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.
Baloney. You just stated that God sets the definitions. HE defines truth, not I. Your position is relatavistic and therefore cannot assure salvation on theological grounds.Nice straw man, you seem to be fond of building them. Assurance of salvation comes from God's nature, because God does not change. God IS truth, He does not simply tell the truth. A lie is a statement that is contrary to God's person, meaning He can in no way be a liar. It's simply not possible, when He speaks He creates reality so what He says is the truth.
You're putting words in my mouth, or perhaps misunderstanding me.Only if "not getting everything I want" is conflated with suffering, in which case the very idea of good goes entirely out the window because then not being allowed to murder is suffering, which you seem to be insisting is evil.
Um..er..um. That is PRECISELY the definition of suffering.Only if "not getting everything I want" is conflated with suffering.
Not that "puppets" or "dominoes" are descriptive, but no, nobody and nothing can transcend causation, but God himself. Even if you employ the self-contradictory notion that Transcendent God can make anyone he chooses, (i.e. the whole human race, in your line of theology), to transcend causality, he is still causing that whole scenario.Um..er...No it is a definition. Determined beings (puppets) are fully controlled by the preceding dominos, whereas free beings transcend ordinary causalities
We have vastly different definitions of suffering, so much so that I'm not sure it's possible to have productive discussion on the topic. Denial of wants is not suffering, and it seems you're making a similar mistake as determinists in not giving culpability to the agent. There was no suffering in the garden, no death or pain, and only one restriction. And that restriction makes absolute sense, because the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" was the only thing off limits. Since Adam knew God and had direct communication with Him, the only new knowledge that such a tree could add is knowledge of evil. And when man learned evil, he was corrupted and for his sake the land was cursed so that he would toil on the earth in pain.@Fervent,
I don't feel you've adequately address posts such as 98 and 108. The bottom line is that the Garden of Eden doesn't make sense for an infinitely self-sufficient (AND infinitely benevolent) God. There is just no good reason for Him to give 100 billion kids, starting with Lucifer, Adam, and Eve, enough rope to hang themselves on. Again, temptation inflicts us with suffering/agony, it makes us WANT to use that rope to hang ourselves, it make us WANT to engage in self-destructive behavior. Would you welcome me into your home if I intended to create within your kids a desire/addiction for something destructive such as drugs? Would you argue, as you have "tried" to argue here, that such is an act of generosity?
Again, temptation/suffering is a justifiable imposition only as a necessary evil unto a necessary end. And an infinitely self-sufficient God has no needs. In fact it doesn't even make sense to claim that He has unfulfilled desires.
Right. The law that you don't hold God to because you believe that God is free. Only you won't allow that man might be free. Too many fallacies here (special pleading, assuming what is to be proven, non-sequiturs, etc, etc, etc).
Yes, God sets the definitions because He is the author of reality. It is what He says it is, so what He says is always true. There is no reality above Him, no laws to which He is the subject but things like logic and order exist because He is a God of logic and order. Saying "God cannot lie" is not a re-definition of truth, nor is it a matter of moral capability but ontological.Baloney. You just stated that God sets the definitions. HE defines truth, not I. Your position is relatavistic and therefore cannot assure salvation on theological grounds.
What is the charge of contradiction? I thought it was pretty plain. It is that claim which proposes that God gives up some of his sovereignty to (make way for?) his creatures to have a bit of their own. THAT is self-contradictory. If something else that is not God has some sovereignty, then in whatever way that is so, he is no longer sovereign.What is the charge of contradiction? How is control-freak inherent to the definition of personhood? It is YOU who has unjustifiably bought into a philosophical concept of infinitude, which assumes that God must be infinite in all respects including sovereignty. Your position is based on assumptions, not proof.
And? Suppose he creates beings with free will. What's your objection here? Seems to be a non-sequitur. You're reasoning seems to beNot that "puppets" or "dominoes" are descriptive, but no, nobody and nothing can transcend causation, but God himself. Even if you employ the self-contradictory notion that Transcendent God can make anyone he chooses, (i.e. the whole human race, in your line of theology), to transcend causality, he is still causing that whole scenario.
Intrinsically better? There is no such thing as intrinsic worth. There is, however, merit - acquired by freely choosing what is good. Accordingly, some people have, by free will, established more merit than others. This isn't rocket science. Every sermon preached in the last 2,000 years is grounded in the concept of merit. It's not complicated.Nevertheless, you have to show what happens if there is no causation, and human free will rules the day. Are some of us intrinsically better than others to choose what is right when they choose what is wrong?
Free choice isn't a matter of chance. For example I can hypothetically conceive of only three causalities capable of moving objects:Or is it a matter of chance, as to who will and who will not?
See above. Chance falls under category #2. Free will is a distinct category.And it is self-contradictory to say that Chance can determine anything. Exactly what is the operating principle here?
Obviously you're not from a third world country, as apparently you've no concept of hunger.Denial of wants is not suffering...
The biblical God is defined, implicitly, as the quintessential ruler. (The word infinitude doesn't appear in Scripture). In my understanding, Yahweh's presence fills the whole universe, He literally has His hand on every particle of matter, monitoring it, managing it, nothing escapes His attention and supervision. And He oversees us with impeccable kindness, righteousness, fairness, skill, love, and justice. Thereby He EASILY fulfills the biblical definition (the quintessential ruler). In other words, He's got a job to do, and He does it quite well, thank you very much. He doesn't give a rat's "butt" - He frankly couldn't care less - whether He fulfills some incoherent philosophical standard of infinitude. As noted earlier, an actualized infinitude is incoherent nonsense because infinity is not a specific/discrete number.What is the charge of contradiction? I thought it was pretty plain. It is that claim which proposes that God gives up some of his sovereignty to (make way for?) his creatures to have a bit of their own. THAT is self-contradictory. If something else that is not God has some sovereignty, then in whatever way that is so, he is no longer sovereign.
Correct. He is not "God" as defined in idealized philosophy. He's your Father.Do you have any reason from Scripture, aside from the bias your philosophical acceptance of FreeWill casts onto your interpretations, that God is not infinite in every respect in which he is God --in all his attributes? Yes, his sovereignty is infinite, or he is not God.
LOL. You honestly don't see the irony in your statement? You don't recognize that your predilection for infinitude is a philosophical bias on your part?Do you have any reason from Scripture, aside from the bias your philosophical acceptance of FreeWill casts onto your interpretations, that God is not infinite in every respect...
Let's start with a couple of points (I'll add at least one more shortly).Do you have any reason from Scripture...that God is not infinite in every respect...
While I disagree with your logic, I have no need to refute it directly, because it's really a moot point. Your logic doesn't apply to my metaphysics. You keep saying that God isn't one of us - you see Him as unique somehow. In my metaphysics He IS one of us, He is merely the first of us to achieve full sentience. He is LITERALLY our Father, that and nothing more. We are ALL of the same nature and thus we are ALL First Causes, equally so. (I'll provide some links shortly).I don't hold God to the law of causality? Well, no, I don't claim he is caused, but he fits the law of causality perfectly. It does not deny First Cause. All it says is all effects are caused. He is not an effect. Of course God is free. No, man is not free in the same way as God is free. Man is caused --God is not.
You have yet to prove the notion that man can be free in the same way as God is free. Frankly, it makes no sense that man can be absolutely spontaneous, a First Cause on his own, because, there can be only one first cause, true, but more, because it is self-contradictory to say that an effect can also be a First Cause.
Okay I just gave three reasons already, in response to this post.Do you have any reason from Scripture, aside from the bias your philosophical acceptance of FreeWill casts onto your interpretations, that God is not infinite in every respect in which he is God --in all his attributes? Yes, his sovereignty is infinite, or he is not God.
Okay I just gave three reasons already, in response to this post.
(4) The biblical arguments provided by Open Theists cast doubt on infinite foreknowledge. They base their position on a few key verses. I've forgotten them (been 20 years since I read their material) but I do recall one example - God's testing of Abraham. There doesn't seem to be much point if God foreknew the outcome, and God Himself claims to have LEARNED something in that ordeal, "Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son" (Gen 22).
(5) As noted earlier, a realized infinity is a nonsense-concept.
(6) Perhaps my main argument against infinite attributes, however, is the following. Infinite attributes are by their nature innate/immutable rather than gradually acquired over time. This creates a couple of conflicts with Scripture:
(A) Innate attributes do not merit praise.
(B) An immutable God cannot become man. For example if His knowledge is innate - not acquired - it is not something that He can relinquish for the Incarnation and then reacquire later. Theologians try to solve this via the Hypostatic Union but that theory is incomprehensible (and thus counts as gibberish) in my view.
As for point #6, here are the links I promised earlier, see posts 850 and 856. Those posts summarize my entire metaphysics. They explain who Yahweh really is, why He created us, how He created us, what the Trinity is, and how He became man.
What About Progressive Sanctification?
What About Progressive Sanctification?
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?