Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No HE provided a scenario in which HE took on our covering so that we might take on and be hidden in HISHE 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.
Don´t condescend me, sir...I am in no mood for your twisted speech.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.
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...
DO not...do you understand these words?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....
He went against GOD...period...
He listened to another voice...period.
He sinned...period.
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.
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?
News flash... The Euthephro dilemma exposes the plausibility that morals are still 'subjective', even under the assertion of God's moral dictates and pronouncements.
He went against GOD...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'
I gravitate to these parent/children scenarios because that is what it is...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.
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.
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.
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.
You raise several interesting points but let's start with this important issue, which you've repeated several timesYour 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?
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...It's almost as if you did not read my responseGod 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).
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.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?
Why should I believe your testimony?With the bible and HIS WORD, or with those CHRISTIANS who give you their testimony, just as I have?
Why should I believe your testimony?Itś true. The witnesses testify and will testify
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?