Why God is Worthy of Our Praise

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I don't think it's this simple. Missing money is not comparable to the nature of free will and the origin thought which are very different types of things. As you would call it, category mistake.
No. You've introduced a new category here called "origin of thought". I've simply asked you how the intangible can impact the tangible, and vice versa.
It's pretty clear you've opted to persist in a contradiction. Nothing I can do about it.
 
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
@YouAreAwesome,

An Open Theist like yourself (rightly) asserts that God cannot foreknow a free act and thus He learns something every time He observes one - He learns a newly-added fact of history. The question is, how does an immaterial God observe events? Surely, if He is too intangible to be impacted by sensory stimuli, He cannot observe anything. Here too, immaterialism is incoherent.

I believe something it is probably quite shocking to most, but I believe He can't see what's going on physically, but can learn about our spiritual state and emotional wellbeing. As we learn in verses such as Genesis 18:20-21,

Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great. Because their sin is so grievous, I will go down to see if their actions fully justify the outcry that has reached Me. If not, I will find out."

God had to go looking for Adam and Eve because He didn't know where they were (Genesis 3:9).

There's also Genesis 4:9-10,

"And the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” “I do not know!” he answered. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.

God could hear the injustice and the pain but didn't know the physical location it occurred. So as you can see I think differently to Open Theists on this bit and I've never been challenged on it, so please feel free to show me that this view is inconsistent in some way.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
@YouAreAwesome

A perennial contradiction in the evangelical version of regeneration is that it eradicates the sinful nature. After all, DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity) holds that immaterial substance is indivisible into parts. This leaves no room for a sinful nature.

Divisibility is a fact of everyday experience. How so?
(1) The most obvious way to see it is to simply ask, which cell in your brain is the real you?
(2) Another way is to reflect on pain. How is it possible to experience pain in the feet? After all, a pain signal sent from the foot to the head would only produce a headache, it wouldn't explain pain felt in the feet. Therefore the soul must be spread throughout the body from head to toe.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I believe something it is probably quite shocking to most, but I believe He can't see what's going on physically, but can learn about our spiritual state and emotional wellbeing. As we learn in verses such as Genesis 18:20-21,

Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great. Because their sin is so grievous, I will go down to see if their actions fully justify the outcry that has reached Me. If not, I will find out."

God had to go looking for Adam and Eve because He didn't know where they were (Genesis 3:9).

There's also Genesis 4:9-10,

"And the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” “I do not know!” he answered. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.

God could hear the injustice and the pain but didn't know the physical location it occurred. So as you can see I think differently to Open Theists on this bit and I've never been challenged on it, so please feel free to show me that this view is inconsistent in some way.
How does that solve the problem. If he ventures to the scene to investigate, He won't observe anything without tangible sensory stimuli impacting His - intangible mind?
 
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's a bit of an odd claim, isn't it?
The claim that heaven is eternal with no beginning or end is only strange to us because everything in this world has a beginning and an end. In fact, when we try to fathom something without beginning it becomes illogical. This in itself should lead us to realise that a place with no beginning must exist, but cannot exist logically in our universe -- therefore it exists outside of our universe and in "another dimension" (sorry), i.e. heaven. It's the only viable option. Nothing starts in and of itself via logical sequence without temporal sequence. Can you give an example of logical sequence that doesn't require time that might represent the beginning of God?
 
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You agree that immaterial/intangible angels are material/tangible? Huh?
I agree that they are tangible when they enter this earth realm. But in their own realm they have their own spacial dimensions and their own physics. Specifically light works differently which is one of the most common things you hear from those who have died and gone to heaven.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This conversation reminds me of the predicament of a liar (and I'm not accusing you of dishonesty). An accuser approaches the liar. Seemingly caught in his lie, he makes up another lie to cover up holes in his first lie. Pretty soon he's spun a whole web of lies.

Similar idea here. I've accused you of a tangible-intangible incompatibility (incoherence). To cover up THAT hole, you've devised ANOTHER incoherent claim. You end up with a slew of incoherent remarks including these:
I agree that they are tangible when they enter this earth realm. But in their own realm they have their own spacial dimensions and their own physics. Specifically light works differently which is one of the most common things you hear from those who have died and gone to heaven.
Instead of spelling out each of the incoherent aspects of your statement, let's simply reiterate a scenario introduced on the other thread. The point is to impugn the notion that heaven is fundamentally different than our current realm. As follows:

You're in your resurrected body, standing at the pearly gates. God says, "Before I pull your body into the city, choose between the following two options." Which are:
(1) You can enter with all the five senses and physical capabilities intact
(2) You can enter blind,deaf, dumb, numb, etc - no senses at all.

Option 2 is the cessation of consciousness. It's death. Thus any attempt to postulate a reality substantially unlike our current realm is total nonsense, total gibberish. The ONLY reality that allows for conscious experience is a material existence and environment.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The claim that heaven is eternal with no beginning or end is only strange to us because everything in this world has a beginning and an end. In fact, when we try to fathom something without beginning it becomes illogical. This in itself should lead us to realise that a place with no beginning must exist, but cannot exist logically in our universe -- therefore it exists outside of our universe and in "another dimension" (sorry), i.e. heaven. It's the only viable option. Nothing starts in and of itself via logical sequence without temporal sequence. Can you give an example of logical sequence that doesn't require time that might represent the beginning of God?
There are too many non-sequitur assertions made here, and none of it is spectacularly lucid, including the question raised. I don't have the energy to try to unravel all this. Moving on.
 
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes it does. Sexual intercourse is a physical union where two bodies interlock to form one contiguous block of flesh.

I think you're alluding to the fact that they don't mutually dissolve to the loss of their respective identities, but such is not required to form one flesh. Consider this analogy:

"I interlocked the puzzle pieces to form one picture".

Here's what Paul said:
"The two [i.e. Christ and the church] become one flesh."

You are claiming that, even in Genesis, "one flesh" is already non-literal (and thus symbolic). And then "one flesh" is again symbolic in Ephesians? Thus the original symbolism is now being used to symbolize - another symbol? Doesn't make sense. Symbols are used to symbolize the literal reality, not another symbol. Moreover, all exegetes, including yourself, are aware of metaphor/simile indicators in the Greek, conspicuously absent here.

Paul could have used symbolic language such as, "The union of husband and wife as one flesh was a figure of the church." And clearly Paul wasn't averse to such language, because he regarded Adam as a "figure of the [second Adam] to come" (Rom 5:12). Yet he refrained from such symbolic language because he was speaking literally.

As with the puzzle pieces interlocking, "one flesh" is an interlock by spatial juxtaposition. And we know that the Third Person entering our bodies is Christ (the husband) spatially juxtaposing Himself to His church (His bride).

Let's summarize. In Genesis, "one flesh" isn't specifically a symbol of marriage. It's a physical juxtaposition known as sexual intercourse. It definitely isn't a symbol of marriage, because Paul even says that a man becomes one flesh with a harlot (1Cor 6). Therefore Paul is clearly referring to spatial juxtaposition - and according to him the byproduct is "one flesh". Again, based on Eph 5 alone, the exegete is warranted in rejecting immaterialism.



One what? One flesh - and that only during sex. They certainly are not one person. As I explained at length, there is no psychological immanence in play here, only a spatial union.
One name, one family unit, one in many decisions such as where to live and how to spend money, one in direction in life etc.
 
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

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Counting from zero to one is an insoluble problem?
Um...by virtue of self-propelling free will, for the millionth time.
Counting from 0 to 1 when time does not exist is an insoluble problem, yes. And to kick things off with free will consciousness that existed before time is equally nonsensical.
 
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But that's my point. Having 100 billion innocent offspring suffer for the sins of Adam and/or those of their own parents is incompatible with an infinitely kind God. That's the definition of a monster.

Suppose an evil man in your country poisons the water supply. The leader of your nation announces, "This man will die for his crime. And so will all of you. I have the antidote to the poison, but I've decided to let all of you suffer the consequences of his actions."

That leader is almost as much of an evil monster as the criminal himself. In an election, would you cast your vote in favor of such a leader? I don't think so. You'd hold him in the utmost despise and contempt.

And it's also contrary to fact, since Ezekiel 18 teaches that a child shall not suffer for the sins of his parents. Yes, I'm well aware there is a verse that seems to belie that, "I will visit the sins of the parents upon the children" but that's consistent with my theory of Adam. If we are all guilty in him already, then God has every right to visit our parent's sins upon us.
My answer to this is lengthy. I'll try to answer briefly with no biblical proof to save time. I believe God created the universe with His hands tied from entering it, so as too preserve free will. The only way He can enter is by prayer, pain, or prophecy. Consider it took a thousand years or so of prophetic sacrifices to bring Jesus into our world for example. He literally cannot enter at will.
 
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No.
(1) Verses 3:16-19 - that whole passage - pronounces consequences on the human race that we all experience daily.
(2) At minimum, God exiled them from the ideal Garden - and we in turn are all born in that state of exile.
(3) Unborn fetuses suffer consequences even in the womb.
Clearly, Adam's sin impacted 100 billion innocent offspring (except with my version of Adam). Not consistent with an infinitely kind, infinitely just God.

Huh? God flooded the innocent? Not in my theodicy.
No He started afresh.
 
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
@YouAreAwesome

A perennial contradiction in the evangelical version of regeneration is that it eradicates the sinful nature. After all, DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity) holds that immaterial substance is indivisible into parts. This leaves no room for a sinful nature.

Divisibility is a fact of everyday experience. How so?
(1) The most obvious way to see it is to simply ask, which cell in your brain is the real you?
(2) Another way is to reflect on pain. How is it possible to experience pain in the feet? After all, a pain signal sent from the foot to the head would only produce a headache, it wouldn't explain pain felt in the feet. Therefore the soul must be spread throughout the body from head to toe.
To be clear I don't believe in divine simplicity or that a born again Christian has a sinful nature. Rather our sin post salvation is that done like Adam. Adam had no sinful nature, yet sinned.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
One name, one family unit, one in many decisions such as where to live and how to spend money, one in direction in life etc.
The physical-interlock connotation of "one flesh" is clear both in Genesis 2:24 and 1Cor 6. You've chosen a very unusual thing - you've chosen to take a verse of a didactic epistle non-literally, not based on any clear textual evidence but exclusively based on a pre-commitment to Plato. That's your prerogative. Nothing I can do about it.
 
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

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
To be clear I don't believe in divine simplicity or that a born again Christian had a sinful nature. Rather our sin post salvation is that done like Adam. Adam had no sinful nature, yet sinned.
That doesn't solve the problem. The new birth is defined as the divine imposition of holiness. No room for sin, on the assumption of indivisibility into parts. On the other hand, if you've accepted divisibility into parts, then every theologian in church history would consider you an official subscriber to materialism.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Counting from 0 to 1 when time does not exist is an insoluble problem, yes. And to kick things off with free will consciousness that existed before time is equally nonsensical.
Um...the counting is done in the aftermath by people like me.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No He started afresh.
You're missing the point. Any failure on God's part to shield any of the 100 billion descendants from Adamic consequences contradicts the notion of infinite love, kindness, justice, and so on.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And to kick things off with free will consciousness that existed before time is equally nonsensical.
Nope. Logically subsequent, not temporally subsequent. We've been over this - and also over the fact that immaterialists have been making similar claims for centuries. Read your own words again. Now consider this standard statement from an immaterialist.
(1) God existed from eternity. He already had free will and consciousness.
(2) Then at some point He created time.

You've apparently rejected the standard position, as well as mine which is not that much different - so what's left? Oh, right, you seem to want to posit an infinite past, in which case today would never have been reached as yet.

There's not a lot of options here. Given the few choices available, you've hardly shown your choice most viable.
 
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

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
My answer to this is lengthy. I'll try to answer briefly with no biblical proof to save time. I believe God created the universe with His hands tied from entering it, so as too preserve free will. The only way He can enter is by prayer, pain, or prophecy. Consider it took a thousand years or so of prophetic sacrifices to bring Jesus into our world for example. He literally cannot enter at will.
Unacceptable. Although I try to be open-minded to the idea of God making pre-commitments that, in some sense, tie His hands, an infinitely holy God is not going to pre-commit to a regimen that could lead to injustice, unkindness, and so on. That's a logical contradiction.
 
Upvote 0