were opened.

It is YOU who though you say you have read, seem not to understand and disregard this clear understanding that the moment Adam ate, his eyes were opened...and he knew he had sinned.

GOD gave a command...HE said, do not.
They listened to another voice who said...did GOD really say?

That was their sin...they did what they were told not to do.

Do not tell me that his going against GOD was not understood...He disobeyed the command and voice of GOD and did what he was told by GOD not to do...

Okay, looks like you DO need further elaboration here.... :) 'Adam' did not know what was 'right' or 'wrong' BEFORE he ate the apple. Sure, afterwords, he did. Which would mean if Adam was to commit further acts against God, 'post-apple', God could surely hold Adam accountable. But to hold Adam accountable when he did not know, appears illogical.
 
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,725
2,781
USA
✟101,174.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Okay, looks like you DO need further elaboration here.... :) 'Adam' did not know what was 'right' or 'wrong' BEFORE he ate the apple. Sure, afterwords, he did. Which would mean if Adam was to commit further acts against God, 'post-apple', God could surely hold Adam accountable. But to hold Adam accountable when he did not know, appears illogical.
DO not...do you understand these words?

Can you tell GOD that you did not understand what DO NOT means?

As a mother and a father protect their children, they will say, do not...if they do, they disobey...

Of course, we don´t call this sin...and we don´t tell them that if they do, they will surely die...

But GOD did say...and what HE said, was to be obeyed....
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
DO not...do you understand these words?

Can you tell GOD that you did not understand what DO NOT means?

Well, I could try, but it might be a one way dialogue. And I have already told you, and you don't seem to get it. Maybe a good night's sleep will remedy this? Who knows?

As a mother and a father protect their children, they will say, do not...if they do, they disobey...

Of course, we don´t call this sin...and we don´t tell them that if they do, they will surely die...

But GOD did say...and what HE said, was to be obeyed....

You keep wanting to use parent/children analogies. I got one for ya...

Your one-year-old girl is told not to put the metal fork in the electrical socket. She somehow does anyways. Is the one-year-old accountable for her actions? Or, is the mother accountable for not protecting her child?

Please, think about it....
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
He went against GOD...period...
He listened to another voice...period.
He sinned...period.

"He went against GOD". He had no idea it was a 'sin'.
"He listened to another voice". He had no idea it was a 'sin'
"He sinned..." He had no idea it was a 'sin'
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
If all have sinned and fallen short of HIS GLORY...who can be saved?
If you are a father of many, how will you pick and choose one disobedient child over another disobedient child?

Does a father do that?

If HE is not a respecter of persons, how can HE be righteous when HE judges?

Provide the scenario.

You really seem to gravitate to these parent/children scenarios. I got one for you:

My child not only disobeys my requests, my child later tells me (s)he wants nothing to do with me ever again. And this is after I sacrificed everything to give them a 'better' life.

Do I?

A: Hope (s)he changes his/her mind, and if they don't, forgive them anyways or do not impose harm upon them.
B: Give them an ultimatum, establish a timeline, and if that timeline is to pass, and their choice is not to obey, lock them in a dungeon of torture forever.

But you see, even this scenario is not 'AS BAD'. Why? Because the child at least knows this parent EXISTS. And also can carry on a two-way dialogue, if desired.
 
Upvote 0

theoneandonlypencil

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist
Oct 11, 2019
806
678
A place
✟60,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If such an assertion is true, God is both the law maker and the law enforcer. God can create whatever scenario He wishes. Surely God could create a given set of events, which does not require sin? If not, why call Him God?

If we did not have sin, we would not have free will as we would not be able to choose to rebel against God if we sought to. Sin is necessary as light is to shadow; in a dark room, there could be a ball...but you'll never see that ball unless the light is there to illuminate it.

It always fascinates me how non-believers pick on the fact that God allowed sin to exist, yet even as a predisposition sin is still a choice and not an absolute. It's like committing a crime and then complaining that jail exists...you could've simply not committed any crimes.

News flash... The Euthephro dilemma exposes the plausibility that morals are still 'subjective', even under the assertion of God's moral dictates and pronouncements.

The Euthephro dilemma is a false dichotomy and was, to my knowledge, originally a question of polytheism, not monotheism(which is relevant considering part of the discourse was whether or not gods would agree/disagree on certain things). God does not love the pious because they are pious, nor is it pious because it is loved by God; the simple answer is that something is good, because God declared it to be good, and God's character is definitively 'good'. It's not arbitrary, it's part of his character.
 
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,725
2,781
USA
✟101,174.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"He went against GOD". He had no idea it was a 'sin'.
"He listened to another voice". He had no idea it was a 'sin'
"He sinned..." He had no idea it was a 'sin'
He went against GOD...period.

What are you trying to justify, sir?

Yourself? Or Adam, your father?
If Adam was justified, there would have been no need for CHRIST...

Try professing your own self-righteousness before GOD...see if you can bring something other than THE COVERING before GOD...

Even Job understood man´s dilemma...which is WHY he pleaded and prophecied our case...

If only there were a days man between us... Re: Job 9

There is..,.

HIS NAME IS CHRIST
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,725
2,781
USA
✟101,174.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You really seem to gravitate to these parent/children scenarios. I got one for you:

My child not only disobeys my requests, my child later tells me (s)he wants nothing to do with me ever again. And this is after I sacrificed everything to give them a 'better' life.

Do I?

A: Hope (s)he changes his/her mind, and if they don't, forgive them anyways or do not impose harm upon them.
B: Give them an ultimatum, establish a timeline, and if that timeline is to pass, and their choice is not to obey, lock them in a dungeon of torture forever.

But you see, even this scenario is not 'AS BAD'. Why? Because the child at least knows this parent EXISTS. And also can carry on a two-way dialogue, if desired.
I gravitate to these parent/children scenarios because that is what it is...

You have the answer already in the story of the prodigal.

You should know what to do as his/her father...so do it.

What you do is subjective and biased since these are your own flesh and blood,

What would you do for the child which is really not your own flesh and blood?

Righteousness?

Or partiality?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,725
2,781
USA
✟101,174.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
GOD is good and the father of all...and HE has done for man what man could not do for himself by giving the VERY BEST and the ONE AND ONLY WAY...HE will be just when HE judges and the justifier of all whose faith is clearly and properly directed in and on HIS SON....and nothing other than HIS SON.

Romans 3
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
If we did not have sin, we would not have free will as we would not be able to choose to rebel against God if we sought to. Sin is necessary as light is to shadow; in a dark room, there could be a ball...but you'll never see that ball unless the light is there to illuminate it.

It always fascinates me how non-believers pick on the fact that God allowed sin to exist, yet even as a predisposition sin is still a choice and not an absolute. It's like committing a crime and then complaining that jail exists...you could've simply not committed any crimes.

It's almost as if you did not read my response :) God is both the rule maker and rule enforcer. He can create whatever scenario He so chooses. One would assume, according to apologetics, that God is also a spaceless, timeless, omnipotent agent. Surely God's abilities are not limited to that of materialism?

And speaking of 'free will', how does this concept work in heaven? Furthermore, does 'free will' necessarily apply to God?

Or maybe we should explore what actually is 'free will'?


The Euthephro dilemma is a false dichotomy and was, to my knowledge, originally a question of polytheism, not monotheism(which is relevant considering part of the discourse was whether or not gods would agree/disagree on certain things). God does not love the pious because they are pious, nor is it pious because it is loved by God; the simple answer is that something is good, because God declared it to be good, and God's character is definitively 'good'. It's not arbitrary, it's part of his character.

Morals are subjective. Even with a God. Spoiler alert. Might makes right?

You are partially correct. -- The Euthephro is a false dilemma. Why? a true dilemma infers A or not A. Hence, the title needs a re-word, under classical definition. But let's not quibble over the title, but the content presented. Which is:

1). Whatever God does is good.

2). God does this or that because it is good.

Option 1). is flawed because:

- God could change His mind
- All such beings are merely following God's dictates
- How do we know Gods commands are good, because He says so?

Option 2). is flawed because:

- God is appealing to a standard outside Himself. Hence, God is no longer necessary to ground morals.

Theists sometimes try to shoehorn in a third option into this false dilemma. However, it seems to inevitably directly borrow from option 1).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,308
-
✟678,372.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
If Adam had no foreknowledge, he was then unaware of 'good' and 'evil'. Logically, he wouldn't have known what he was going to do 'wrong'. Thus, seems illogical to hold him accountable. Just like you would not hold a small child/toddler truly accountable for something you deem them doing as 'bad'.

'Adam' committed a sin before he knew it was a 'sin'. It does not matter that his 'eyes were open' <afterwards>. It only matters that <when> he went again God, he was not aware he was doing so.

'Adam' did not know what was 'right' or 'wrong' BEFORE he ate the apple. Sure, afterwords, he did. Which would mean if Adam was to commit further acts against God, 'post-apple', God could surely hold Adam accountable. But to hold Adam accountable when he did not know, appears illogical.

Your one-year-old girl is told not to put the metal fork in the electrical socket. She somehow does anyways. Is the one-year-old accountable for her actions? Or, is the mother accountable for not protecting her child?
You raise several interesting points but let's start with this important issue, which you've repeated several times :).

Gen 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

There is a clear command here to _not_ eat of that tree and a clear explanation of the results of breaking that command. So, Adam clearly knew that eating of that tree would be a transgression and knew the consequences of that transgression.

Similarly, your one-year-old girl is certainly accountable for her transgression. Her mother wouldn't be a good mother if she hid all the forks away. She needed to teach her to _not_ put the metal fork in the electrical socket. It would be pointless to hide all the forks bec the child could find another metal object and put it in the socket. We cannot grow up into responsible adults if we're protected from LIFE.

The result of transgression is death. Think of this not as an arbitrary judgment but as a law of physics. Something like the Hindu karma. But God, in His mercy, did not leave us to pay for karma that we could never pay for bec of the continuous transgressions of mankind.

If this frame of thought is OK with you, we can proceed to your other points. Otherwise, we can discuss this further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: miknik5
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,725
2,781
USA
✟101,174.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's almost as if you did not read my response :) God is both the rule maker and rule enforcer. He can create whatever scenario He so chooses. One would assume, according to apologetics, that God is also a spaceless, timeless, omnipotent agent. Surely God's abilities are not limited to that of materialism?

And speaking of 'free will', how does this concept work in heaven? Furthermore, does 'free will' necessarily apply to God?

Or maybe we should explore what actually is 'free will'?




Morals are subjective. Even with a God. Spoiler alert. Might makes right?

You are partially correct. -- The Euthephro is a false dilemma. Why? a true dilemma infers A or not A. Hence, the title needs a re-word, under classical definition. But let's not quibble over the title, but the content presented. Which is:

1). Whatever God does is good.

2). God does this or that because it is good.

Option 1). is flawed because:

- God could change His mind
- All such beings are merely following God's dictates
- How do we know Gods commands are good, because He says so?

Option 2). is flawed because:

- God is appealing to a standard outside Himself. Hence, God is no longer necessary to ground morals.

Theists sometimes try to shoehorn in a third option into this false dilemma. However, it seems to inevitably directly borrow from option 1).
Ok. There lies the problem...you...YOU...don´t believe that GOD is GOOD...and as a father did what is best for HIS CHILDREN...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,725
2,781
USA
✟101,174.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
GOD is appealing to a standard outside of HIMSELF? You just got through stating the GOSPEL, with your limited understanding as per your post 187:

Cvanwey wrote:
HE DECIDED TO CREATE A SCENARIO WHERE HE WOULD LATER SACRIFICE HIMSELF TO HIMSELF TO APPEASE HIMSELF, AND CREATE A LOOPHOLE FOR A SCENARIO HE BOTH KNEW WOULD ALREADY HAPPEN, BUT STILL CREATE. HE THEN DEMANDED THAT ALL TAKE IT ON FAITH ALONE, LACKING EVIDENCE, AND THE ONES WHOM DON'T, WILL FRY FOREVER.

And now you are saying that HE is appealing to a standard OUTSIDE of HIMSELF?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

miknik5

"Let not your heart be troubled"
Jun 9, 2016
15,725
2,781
USA
✟101,174.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hereś the thing, HE came into the world ONCE...you were not the first eyewitness, sir...but you do not believe the testimony of those who have THAT WITNESS in them...

It isn´t the fault of the witnesses who testify sir...

Some would believe
Some would not

The world was turned upside down, sir...what you consider the wisdom of the world, is far inferior to the WISDOM of GOD...
 
Upvote 0

Paul.

I think therefore I post
Supporter
Oct 28, 2008
324
35
Australia
✟148,841.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced
I have no idea. Enough evidence to convince me. On the basis of probability, no, that is unreliable. Reasonable doubt, maybe, what do you mean by that?
Beyond reasonable doubt would require logically reasoned evidence that affirms Gods existence. All premises would have to be correct. Any evidence that contradicts God’s existence would need to be shown to be wrong due to incorrect premises, an error in logic or reasoning. This would then mean that there are no good reasons to doubt the existence of God so it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums