As usual, you haven't cited a single Scripture in support of your view, nor have you demonstrated logical necessity.
You want me to cite the dictionary? Are we not speaking English? Or are you too lazy to go pick one up?For instance, yhou've been speaking of "free will and dominion" over a span of probably a couple of 100 posts. And yet:
(1) Not once did you even so much as DEFINE dominion.
(2) Not once did you even provide any evidence that what YOU call "dominion" is the same thing as what the Bible means by the term.
1) They apparently don't eat.By all appearances, you are completely fantasizing your "doctrine of dominion." Earlier I objected that angels had free will without starvation.
The objection is based upon a false premise. You see, you can't get out of your presupposition about what I believe, so you wind up doing this over and over.This objection stands uncontested.
God didn't NEED to create anything. God created because He desired to do so.You haven't provided any evidence that God needed to create a world where starvation was even a possibility.
Call it a presupposition of mine (I think it's based in Scripture, given the number of times God reaches out in love to a fallen and sinful people), but I believe God created, in part, so that we (mankind) would engage in a mutually free and loving relationship with Him. I've already cited John 3:16, where God loves the world. We can go to Eph 1:4, where God chose to have a people to Himself. We can look at God's actions with Israel, who repeatedly abandon Him for other gods, and God still calls them back.Again, you'll assert, "The Word implies it." That hasn't been demonstrated, and it also begs the question because, I ask AGAIN, why put such a stipulation in His Word? You suggest, this is the kind of world that God "wanted." Well, what does a loving God want? What does a righteous God want? What does a just God want? Unecessary starvation? Infant mortality? Which one of God's attributes supports your position? Clearly, none of them! Because, AGAIN, God could have extended His creation by creating more angels.
But the injustice would be committed by the devil, not God. Why do you attribute blame to God for things that the devil or humans do?You tell me the angelic scenario isn't valid because it's permament. (And yet you accuse me of being unwilling to think through your position?) The sword cuts both ways. Think about mine. Make the angelic scenario temporary instead of permanent. Same objection applies. It is unjust to have innocent angels dragged off by the devil for ANY kind of torment for any length of time.
So, you admit that my view doesnt' apper to fit your pigeon holes of "traditional views"?By the way, the only reason I used the term semi-federalistic was to avoid further semantic debates.
Incorrect. We suffer for our own sins, both individually and corporately. Adam just kicked over the any hill.You claim that it is righteous for us to suffer "consequences" for Adam's sin, but the "consequences" you have in mind have eternal ramifications.
But for humans, reconciliation is possible.Men wind up in hell (PERMANENTLY), as a result of a "condition" inherited from Adam which moves them to sin. That's funny, because a moment ago you told me that my angelic scenario was invalid due to permanency.
Not when you consider God's delcarations.To "defend" this kind of judicial absurdity, you make nebulous statements such as "We have to consider all God's attributes, including that He is righteous and holy." But by all apperances, a righteous and holy God would act in ways the OPPOSITE of what you are asserting.
Because what is happening now is not God's intent for planet earth. God's intent was for mankind to live righteous, holy lives in a loving relationship with Him. After giving free will and dominion, God did everything in His power to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from the TKGE. HE warned them, and told them they would DIE if they ate from it.This places a considerable burden of explanation on you to CLARIFY why a righteous and holy God would set up planet Earth as you describe it.
Again, until you grasp the idea that what is happening now is NOT what God inteded, you'll miss the point.You provide no explanation. You just keep making these nebulous, unsupported statements, that "this world as such had to exist, and it had to be the sort of world where one man's sin can ruin the lives of billions of people who would otherwise be innocent." Not only is your view judicial absurdity, completely unrighteous, and the zenith of cruelty, it is internally incoherent for another reason already stated, namely, that it doesn't even provide an intelligible definition of sin, beacuse as I charged earlier, to claim that "the condition made me do it" is the same as claiming "the devil made me do it" in the sense of being equally deterministic. In your world view, God is the liar who calls billions of people as "guilty of sin" even though it is ostensibly His fault for visiting them with this "condition". Certainly it isn't their fault.
Your original example was someone killing the baby.Some of your statements are pretty vague:
Whose? A baby is dying of starvation or disease. The baby is losing free will by death. Whose free will is taken away if God feeds the baby or heals the disease? Here again, you make a bunch of nebulous unsupported assertions.
MuzicMan,
I wanted to clarify something (which I thought I had clarified earlier, can't recall).
If God were omnibenevolent, He would have atoned for everyone, even the devil. You objected that His justice is a limiting factor. That objection makes no sense, because atonement satisfies justice. Justice is simply punishing the guilty, rewarding the innocent. The benevolence of God is therefore finite, but in no way is it unjust, according to Scripture.
The term you are trying to use is YOU'RE.
And I believe you have one more accusation to throw at me to make my blessing complete don't you?
enjoy!
squint
But of course that's just faulty logic. Propitiation requires suffering, first and foremost.themuzicman said:God did make propitiation for all who can be propitiated. Because angels don't don't die a physical death, there is no propitiation possible for them.
Anyone who participates in these debates will regularly allude to some verses. What you don't seem to grasp (sigh) is that your miscellaneous nebulous allusions to Scripture don't provide much of anything concrete in support of your position. You don't even define your terms with theological precision, much less defend them.themuzicman said:Apparently you don't grasp popular scripture, since I cited John 3:16, and portions of Genesis 1 and 2. I made the rash assumption that you would recognize commonly cited Scripture when it is presented to you.
Yeah, that's it. Why did all those professional theologians spend centuries writing systematic theology textbooks designed for theological precision? Why didn't they just say, "Go to a dictionary and look it up for yourself" ??? How stupid of them.You want me to cite the dictionary? Are we not speaking English? Or are you too lazy to go pick one up?
Your disregard for theological precision is becoming so blatant that I can scarcely proceed further with this discussion. You ask, "What's so hard about that?" A heck of a lot, for instance it's not even clear to what extent the Fall forefeited privileges of dominion. Nor are the specifics of the dominion clear in the text. Is it given to any explorer or conquerer? Or only in the context of a theocracy, where the Shekinah Glory lives in rules (viz. Israel) ??? The cavalier manner in which you lightly skate over the issues, merely because you want to pretend to have "proven" your point, bespeaks unprofessionalism.Giving dominion means you get to run the place. In this case, mankind was commanded to reproduce, fill the earth, subdue it, and rule over it. What's hard about that?
Huh? Sin doesn't involve free will?That's the very tenor of Genesis 1 and 2.
1) They apparently don't eat.
2) The ones that haven't fallen wouldn't have a problem. Starvation is a result of sin, not free will.
Nope, looking over my last post, I don't see anything here that refutes the arguments raised. For instance you still have the innocent suffering consequences of someone else's bad behavior. God didn't have to make that kind of world. In fact, He didn't. In my world view, the innocent don't suffer such consequences.The objection is based upon a false premise. You see, you can't get out of your presupposition about what I believe, so you wind up doing this over and over.
Free will and dominion do not necessitate starvation. Starvation and suffering occur because man causes them. If man would not have sinned (and continue to sin), we would not have starvation and suffering.
So, without this assumption, your point falls apart.
And has done so many times, now.
It goes like this. A benevolent father wouldn't let his children starve unless there was some complelling reason for it, something necessitating this degree of suffering. I ask you what that reason is. Is is judgment for sin? (My answer). You say, "No." You say things like, "Someone would lose free will if God fed the children. If men are to have free will and dominion, God cannot put these sufferings to a stop."Perhaps you could articulate to us where I've said that free will and dominion require starvation. (But only do so, if you want to continue your wild goose chase on this point.
I strongly disagree. If God is fully benovelent - and He is - He is not going to create a world with the possiblity of suffering unless there is a need for it. For more info, see my Doctrine of God as detailed on another thread (see the link given earlier). The thread exposes several contradictions in traditional Doctrine of God. It shows that, to avoid those contradictions, we'll have to admit that God is finite in several respects, and part of this "finite picture" is that He created this world to satisfy a need. You want to deny this? Fine - but until you can show me a theology that solves all the traditional contradictions, I'm not going to respect your opinion.God didn't NEED to create anything. God created because He desired to do so.
Call it a presupposition of mine (I think it's based in Scripture, given the number of times God reaches out in love to a fallen and sinful people), but I believe God created, in part, so that we (mankind) would engage in a mutually free and loving relationship with Him. I've already cited John 3:16, where God loves the world. We can go to Eph 1:4, where God chose to have a people to Himself. We can look at God's actions with Israel, who repeatedly abandon Him for other gods, and God still calls them back.
How enlightening. I'd never have figured that out for myself.Again, the entire tenor of Scripture tell us that God's desire for creation is to have a people for Himself who freely engage in a loving relationship with Him.
Equally enlightening. Thank you so much.And, as I've stated as a matter of simple logic, a freely loving relationship requires the possibility of rejection. Indeed, if a man desires a loving relationship with a woman, but the woman is kept isolated and has no choice but to remain with him, we wouldn't call that a freely loving relationship.
Three in a row? My notebook is getting overfull with all the great wisdom you are imparting.Likewise, in God's case, the choice to reject Him must be available in some way in order for us to have a freely loving relationship with Him. That was the purpose of the TKGE. Adam was warned that death would result from eating from the tree.
I have no problem with consequences - long as they don't fall upon innocent angels and innocent babes.Thus, the ultimate suffering, death and eternal separation from God, along with all of these other consequences were necessarily possible for God to engage in this freely loving relationship.
Man's free will is involved. Again, how insightful. Thank you so much.But the choice was man's, not God's.
Of course I did no such thing.But the injustice would be committed by the devil, not God. Why do you attribute blame to God for things that the devil or humans do?
Loaded question. Ignored.So, you admit that my view doesnt' apper to fit your pigeon holes of "traditional views"?
Incorrect. We suffer for our own sins, both individually and corporately. Adam just kicked over the any hill.
That makes for a good laugh. Simply apply the rubric "just" to that which fits the definition of "unjust". What brilliant argumentative logic you employ. Tell you what, let's put this in perspective. Two men are running for District Attorney. First one says, "I'll make everyone suffer some kind of consequences when a criminal transgresses, even though the rest of you had no chance to stop him." Second one says, "I'll do everything in my power to make sure that only the criminal will suffer the conequences."Also, I said that it is justice for us to (corporately) suffer for our own sins.
Because what is happening now is not God's intent for planet earth. God's intent was for mankind to live righteous, holy lives in a loving relationship with Him. After giving free will and dominion, God did everything in His power to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from the TKGE. HE warned them, and told them they would DIE if they ate from it. A simple reading of Genesis 1 and 2 reflect this very clearly. Creation created "very good." Adam created, walks with God, names the animals. Eve created for companionship with Adam. They walk with God. Everything is perfect. This was (and is) God's purpose in creating.
Wow. That changes the whole picture. None of this ever occured to me. Thanks again.It was not God's will for Adam to sin. God desired paradise for mankind, a place where we live freely in a loving relationship with God (as described above.)
The present condition is one caused by man's (initial A&E's) rejection of God.
Is this hard to see? Again, until you grasp the idea that what is happening now is NOT what God inteded, you'll miss the point.
Here you seem to be confirming my earlier suspicion that you take my words "infant mortality" to mean "someone killing a baby." Funny you said I was the one too lazy to pick up a dictionary?Your original example was someone killing the baby.
God is responsible for protecting the innocent (viz. the holy angels) from the bad behavior of the guilty. You don't want to admit this fact, simply because it refutes your position.Again, the explanation is that this is man's domain. These consequences are man's will, the result of man's decisions. In what way is God obligaged to clean up our mess?
Anyone who participates in these debates will regularly allude to some verses. What you don't seem to grasp (sigh) is that your miscellaneous nebulous allusions to Scripture don't provide much of anything concrete in support of your position. You don't even define your terms with theological precision, much less defend them.
Yeah, that's it. Why did all those professional theologians spend centuries writing systematic theology textbooks designed for theological precision? Why didn't they just say, "Go to a dictionary and look it up for yourself" ??? How stupid of them.
Your disregard for theological precision is becoming so blatant that I can scarcely proceed further with this discussion. You ask, "What's so hard about that?" A heck of a lot, for instance it's not even clear to what extent the Fall forefeited privileges of dominion.
Nor are the specifics of the dominion clear in the text. Is it given to any explorer or conquerer? Or only in the context of a theocracy, where the Shekinah Glory lives in rules (viz. Israel) ??? The cavalier manner in which you lightly skate over the issues, merely because you want to pretend to have "proven" your point, bespeaks unprofessionalism.
Huh? Sin doesn't involve free will?
Nope, looking over my last post, I don't see anything here that refutes the arguments raised. For instance you still have the innocent suffering consequences of someone else's bad behavior. God didn't have to make that kind of world. In fact, He didn't. In my world view, the innocent don't suffer such consequences.
It goes like this. A benevolent father wouldn't let his children starve unless there was some complelling reason for it, something necessitating this degree of suffering. I ask you what that reason is. Is is judgment for sin? (My answer). You say, "No." You say things like, "Someone would lose free will if God fed the children. If men are to have free will and dominion, God cannot put these sufferings to a stop."
I strongly disagree. If God is fully benovelent - and He is - He is not going to create a world with the possiblity of suffering unless there is a need for it.
For more info, see my Doctrine of God as detailed on another thread (see the link given earlier). The thread exposes several contradictions in traditional Doctrine of God. It shows that, to avoid those contradictions, we'll have to admit that God is finite in several respects, and part of this "finite picture" is that He created this world to satisfy a need. You want to deny this? Fine - but until you can show me a theology that solves all the traditional contradictions, I'm not going to respect your opinion.
I have no problem with consequences - long as they don't fall upon innocent angels and innocent babes.
Of course I did no such thing.
Loaded question. Ignored.
That makes for a good laugh. Simply apply the rubric "just" to that which fits the definition of "unjust". What brilliant argumentative logic you employ. Tell you what, let's put this in perspective. Two men are running for District Attorney. First one says, "I'll make everyone suffer some kind of consequences when a criminal transgresses, even though the rest of you had no chance to stop him." Second one says, "I'll do everything in my power to make sure that only the criminal will suffer the conequences."
Which one has a better grasp of justice in your view? (Maybe I should be asking someone else. Your values seem pretty warped).
God is responsible for protecting the innocent (viz. the holy angels) from the bad behavior of the guilty. You don't want to admit this fact, simply because it refutes your position.
You are talking nonsense....explain how something that is created can not be classified as part of creation [that which is created] ?Now you are trying to link created with creation. Creating ANTI-creation is means only that it is creatED, not creatION as a 'final product.'
You are talking nonsense....that which is created is by logical necessity a part of creation [that which is created]Perhaps by creatION you are not referring to the final product, but the ACTION of creatING. So please clarify. If you mean the final product, then ANTI-creation is NOT creation.
Logic is the way Gods mind works...His mind is logical...the laws of logic proceed from Him...The Word of God is the Logos [logic] of God...your attempt to reduce the laws of logic to a human construct and thus deny their devine origin is a serious mistake, which only removes the validity of statements of truth as set forth in the propositions found in scripture. God is Logical, and Logic is from God.Oh, we haven't got to that part yet. But when we do, if we do, you may get some more interesting observations that won't fit your HUMAN LOGIC BOX either
There is nothing difficult about what I asked....I asked you to confirm that the words that proceeded from the mouth of the LORD as recorded in scripture [speaking in the first person] where in FACT spoken by Him....you have failed to do so....Why?A Yes or No answer, particularly on a book I haven't studied (and especially on a poetry book), would make me a liar. I am not infallible.
And your opinions are not in accord with the truth.I form mere opinions (see my signature).
Your tentative 'yes' is insufficient....the scripture says 'let your yes be yes'....we believe what God speaks, or we don't....no room for being tentative...tentative breeds uncertainty.I gave you a tentative Yes which should be sufficient to germinate discussion.
Your arguments are necessarily tentative because they are based upon a tentative response to my above question.I then gave you some arguments which, conspicuously, you are not responding to.
You are talking nonsense....explain how something that is created can not be classified as part of creation [that which is created] ?
You are talking nonsense....that which is created is by logical necessity a part of creation [that which is created]
The distinction you make between the act of creating and that which is created [creation] is meaningless and illogical....the act of creating is itself creation.
Logic is the way Gods mind works...His mind is logical...the laws of logic proceed from Him...
The Word of God is the Logos [logic] of God...your attempt to reduce the laws of logic to a human construct and thus deny their devine origin is a serious mistake, which only removes the validity of statements of truth as set forth in the propositions found in scripture. God is Logical, and Logic is from God.
You have failed to demonstrate [using logical formula] your ridiculous contention ie that what is created is not necessarily part of creation.....you can not....your contention is ridiculous....illogical.
So you agree [with what I said]...that anti-creation/darkness is a constituant part/element of the Creation?God did surely create in His creation anti-creation.
The laws of logic proceed from God....The Logos of God is the Word of God....The Logos of God is the Wisdom of God...The Logos of God is the Logic of Godbut to compare our human logic to His Divine Logic is somewhat idiotic.
Yes it does....Logic enables us to understand....without the laws of logic it is impossible to define anything from anything else.Bringing God's Logic to our levels of understanding just doesn't work.
But...but...earlier you said that "God did surely create in His creation anti-creation."It's not logical to say that anti-creation is creation.
Anti-creation IS part of ALL THINGS.
So you agree [with what I said]...that anti-creation/darkness is a constituant part/element of the Creation?
The laws of logic proceed from God....The Logos of God is the Word of God....The Logos of God is the Wisdom of God...The Logos of God is the Logic of God
Yes it does....Logic enables us to understand....without the laws of logic it is impossible to define anything from anything else.
But...but...earlier you said that "God did surely create in His creation anti-creation."
Do you mean all things that are created?....that is....all things that are part/included in Creation?
You are confused.Anti-creation is part of all things but anti-creation is not creation.
Ridiculous....anything that is created is by logical necessity subsumed by/in Creation.Terming everything 'creatED' as 'creatION' is a poor logic construct even using mankinds logic.
Ridiculous....anything that is created is by logical necessity subsumed by/in Creation.
Creation equating to all things that have been created.
You are confused.
Previously you said this "God did surely create in His creation anti-creation."
You would rather pick at gnats than accept the truth that your contentions are illogical...and ridiculous.Picking at gnats is pointless.
Your previous statement ie "God did surely create in His creation anti-creation." is a direct contradiction of your above statement....your contention is illogical...and ridiculous.I will stand by the logic of the statement that anti-creation is NOT THE SAME AS creation,
But for some illogical reason you have great difficulty in putting all things that are created....under "Creation"OK? I have no issues with putting ALL THINGS under the flag of ALL THINGS.
You have invented your pet phrase 'anti-creation' ...there is no such usage in scripture...this confusion is compounding your confusion.There is specific reason to classify anti-creation as NOT THE SAME AS creation beside the obvious reason that the statement making them the same is simply idiotic.
You would rather pick at gnats than accept the truth that your contentions are illogical...and ridiculous.
Your previous statement ie "God did surely create in His creation anti-creation." is a direct contradiction of your above statement....your contention is illogical...and ridiculous.
There is God [A].....and all things that God [A] has created...those things constitute the Creation ....end of story.
Anti-creation is not a biblical phrase [which may be the cause for your confusion]......Darkness, the antithesis of Light, is the correct phrase.
But for some illogical reason you have great difficulty in putting all things that are created....under "Creation"
Your contentions are illogical....ridiculous.
You have invented your pet phrase 'anti-creation' ...there is no such usage in scripture...Your confussion is compounding your confussion.
You have confused yourself by using your self created invention 'anti-creation'God ALSO created within HIS CREATION of all things, ANTI-creation as a product and that product is NOT the same as 'creation' which is an entirely different PRODUCT.
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?