God's Plan & The Flood

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,349
Winnipeg
✟236,538.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The statement "God can be imperfect" is simply a nonsensical statement since the concept of God implies the concept of perfection.

Um, being dismissive is not a good replacement for reasoned argument.

You don't seem to recognize what "absolutely free" means. Maybe you have a less absolute view of what the phrase entails than the word "absolute" normally indicates. It seems that way. You also seem to be smuggling in the very thing against which you're contending: divine limits. If it is nonsensical to speak of divine imperfection, it can only be because such a thing is impossible. But if this is so, then at least one limit upon God is established: He can't be imperfect. This defeats your idea of God being "absolutely free," however.

Hopefully, you are able to see why the "nonsense" isn't on my end of things.
 
Upvote 0

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You don't seem to recognize what "absolutely free" means.

I think that it is you who do not understand what "absolute free" means. I have clearly explained that nonsensical statements about God do not represent a constraint for God's freedom, but they are only expression of a wrong use of language.

If it is nonsensical to speak of divine imperfection, it can only be because such a thing is impossible. But if this is so, then at least one limit upon God is established: He can't be imperfect. This defeats your idea of God being "absolutely free," however.
Simply false. The statement "God cannot be imperfect" does not establish any limit upon God. It is simply a tautology, such as "perfection cannot be imperfection"; such sentence does not establish a limit upon perfection.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,349
Winnipeg
✟236,538.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Simply false. The statement "God cannot be imperfect" does not establish any limit upon God. It is simply a tautology, such as "perfection cannot be imperfection"; such sentence does not establish a limit upon perfection.

??? Uh, yeah...right.

I don't think conversing with you on this subject is going to be very...useful.

One last try: If I say, "God cannot be imperfect," then I am unavoidably assigning a limit to God. "Cannot" denotes a limit. Imperfection is not possible for God - just as lying, or being unfaithful to Himself, or changing are not possible.

By definition, a square cannot be a circle; the total absence of perpendicularity in a circle's form is beyond the essential nature of a square. If the square doesn't have four right angles, it isn't a square. Squareness, then, is both a defining characteristic of a square and a fundamental limit of its nature.

Likewise, God is both defined by perfection AND limited by it. He cannot be imperfect and be God. Imperfection is impossible for God as circularity is impossible for a square. These are the necessary features - and limits - of these entities which is not a statement of tautological nonsense but obvious, reasoned fact.
 
Upvote 0

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
One last try: If I say, "God cannot be imperfect," then I am unavoidably assigning a limit to God. "Cannot" connotes a limit.

Simply false, as I I explained previously. You are simply writing a tautology.

??? Uh, yeah...right.

I don't think conversing with you on this subject is going to be very...useful.
I totally agree with you about it. This conversation has become too repetitive. At this point we may only agree to disagree.

Best regards.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,349
Winnipeg
✟236,538.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Simply false, as I I explained previously. You are simply writing a tautology.

How does saying that something is tautological make it false or nonsensical, exactly? I think you are attempting to disguise fallacious reasoning behind semantics, resorting to dismissiveness rather than explanation to cover your peculiar thinking, as well.

Some discussions are like this, unfortunately...
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,427
26,867
Pacific Northwest
✟731,303.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
If "The Flood" was a literal event that happened, was the need to start over the result of things not going according to God's Will? Or was The Flood always a part of God's plan?

Since I don't believe the story of the flood is literal, I may not be the best to answer this. But I think the point of the narrative should be understood in the general context of the larger narrative going on in Genesis.

That is, we are presented with a world of people behaving badly, we are told God regretted making the world and so He decided to wipe it out and start over. So He takes the most righteous man alive--Noah, and Noah and his family, along with a mating pair of every sort of animal, are brought upon the ark so that they might survive the flood and repopulate the world after.

The thing that is most striking is that the flood doesn't actually fix anything.

The world was no better after the flood than it was before the flood.

In fact, just as soon as the flood had ended, and Noah is described as building an altar and being pious in his devotion and worship of God, that we find him described as passed out drunk as a skunk in his tent, fully naked; then his son Ham goes in and "sees his nakedness" whatever that might mean, and Noah's response then is to curse Ham's son. And then just after this story we encounter the story of mankind, in its hubris, attempting to build a tower to attain divine status and power for themselves, to make their way up to God as though they too were gods deserving of such high status.

So people are behaving badly before the flood.
People are behaving badly after the flood.

Righteous Noah, well, he's not really all that righteous. He's just as sinful and fallible as any of the rest of us.

I think this is really important to understanding the over-arching narrative, not only of Genesis as the prologue to Exodus and the unfolding story of Israel; but is really important in the grand whole of the biblical drama--which as a Christian I believe is all leading to, and has its climax in Jesus. The healing, redemption, and renewing of the world cannot be accomplished by destroying it and starting over. Wiping the slate clean and starting over again does not fix the world, it doesn't fix the sinfulness of human nature.

Rather, God's way of fixing the world is going to start by calling a man by the name of Abram and his wife Sarai, out from home to a new place, and then establish a covenant and promise to him, that he would be called Abraham, the father of many nations, and that through his seed would come blessing and healing to all nations. And then Abraham begot Isaac, and Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob was called Israel, and from Israel came the twelve patriarchs, and their descendants slaves in the land of Egypt.

God's way of healing the world is ultimately to be present in the world through a people, from whom would come the Messiah, and in the Messiah would come the fixing the world, the resurrection of the dead, the renewal of all things, and the hope of our part and place in that renewing of the world and its full renewal in the end.

God invites people to come and join Him in putting the world to rights.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Gene Parmesan

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2017
695
547
Earth
✟36,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Since I don't believe the story of the flood is literal, I may not be the best to answer this. But I think the point of the narrative should be understood in the general context of the larger narrative going on in Genesis.

That is, we are presented with a world of people behaving badly, we are told God regretted making the world and so He decided to wipe it out and start over. So He takes the most righteous man alive--Noah, and Noah and his family, along with a mating pair of every sort of animal, are brought upon the ark so that they might survive the flood and repopulate the world after.

The thing that is most striking is that the flood doesn't actually fix anything.

The world was no better after the flood than it was before the flood.

In fact, just as soon as the flood had ended, and Noah is described as building an altar and being pious in his devotion and worship of God, that we find him described as passed out drunk as a skunk in his tent, fully naked; then his son Ham goes in and "sees his nakedness" whatever that might mean, and Noah's response then is to curse Ham's son. And then just after this story we encounter the story of mankind, in its hubris, attempting to build a tower to attain divine status and power for themselves, to make their way up to God as though they too were gods deserving of such high status.

So people are behaving badly before the flood.
People are behaving badly after the flood.

Righteous Noah, well, he's not really all that righteous. He's just as sinful and fallible as any of the rest of us.

I think this is really important to understanding the over-arching narrative, not only of Genesis as the prologue to Exodus and the unfolding story of Israel; but is really important in the grand whole of the biblical drama--which as a Christian I believe is all leading to, and has its climax in Jesus. The healing, redemption, and renewing of the world cannot be accomplished by destroying it and starting over. Wiping the slate clean and starting over again does not fix the world, it doesn't fix the sinfulness of human nature.

Rather, God's way of fixing the world is going to start by calling a man by the name of Abram and his wife Sarai, out from home to a new place, and then establish a covenant and promise to him, that he would be called Abraham, the father of many nations, and that through his seed would come blessing and healing to all nations. And then Abraham begot Isaac, and Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob was called Israel, and from Israel came the twelve patriarchs, and their descendants slaves in the land of Egypt.

God's way of healing the world is ultimately to be present in the world through a people, from whom would come the Messiah, and in the Messiah would come the fixing the world, the resurrection of the dead, the renewal of all things, and the hope of our part and place in that renewing of the world and its full renewal in the end.

God invites people to come and join Him in putting the world to rights.

-CryptoLutheran
Perhaps the story of Exodus and Abraham aren't literal either?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,427
26,867
Pacific Northwest
✟731,303.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Perhaps the story of Exodus and Abraham aren't literal either?

Perhaps. But I do believe in a literal Abraham and Exodus. I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Israel's own collective memory and traditions of being slaves in Egypt is legitimate--it is so fundamental to their identity as a people that it would be more strange if there were no truth to it. In the same way, it's not unreasonable to believe that they had a cultural memory of Abraham, of that once-upon-a-time patriarch and leader of the people. Even if we allow, for the sake of argument, that the stories may be embellishments to some degree--I don't think a total dismissal of the historicity of these things is justified.

=CryptoLutheran
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Gene Parmesan
Upvote 0

Gene Parmesan

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2017
695
547
Earth
✟36,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps. But I do believe in a literal Abraham and Exodus. I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Israel's own collective memory and traditions of being slaves in Egypt is legitimate--it is so fundamental to their identity as a people that it would be more strange if there were no truth to it. In the same way, it's not unreasonable to believe that they had a cultural memory of Abraham, of that once-upon-a-time patriarch and leader of the people. Even if we allow, for the sake of argument, that the stories may be embellishments to some degree--I don't think a total dismissal of the historicity of these things is justified.

=CryptoLutheran
Interesting. I don't personally see how the "collective memory" of the Exodus events is convincing but I nonetheless appreciate your perspective.
 
Upvote 0