Knowledge of Good and Evil

[Non Sequitur]

Genesis 1:26-27

Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.” So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Basically Genesis 2-3 with some omissions
Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person. Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he placed the man he had made. The Lord God made all sorts of trees grow up from the ground—trees that were beautiful and that produced delicious fruit. In the middle of the garden he placed the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it. But the Lord God warned him, “You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden—except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.”
Now the man and his wife were both naked, but they felt no shame.


The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild animals the Lord God had made. One day he asked the woman, “Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?”
“Of course we may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,” the woman replied. “It’s only the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God said, ‘You must not eat it or even touch it; if you do, you will die.’”
“You won’t die!” the serpent replied to the woman. “God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil.”
The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too. At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.
When the cool evening breezes were blowing, the man and his wife heard the Lord God walking about in the garden. So they hid from the Lord God among the trees. Then the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
He replied, “I heard you walking in the garden, so I hid. I was afraid because I was naked.”
“Who told you that you were naked?” the Lord God asked. “Have you eaten from the tree whose fruit I commanded you not to eat?”
The man replied, “It was the woman you gave me who gave me the fruit, and I ate it.”
Then the Lord God asked the woman, “What have you done?”
“The serpent deceived me,” she replied. “That’s why I ate it.”
Then the Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this, you are cursed
more than all animals, domestic and wild.
You will crawl on your belly,
groveling in the dust as long as you live.
And I will cause hostility between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring.
He will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
Then he said to the woman,
“I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy,
and in pain you will give birth.
And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you.”
And to the man he said,
“Since you listened to your wife and ate from the tree
whose fruit I commanded you not to eat,
the ground is cursed because of you.
All your life you will struggle to scratch a living from it.
It will grow thorns and thistles for you,
though you will eat of its grains.
By the sweat of your brow
will you have food to eat
until you return to the ground
from which you were made.
For you were made from dust,
and to dust you will return.”
Paradise Lost: God’s Judgment

Then the man—Adam—named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live" And the Lord God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife. Then the Lord God said, “Look, the human beings have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!” So the Lord God banished them from the Garden of Eden, and he sent Adam out to cultivate the ground from which he had been made. After sending them out, the Lord God stationed mighty cherubim to the east of the Garden of Eden. And he placed a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life
Several people (some more recently than others) have asked me this question before and it seems like a good topic to discuss. The question goes something like this: Does the Adam and Eve (and serpent) story demonstrate that God hates/punishes knowledge (and the obvious conclusion that God prefers followers who are ignorant)?

The Answer, of course, is no this question but a long discussion is required for us to get to that point. This story, more than anything else, is about Human finitude and the root of all sin, Pride. God clearly does not want us to be ignorant because in Genesis 1, God declares that Human kind is made in his "image." Chapters 2-3 of Genesis illustrate how human kind seeks to supplant God with themselves (the traditional Christian definition of the sin of Pride). The tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil does not represent the ability to know right from wrong (obviously since Eve starts out knowing that disobeying a command from God is wrong). The knowledge of Good and Evil represents in some Judeo-Christian interpretation the ability of a being to be the judge of Good and Evil. We can see this is what it means when the serpant says:
"God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil."( emphasis mine).
God's knowledge of good and evil is as the knowledge of a judge. This role as judge is soley reserved for God in the Biblical literature (thus the Command by Christ in Matthew 7:1 "judge not that you be not judged" or Romans 12:19 "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord"). This role is reserved for God because human beings are finite beings. In the text, this finitude is seen by the fact that Eve is not even able to remember the exact words God said and in fact adds the commands "we cannot touch the tree." If you go back and read the text again, God never says that. Eve (and thus as a representative for all humanity) cannot even remember the exact command about good and evil, much less comprehend all of good and evil. What the serpent offers, then, is clearly impossible. Eve is tempted by the serpent by it saying "you will be like God." Eve is thus seduced by a desire to raise herself up into a position of equal with that of the creator. This is both the root point of the story and the root sin in Christianity. All sin stems from a desire to make ourselves Judges over good and evil.

[Daktoria]

Three questions:

How can sinning take place if God (as a perfect being) is omniscient?

How is God not arrogant if mankind is vain?

If mankind is supposed to overcome hubris by being content with its place, what novelty could God observe in a world with free will?

[Non Sequitur]

Three questions:

How can sinning take place if God (as a perfect being) is omniscient?

Foreknowledge does not equate will. God gave us the will to act. If you have foreknowledge of someone breaking the law, does that mean you willed it to happen?

How is God not arrogant if mankind is vain?

I'm not sure what the question here is. God is not arrogant by his nature of being God.

If mankind is supposed to overcome hubris by being content with its place, what novelty could God observe in a world with free will?
again, I'm understanding the question. sorry.

[Daktoria]

Foreknowledge does not equate will. God gave us the will to act. If you have foreknowledge of someone breaking the law, does that mean you willed it to happen?

If God is everywhere, that means God is imbued throughout "our" entire bodies and minds, so I don't see how God could "give" us will. Rather we'd only be limbs of God himself.

I'm not sure what the question here is. God is not arrogant by his nature of being God.

Let me ask a simpler question then, "What is wrong about pride?"

again, I'm understanding the question. sorry.

Pride being a sin and God preferring a world without sin, what's the difference between a sinless world and a world without will?

[Michael]

Excellent thread and opening post! :thumbsup:

As you well know, that particular question interests me greatly. :)

I have a couple of points I'd like to make in response to your explanation of this vexing question (surprise, surprise!).

1. If the sin of pride is the greatest one, and as you noted in Romans 12:19 "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord", does that not make God guilty of the same sin of pride that humans are accused of?

Btw, Commandments #2, #3, #5 and #7 (from Exodus) all point to a very prideful God (thou shalt have no gods before me, etc.).

I consider this point to be a critically important one because, as you noted, Genesis 1 states that humans are made in the image of God. If God is guilty of the sin of pride, then it naturally follows that all humans are going to be equally guilty of the same sin of pride (God's image). And if this is true, then the entire story of Adam and Eve and the Serpent becomes entirely superfluous at best (and malicious at worst). :shrug:

2. You stated, "God's knowledge of good and evil is as the knowledge of a judge. This role as judge is soley reserved for God in the Biblical literature."

If this is so (and I do accept it is so), this causes a huge problem for freewill and the expectation that humans can come to God of their own accord - that humans are endowed with the ability to choose between right and wrong and it is the free choice of choosing God that makes it meaningful.

How can humans be expected worship/love/accept God for his Goodness if they are banned from making any judgements about goodness? Only God is allowed to do that.

3. ...In the text, this finitude is seen by the fact that Eve is not even able to remember the exact words God said and in fact adds the commands "we cannot touch the tree." If you go back and read the text again, God never says that. Eve (and thus as a representative for all humanity) cannot even remember the exact command about good and evil, much less comprehend all of good and evil.
This point is moot.

Eve hadn't tasted at the tree of knowledge at that point of time. She was still ignorant then (no doubt a reasonable position due to her trust and faith in God).

Indeed, this just underscores the fact that God appears to have created humans without the ability to know good or evil.

And that brings me back to my point #1 above, if humans were created without the ability to know good and evil, and humans were created in God's image, then does it not follow that God does not have the ability to know good and evil?

What the serpent offers, then, is clearly impossible. Eve is tempted by the serpent by it saying "you will be like God." Eve is thus seduced by a desire to raise herself up into a position of equal with that of the creator. This is both the root point of the story and the root sin in Christianity. All sin stems from a desire to make ourselves Judges over good and evil.
But humans were created in the image of God were they not? And God definitely likes judging over good and evil. Does it not logically follow that humans would be inclined to the same? Is this sin not proof of the hypocrisy of God?

I'll stop now. :)

[Michael]

Three questions:

How can sinning take place if God (as a perfect being) is omniscient?
Non Sequitur nailed this one.

How is God not arrogant if mankind is vain?
I believe this is a shorter form of my point #1. :)

If mankind is supposed to overcome hubris by being content with its place, what novelty could God observe in a world with free will?
Why is it required (or scripturally stated) that God requires novelty in the world?

[Daktoria]

Why is it required (or scripturally stated) that God requires novelty in the world?

Without novelty, there's no point for God to create the world, and without a point, it would be impossible for us to appeal to God's intentions in any way.

[Michael]

Without novelty, there's no point for God to create the world, and without a point, it would be impossible for us to appeal to God's intentions in any way.
Judging God's motive seems to me to be entirely outside the realm of reasonable speculation.

(Indeed, my epistemological position holds that God is unknowable by definition).

[Non Sequitur]

Excellent thread and opening post! :thumbsup:

As you well know, that particular question interests me greatly. :)

I have a couple of points I'd like to make in response to your explanation of this vexing question (surprise, surprise!).

I would expect nothing less. Actually, your response was so in depth that it took me a better part of a day to think about it.

1. If the sin of pride is the greatest one, and as you noted in Romans 12:19 "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord", does that not make God guilty of the same sin of pride that humans are accused of?

Btw, Commandments #2, #3, #5 and #7 (from Exodus) all point to a very prideful God (thou shalt have no gods before me, etc.).

I consider this point to be a critically important one because, as you noted, Genesis 1 states that humans are made in the image of God. If God is guilty of the sin of pride, then it naturally follows that all humans are going to be equally guilty of the same sin of pride (God's image). And if this is true, then the entire story of Adam and Eve and the Serpent becomes entirely superfluous at best (and malicious at worst). :shrug:

I think here is a case of a disconnect of the believer and non believer's point of view. I did not quote the whole Romans passage, but the gist of it is that Vengeance (and you should understand vengeance to mean punishment for wrong doing) is reserved for God because only God is capable of understanding the end of all things and only God is truly Just. Also, and this is where the disconnect comes in, if God is truly the creator, sustainer of life, and savior from evil the least we can do is try and have a right relationship with this being. In the liturgy (worship language) we say "it is our right, duty, and joy to worship God in all times and all places." when my family gives me gift, it's not arrogance or pride on their part to think they will get a thank you and a gift in return. The same with God.

In the case of the Ten Commandments, they are written in the ancient Hebrew in the form of an ancient marriage contract. God promises certain things to his people if they, in return, uphold certain conditions. These conditions are, in the end, for the good of the people. God says if the law is upheld, the people will be blessed. God chose the Israelites to be his holy and priestly people in a world filled with unholiness. Given that they have that responsibility, they have certain conditions to fulfill (like worshiping no other Gods.).

I hope that helps with that question, but as I said I am sensing a disconnect here and maybe I missed the mark.

2. You stated, "God's knowledge of good and evil is as the knowledge of a judge. This role as judge is soley reserved for God in the Biblical literature."

If this is so (and I do accept it is so), this causes a huge problem for freewill and the expectation that humans can come to God of their own accord - that humans are endowed with the ability to choose between right and wrong and it is the free choice of choosing God that makes it meaningful.

How can humans be expected worship/love/accept God for his Goodness if they are banned from making any judgements about goodness? Only God is allowed to do that.

When I said "judge" I should have clarified since I am using traditional Christian categories. God's role of judge is, partly, a role that means God knows what is best for our lives because he sees the ultimate purpose and end of all things. When Eve seeks to "know as God does" she is seeking to not have God be the judge over her life, but making here self judge over her own life. This, in effect, is saying to God : "I don't care what you think is best, I will do what want" (which is exactly what she does in the story).

The central issue is trust. In a completely right relationship with God (think Christ) one trusts God's will as ultimately best. While Christ had the ability to disobey God (read the Garden of Gethsemane story) he chose in the end to obey God's will. Eve's eating of the fruit is an abandoning of that trust. This abandoning of that trust in God's will, in Christian theology, did not free us, but actually made us slaves to Sin (a capital S sin refers to the power of evil) because we abandoned the completely good will of God. If we were left to ourselves, you are right, we would not be able to choose God because we would continue to repeat the story. Fortunately the story does not end with Genesis 1, but continues with another 65 books. In Christian theology, Christ has died and been raised from the dead, and thus "ransomed" (the biblical phrase) us from Sin. Since Christ's resurrection, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, people are able to make the choice again.

Now you can answer you question a different way and go down the road of Predestinarian Calvinism. In this view, we are sinful and cannot make the choice at all and God has foreordained from before the beginning of time who will choose good and who will choose evil. I think this is nonsense, but it does get you out of certain problems.

3.
This point is moot.

Eve hadn't tasted at the tree of knowledge at that point of time. She was still ignorant then (no doubt a reasonable position due to her trust and faith in God).

Indeed, this just underscores the fact that God appears to have created humans without the ability to know good or evil.

And that brings me back to my point #1 above, if humans were created without the ability to know good and evil, and humans were created in God's image, then does it not follow that God does not have the ability to know good and evil?

As I said above, maybe I wasn't clear enough. The knowledge of Good and evil is not the ability to know what is right and wrong, but the ability know good and evil "like God" (as the serpent says). Eve clearly from the story had at least enough knowledge to know that disobeying God is not advisable.


But humans were created in the image of God were they not? And God definitely likes judging over good and evil. Does it not logically follow that humans would be inclined to the same? Is this sin not proof of the hypocrisy of God?

well that gets into questions about what the "image of God" really is. Traditionally, judging good and evil has not been the definition. There are various ideas and there is no consensus agreement (Augustine thought it was reason, I think the image of God is self sacrificing love). We could start a thread just on that.

Originally posted by Michael
Judging God's motive seems to me to be entirely outside the realm of reasonable speculation.

(Indeed, my epistemological position holds that God is unknowable by definition).

Funny enough, I hold a fairly similar position to this except I say that God is only knowable through Jesus Christ.

Two post scripts: 1. If any of my answers do not appear to answer your question, they might not because I might have missed the mark so feel free to call me out on it and 2) I do not take Genesis 1-3 literally.

[Daktoria]

Judging God's motive seems to me to be entirely outside the realm of reasonable speculation.

(Indeed, my epistemological position holds that God is unknowable by definition).

I'm not suggesting judgment, only perception, in trying to see the difference between a world without free will and a world without sin. If no difference exists, then it would be impossible to be motivated towards creating a world with free will when judgment is passed against sinful actors (especially when these actors are part of God himself since God is everywhere).

[Non Sequitur]

If God is everywhere, that means God is imbued throughout "our" entire bodies and minds, so I don't see how God could "give" us will. Rather we'd only be limbs of God himself.

Hmmm, that sounds like pantheism to which i do not subscribe. God may be everywhere, but I am still a distinctly different being with a distinctly different (and less powerful) will.



Let me ask a simpler question then, "What is wrong about pride?"

Pride seeks to make ourselves god's over our own lives instead of having the true God be lord over it. that's pretty clearly wrong in Biblical terms.



Pride being a sin and God preferring a world without sin, what's the difference between a sinless world and a world without will?

God did not desire Automatons, but wanted beings he could be in relation to because he is a relational god. While sin be an effect of actual beings and not robots, this effect will be ended eventually.

[Lily]

Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.” So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.


Who is "us?" Is this like the royal "we?" That wording seems very odd to me if God is a singular entity.

[Michael]

Who is "us?" Is this like the royal "we?" That wording seems very odd to me if God is a singular entity.
Yes, that may sound odd, but I don't think that one can meaningfully quibble with such translated terms unless one is fluent in Armeniac, Hebrew, Greek and Latin (from which the Bible you are reading from is translated through).

(which is yet another reason why it is so hard to take "Biblical literalists" seriously)

[The Drunk Girl]

Foreknowledge does not equate will. God gave us the will to act. If you have foreknowledge of someone breaking the law, does that mean you willed it to happen?


No, it does not mean one necessarily willed it to happen, but one can have a pretty good idea of what is to happen. To me, it is almost like setting one up for failure---which is somewhat did happen in the Garden of Eden.

For example, when watching my little brother and sister on numerous occasions in the past: there are cookies or candy that were sitting out on the table. They knew they were allowed a cookie or two and that was it, but as soon as I left the room or they were where I couldn't see them, they would continue to get into the sweets. I knew this would happen because they were (and still are) children, and their wants and needs only are for that particular moment--the now. The only way to prevent this was to remove the temptation away from them, not leaving it within reach of their sticky, little hands. Sure, I could have got onto them for having more than what they were allowed or ruining their dinner, but who was the adult/person in control of the situation? Me. I didn't will them to eat the sweets, but I knew it was going to happen if they were left sitting.

And, my argument remains the same. God is all-knowing, he might not have willed Eve to eat the apple, but he knew it was going to happen. Therefore, why place them in that situation (it's a lose/lose one in my book) and lead the world to the deep, dark, corrupt place that it is? If God is such a selfish God, one would think He would like to keep everyone "ignorant" except only to Him.

[Non Sequitur]

Who is "us?" Is this like the royal "we?" That wording seems very odd to me if God is a singular entity.

Remember that in Christian theology God is a trinity. the Triune God is one in three and three in one. Christian theology usually states that God the Father is talking to God the son and God the holy Spirit. Ancient Hebrew interpretation says that God is talking to the rest of Heaven, and Jewish interpretation says he is using the royal we.

I don't particularly want to delve into the stomach churning details of trinitarian theology, but if someone is really curious I will respond to the question.

[Michael]

I don't particularly want to delve into the stomach churning details of trinitarian theology, but if someone is really curious I will respond to the question.

What? 5th century Byzantine politics doesn't interest you? :lol:

[Lily]

Remember that in Christian theology God is a trinity. the Triune God is one in three and three in one. Christian theology usually states that God the Father is talking to God the son and God the holy Spirit. Ancient Hebrew interpretation says that God is talking to the rest of Heaven, and Jewish interpretation says he is using the royal we.

I don't particularly want to delve into the stomach churning details of trinitarian theology, but if someone is really curious I will respond to the question.

Strange. Three very different interpretations.

[Greendruid]

Remember that in Christian theology God is a trinity. the Triune God is one in three and three in one. Christian theology usually states that God the Father is talking to God the son and God the holy Spirit. Ancient Hebrew interpretation says that God is talking to the rest of Heaven, and Jewish interpretation says he is using the royal we.

I don't particularly want to delve into the stomach churning details of trinitarian theology, but if someone is really curious I will respond to the question.

I would actually like to hear your musings on this because it concerns a subject I find fascinating in the early monotheistic religions. Dualities/pluralities in deities are, from my knowledge of other polytheistic and animistic systems, hold-overs from the earliest origins of monotheism. In addition, I'd be interested to hear your interpretations on the linguistics surrounding this question because I also find that part of the equation fascinating. I don't know Hebrew or Aramaic. However the Greek language is quite complex to translate into English properly. English has two linguistic "numbers", the singular and the plural. Greek has a third one called the "dual" used for things that are usually paired, like eyes, ears, etc. I'd be interested to know which of these was used in the Greek version of the scripture. Considering that the passage comes from the Old Testament, the use of the dual would be equally interesting as the use of the regular plural.

[Non Sequitur]

I would actually like to hear your musings on this because it concerns a subject I find fascinating in the early monotheistic religions. Dualities/pluralities in deities are, from my knowledge of other polytheistic and animistic systems, hold-overs from the earliest origins of monotheism. In addition, I'd be interested to hear your interpretations on the linguistics surrounding this question because I also find that part of the equation fascinating. I don't know Hebrew or Aramaic. However the Greek language is quite complex to translate into English properly. English has two linguistic "numbers", the singular and the plural. Greek has a third one called the "dual" used for things that are usually paired, like eyes, ears, etc. I'd be interested to know which of these was used in the Greek version of the scripture. Considering that the passage comes from the Old Testament, the use of the dual would be equally interesting as the use of the regular plural.

Well, strictly speaking the Ancient Israelites were not pure monotheists. The Ancient Israelites fell under a theological point of view called henotheism. Henotheism involves the belief that more than one god exits, just that yours is the king of heaven and the lord over all the other Gods. Thus, the Ancient Israelites would have understood the "we" to mean Yahweh (the Israelite god) speaking to all the rest of the gods in the heavenly court. This also explains why Yahweh says he is going to "smite the Gods of Egypt" in the Exodus story. The Ancient Israelites would have understood this to be more like the king (aka Yahweh ) punishing his rebellious vassals (aka the Egyptian Gods) for disobeying his will towards the slaves. It is not until 586 BCE, with the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, that the Israelites become strict monotheists.

As for Christianity, trinitarian theology comes from a necessity to reconcile what the Bible says about God. The word "trinity" actually appears no where in the Bible, but the Bible does speak of God in terms of Father, Son , and Holy Spirit when referring to God so we need to reconcile this. Since the bible is also pretty firm about God not being three gods, the trinitarian formula (three persons in one being and one being in three person) was created. Personally, I find this Christian reinterpretation of the text to be a little simplistic and ignorant of context.

As for the language, I am not the greatest expert. There are two translations of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (aka a Greek Translation from the Hebrew) and a Hebrew version that is not the original. They do differ in the places and it is up for debate which version is more accurate. We think, for example, that Paul used the Septuagint when writing the letters of the New Testament. I do not, however, know the exact language surrounding that passage. Currently I am working on my Greek and Hebrew is next year.

[Michael]

I would expect nothing less. Actually, your response was so in depth that it took me a better part of a day to think about it.
I'm glad to provide you some challenging amusement! ;)

I think here is a case of a disconnect of the believer and non believer's point of view. I did not quote the whole Romans passage, but the gist of it is that Vengeance (and you should understand vengeance to mean punishment for wrong doing) is reserved for God because only God is capable of understanding the end of all things and only God is truly Just. Also, and this is where the disconnect comes in, if God is truly the creator, sustainer of life, and savior from evil the least we can do is try and have a right relationship with this being. In the liturgy (worship language) we say "it is our right, duty, and joy to worship God in all times and all places." when my family gives me gift, it's not arrogance or pride on their part to think they will get a thank you and a gift in return. The same with God.

In the case of the Ten Commandments, they are written in the ancient Hebrew in the form of an ancient marriage contract. God promises certain things to his people if they, in return, uphold certain conditions. These conditions are, in the end, for the good of the people. God says if the law is upheld, the people will be blessed. God chose the Israelites to be his holy and priestly people in a world filled with unholiness. Given that they have that responsibility, they have certain conditions to fulfill (like worshiping no other Gods.).

I hope that helps with that question, but as I said I am sensing a disconnect here and maybe I missed the mark.

Yes, there is likely to be a disconnect here. Thou art a Lutheran, not a Jesuit afterall! :D

And I certainly agree that there is a big difference between a belief in God's existence, of God the creator, God the savior and God who sustains life - and the logic that follows from that - and the logic that follows from a non-believer's perspective.

As for your point about the Ten Commandments, that just introduces yet another thorny logic problem! I thought God's love was unconditional? But you say here that God's love is conditional on human behavior? Please clarify this.

Anyway, I don't think you've managed a sufficient rebuttal to the accusation that God appears to be as prideful as humans. Admittedly, if one believes in God and holds that God is good, then the question of God's pride is moot and it thus doesn't surprise me that Christian theology doesn't have a good reply to this accusation readily at hand. The context of your answer is that of the believer to whom the question is nonsensical. That's reasonable, but not satisfactory from my perspective.

Actually, I thought for sure you'd take my hint and build your reply on the basis of denying the necessity of any logical coherence at all. That is (I think) the only bullet-proof resolution to the question. Indeed, being a Lutheran, one ought to stand on faith alone, n'est pas?

I've always tried to warn religious types about the danger of repeating Descartes' error of appealing to pure rationalism to defend any aspect of Christian doctrine. One needs to be a machiavellian Jesuit to carry that off - and most people aren't cut out for that line of work! :lol:

Anyway, I didn't really expect a rationally acceptable answer to the question. That I suppose was my real point in asking the question.

When I said "judge" I should have clarified since I am using traditional Christian categories. God's role of judge is, partly, a role that means God knows what is best for our lives because he sees the ultimate purpose and end of all things. When Eve seeks to "know as God does" she is seeking to not have God be the judge over her life, but making here self judge over her own life. This, in effect, is saying to God : "I don't care what you think is best, I will do what want" (which is exactly what she does in the story).

The central issue is trust. In a completely right relationship with God (think Christ) one trusts God's will as ultimately best. While Christ had the ability to disobey God (read the Garden of Gethsemane story) he chose in the end to obey God's will. Eve's eating of the fruit is an abandoning of that trust. This abandoning of that trust in God's will, in Christian theology, did not free us, but actually made us slaves to Sin (a capital S sin refers to the power of evil) because we abandoned the completely good will of God. If we were left to ourselves, you are right, we would not be able to choose God because we would continue to repeat the story. Fortunately the story does not end with Genesis 1, but continues with another 65 books. In Christian theology, Christ has died and been raised from the dead, and thus "ransomed" (the biblical phrase) us from Sin. Since Christ's resurrection, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, people are able to make the choice again.

Now you can answer you question a different way and go down the road of Predestinarian Calvinism. In this view, we are sinful and cannot make the choice at all and God has foreordained from before the beginning of time who will choose good and who will choose evil. I think this is nonsense, but it does get you out of certain problems.
This is a pretty good rebuttal to the question. I'll accept it.

However, one quibble:

You said, (in reference to Eve), "This, in effect, is saying to God : "I don't care what you think is best, I will do what want" (which is exactly what she does in the story)."

I think that stretches the point beyond textual support. Clearly Eve does what she wants to do, but I don't believe Eve actually or even metaphorically says "I don't care what you think" to God. For example, does not Eve earlier point out that she believes that God has forbidden them to taste of the fruit of the tree that serpent suggests? That suggests that Eve certainly does care what God thinks. Thus, it is reasonable to say that although Eve ultimately does what she wants (which is what the serpent wants her to do), Eve isn't necessarily discarding her love for God - that's only extrapolated or assumed by moralists.

That is to say, Eve's act is only evil if you define Eve's act as evil. Once again, the pure logic here is ultimately circular, but that is to be expected. (God is good, therefore God is good).

As I said above, maybe I wasn't clear enough. The knowledge of Good and evil is not the ability to know what is right and wrong, but the ability know good and evil "like God" (as the serpent says). Eve clearly from the story had at least enough knowledge to know that disobeying God is not advisable.
I'm not sure if this line of reply is logically tenable. Once again, we are reminded that man is made in the image of God, but again, it is asserted that God is fundamentally different than man and the gulf is unbridgeable.

And I do think that paradoxical point neatly points out one of the key differences between catholic and protestant theology. Catholicism generally holds that God is very different than humans and priests & pope are needed to bridge that gap. Protestants generally hold that the gap doesn't really exist (hence, no priests, bishops or pope to act as mediators).

Anyway, your last point here underscores a point I've often made about morality. Good and evil are defined by God, or not at all. This is the meaning of Nietzsche's title (Beyond Good and Evil).


well that gets into questions about what the "image of God" really is. Traditionally, judging good and evil has not been the definition. There are various ideas and there is no consensus agreement (Augustine thought it was reason, I think the image of God is self sacrificing love). We could start a thread just on that.
If that's what it takes. :shrug:

I do think the issue critical from a logical perspective since 'man was made in God's image' is a central tenet of Christianity. This phrase must be defined and understood.

Funny enough, I hold a fairly similar position to this except I say that God is only knowable through Jesus Christ.
I credit Kant for the argument, though he can't actually come right out and state that conclusion (since that could have cost him his livelihood and his ability to publish his works).

Nevertheless, it is Kant's conception of the nature of knowledge that defines spiritual knowledge as outside the realm of knowledge that can be known by human beings (using "knowledge" in a strict philosophic sense). That is the realm of faith where logic has no standing.

Two post scripts: 1. If any of my answers do not appear to answer your question, they might not because I might have missed the mark so feel free to call me out on it and 2) I do not take Genesis 1-3 literally.
I don't take Genesis literally either! :lol:

And I'm certainly not insisting that you take Genesis literally either. I do consider "bible literalism" to be entirely non-tenable by any reasonable standard.

As I noted above, I don't actually expect you to fully rebut my arguments here - to do that you'd need to be quite the machiavellian Jesuit type that I don't think you are! (or ought to be!) ;)

My point in addressing the questions was to look for the common epistemological ground between Christianity and atheism - in the name of civil peace. I think there is lots of common ground, if only the religious types would recognize it and use it. :)

[Non Sequitur]

Sorry for the long wait. Exams = lots of work.



As for your point about the Ten Commandments, that just introduces yet another thorny logic problem! I thought God's love was unconditional? But you say here that God's love is conditional on human behavior? Please clarify this.

When we are referring to the Israelites they are a special case because they are God's holy people (the Biblical language is "set apart"). Leviticus 26:12: "I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people." to be God's people is to have special privilages, special responsibilities, and special penalties for failing in those responsibilities. God's love is not conditional (psalm 136:2 "His love endures forever") but the Israelites didn't uphold their end of the bargin. If you want we can get into Christian conceptions of Law and Gosepl, but it's not necessary for this specific topic.

Anyway, I don't think you've managed a sufficient rebuttal to the accusation that God appears to be as prideful as humans. Admittedly, if one believes in God and holds that God is good, then the question of God's pride is moot and it thus doesn't surprise me that Christian theology doesn't have a good reply to this accusation readily at hand. The context of your answer is that of the believer to whom the question is nonsensical. That's reasonable, but not satisfactory from my perspective.

Actually, I thought for sure you'd take my hint and build your reply on the basis of denying the necessity of any logical coherence at all. That is (I think) the only bullet-proof resolution to the question. Indeed, being a Lutheran, one ought to stand on faith alone, n'est pas?

I've always tried to warn religious types about the danger of repeating Descartes' error of appealing to pure rationalism to defend any aspect of Christian doctrine. One needs to be a machiavellian Jesuit to carry that off - and most people aren't cut out for that line of work! :lol:

Anyway, I didn't really expect a rationally acceptable answer to the question. That I suppose was my real point in asking the question.Well on the spectrum between theology having a totally rational foundation (rationalism) and it requiring a leap beyond logic (called fideism) I am deffinately a fideist, but then theology discussions are no fun with the non believer if I try and be the total fideist. Therefore I try and rationally discuss theology as best as I can. But you are right that this all requires faith to make total sense. The best I can do is try to make the idea some pluasible.

Perhaps though, you could help me explaining what exactly is prideful about God's response?


This is a pretty good rebuttal to the question. I'll accept it.

However, one quibble:

You said, (in reference to Eve), "This, in effect, is saying to God : "I don't care what you think is best, I will do what want" (which is exactly what she does in the story)."

I think that stretches the point beyond textual support. Clearly Eve does what she wants to do, but I don't believe Eve actually or even metaphorically says "I don't care what you think" to God. For example, does not Eve earlier point out that she believes that God has forbidden them to taste of the fruit of the tree that serpent suggests? That suggests that Eve certainly does care what God thinks. Thus, it is reasonable to say that although Eve ultimately does what she wants (which is what the serpent wants her to do), Eve isn't necessarily discarding her love for God - that's only extrapolated or assumed by moralists.

That is to say, Eve's act is only evil if you define Eve's act as evil. Once again, the pure logic here is ultimately circular, but that is to be expected. (God is good, therefore God is good).Well, I gues I would say that if we read the text Eve is either really really stupid, or just prideful (maybe both). According to the text she receives a direct command from God and then disobeys it. Yes it took some convincing, but she still decides it's a good idea to disobey God. The fact that she knew it was wrong just reinforces the point. She heard the snakes proposition, said it was wrong, snake talked some more, then she did the action anyway. At the very least it's saying "God was wrong."

I'm not sure if this line of reply is logically tenable. Once again, we are reminded that man is made in the image of God, but again, it is asserted that God is fundamentally different than man and the gulf is unbridgeable.

And I do think that paradoxical point neatly points out one of the key differences between catholic and protestant theology. Catholicism generally holds that God is very different than humans and priests & pope are needed to bridge that gap. Protestants generally hold that the gap doesn't really exist (hence, no priests, bishops or pope to act as mediators).

Anyway, your last point here underscores a point I've often made about morality. Good and evil are defined by God, or not at all. This is the meaning of Nietzsche's title (Beyond Good and Evil).Well the reall difference is that Protestant theology says that through Jesus the Gap is bridged where as Catholic theology says through the church (which includes all the tradition and offices) the gap is bridged. We both believe there is a gap, just where is it bridged brings the problems.

Funny enough, I agree with Nietzsche here. Belief in God is a logical foundation for a at least semi-objective system of morality. I could not argue Dil's point on the morality thread.



If that's what it takes. :shrug:

I do think the issue critical from a logical perspective since 'man was made in God's image' is a central tenet of Christianity. This phrase must be defined and understood.
well As I said, I am defining the term as the capicity to trust and love someone in a self sacrificing manner, but I think we can get away with just saying that what ever it is, it seperates humanity from the rest of creation.

Andrewl I know will absolutely love that point.

don't take Genesis literally either! :lol:

And I'm certainly not insisting that you take Genesis literally either. I do consider "bible literalism" to be entirely non-tenable by any reasonable standard.

As I noted above, I don't actually expect you to fully rebut my arguments here - to do that you'd need to be quite the machiavellian Jesuit type that I don't think you are! (or ought to be!) ;)

My point in addressing the questions was to look for the common epistemological ground between Christianity and atheism - in the name of civil peace. I think there is lots of common ground, if only the religious types would recognize it and use it.Well I make that point more for others to who may be reading. So many very vocal people say it's literal I have to make a clear statement most of the time. As for trying to be more of a Jesuit, I'm currently working on the whole logical foundation of theology thing right now by reading the better people in that field.

[Lily]

God's knowledge of good and evil is as the knowledge of a judge. This role as judge is soley reserved for God in the Biblical literature (thus the Command by Christ in Matthew 7:1 "judge not that you be not judged" or Romans 12:19 "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord"). This role is reserved for God because human beings are finite beings.

All sin stems from a desire to make ourselves Judges over good and evil.

I'm with you up to point, but then you lose me on the "finite beings" part. What is it about humans being finite beings which disqualifies them from making judgments on the nature of good and evil?

Of course, we do make judgments and mete out punishment, the harshest being the delivery of the death penalty. Yes, I realize God has directed humans to carry out the death penalty for certain sins, and this is even more troubling, as one would have to accept that we are merely instruments of death in God's hands in certain instances.

[SMadsen]

The "problem" (and I say that with a tounge in the cheek) with gods' knowledge of good and evil is that it doesn't matter one bit, - except, of course, in a single instance and that has nothing to do with finite or infinite beings' knowledge of good and evil. It has to do with liability placement.

It's an extremely simple yet amazingly powerful concept. When we make judgment and mete out punishment then our judgment and metering of punishment is in itself subject to judgment. If a god makes judgment and metes out punishment then it's out of our reach.

[Michael]

Of course, we do make judgments and mete out punishment, the harshest being the delivery of the death penalty. Yes, I realize God has directed humans to carry out the death penalty for certain sins, and this is even more troubling, as one would have to accept that we are merely instruments of death in God's hands in certain instances.
Actually, there's nothing wrong with that. If God is good, and God created humans, then God's will is the law.

However, the point I'm making here is that God apparently has ostensibly banned humans from making such judgements (see story of Adam, Eve and Serpent).

[SMadsen]

Actually, there's nothing wrong with that. If God is good, and God created humans, then God's will is the law.

However, the point I'm making here is that God apparently has ostensibly banned humans from making such judgements (see story of Adam, Eve and Serpent).
Funny thing is, though, that we're forced to make judgment since no one can act irresponsibly if humans have to live together. Including, even, judgment of divine beings. Thus, for proper judgment, knowledge of good and evil is a requirement.

So how acquisition of such knowledge ever became a sin is beyond me :lol:

[Michael]

Funny thing is, though, that we're forced to make judgment since no one can act irresponsibly if humans have to live together. Including, even, judgment of divine beings. Thus, for proper judgment, knowledge of good and evil is a requirement.

So how acquisition of such knowledge ever became a sin is beyond me :lol:

Hence the existence of this thread. I hold that the story of Adam and Eve (and Serpent) is inherently problematic on many levels. It just doesn't represent God in a way that is consistent.

That being said, God obviously has the right to be inconsistent if God so chooses. Indeed, I hold that God (if God exists) must be inexplicable by definition.

Which is why I find the 'man is made in God's image' such a troublesome piece of theology - since most Christian theology holds that God's ways are mysterious - or that God is very different than you or me. But man is supposed to be "of an image" of God and that implies likeness (not necessarily identical, but there has to be some strong similarities). I find it logically troublesome to hold that God is very similiar and at the same time, fundamentally different to humans.

[SMadsen]

Hence the existence of this thread. I hold that the story of Adam and Eve (and Serpent) is inherently problematic on many levels. It just doesn't represent God in a way that is consistent.

That being said, God obviously has the right to be inconsistent if God so chooses. Indeed, I hold that God (if God exists) must be inexplicable by definition.

Which is why I find the 'man is made in God's image' such a troublesome piece of theology - since most Christian theology holds that God's ways are mysterious - or that God is very different than you or me. But man is supposed to be "of an image" of God and that implies likeness (not necessarily identical, but there has to be some strong similarities). I find it logically troublesome to hold that God is very similiar and at the same time, fundamentally different to humans.
Indeed, gods must be inexplicable in order to be subjects of faith. Gods also need to be epitomized anthropomorphisms in order to be subjects of faith. So I fully agree with you, divine beings are contradictive in nature.

However, because they must be logically incomprehensive, logical inconsistency is a non-issue. A desire to make it an issue only leads to apologetics and that in itself is pathetically useless.

[Michael]

However, because they must be logically incomprehensive, logical inconsistency is a non-issue. A desire to make it an issue only leads to apologetics and that in itself is pathetically useless.


That's my principle thesis - that using rationalism to defend religion is a deadend (or fool's game).

Religion can only be defended when it stands on faith alone. Logic and reason can never be claimed in defense of religion. To make those claims opens the door to us atheist logic-choppers who will chop the whole ediface down to nothing. :D

[Michael]

Sorry for the long wait. Exams = lots of work.

I've said this many times - good discussions don't have time limits. :)

Indeed, 'quality of reply' trumps 'speed of reply' in forum discussions - no question about that. And I often will take a week or two to get around to some replies as well! ;)

When we are referring to the Israelites they are a special case because they are God's holy people (the Biblical language is "set apart"). Leviticus 26:12: "I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people." to be God's people is to have special privilages, special responsibilities, and special penalties for failing in those responsibilities. God's love is not conditional (psalm 136:2 "His love endures forever") but the Israelites didn't uphold their end of the bargin. If you want we can get into Christian conceptions of Law and Gosepl, but it's not necessary for this specific topic.
If God's love is unconditional, why do you raise the point that the Israelites didn't uphold their end of the bargain? That implies a specific condition for God's love.

And that part about "I will be your God, and you will be my people" certainly looks like the two are separated as categorically different things.

I just don't see how God and the people can be categorically different things, but were made in the same image. They are the same, but different. That just a 'Zen-dodge'. ;)

(that's a term I use to refer to paradoxical assertions offered as rational explanations)

Well on the spectrum between theology having a totally rational foundation (rationalism) and it requiring a leap beyond logic (called fideism) I am deffinately a fideist, but then theology discussions are no fun with the non believer if I try and be the total fideist. Therefore I try and rationally discuss theology as best as I can. But you are right that this all requires faith to make total sense. The best I can do is try to make the idea some pluasible.
Yes, given your vocation, polishing up your rhetoric on these topics is likely to serve you well. :D

Perhaps though, you could help me explaining what exactly is prideful about God's response?
'Thou shalt have no other God before me'

'I am a jealous God'

'Man is made in God's image'

And last, but not least, God's command in the story of Adam and Eve not to eat/touch the tree/fruit of knowledge - and God's subsequent punishment of the whole human race (forever after) for Eve's sin of disobeying his command. That's pride with a capital "P".

As a sidenote, the first two points appear to suggest that God acknowledges that other Gods do exist. That seems very interesting. Might one not infer from this that perhaps God seeks obedience from his 'earthly' flock simply as a way to impress these other Gods? That again would underscore the essential prideful nature of this God. :D

Well, I guess I would say that if we read the text Eve is either really really stupid, or just prideful (maybe both). According to the text she receives a direct command from God and then disobeys it. Yes it took some convincing, but she still decides it's a good idea to disobey God. The fact that she knew it was wrong just reinforces the point. She heard the snakes proposition, said it was wrong, snake talked some more, then she did the action anyway. At the very least it's saying "God was wrong."
I disagree. Eve's action (disobeying God) does not logically require that she assert that "God was wrong".

Eve might simply have been curious to taste the fruit and did it despite knowing that God said it was wrong. Eve might well have agreed that God was right and admit that she was wrong to do it (but did it anyway).

In this interpretation, God denies Eve any chance at redemption for her action (and instead chooses to punish all of humanity forever after for it!).

Alternatively, one might observe that AFTER Eve has tasted the fruit of knowledge, she was therefore (presumably) able to make judgements about good and evil. God's judgement of Eve occurs AFTER she tastes of the fruit. Thus it makes no sense for the 'conclusion' to be that Eve asserts that "God was wrong" - since Eve (at that moment) has access to the same kind of judgement of good and evil as God claims as his own.

And what is doubly interesting here is the way the human race (the spawn of Adam and Eve) forever after inherit the guilt of Eve's sin - but we are to believe that they do not inherit the ability to judge good and evil that Eve gained through eating the fruit? Where did that ability go? How did God close the lid on Pandora's box that Eve opened? (sorry to introduce a non-biblical metaphor, but it is a very good one).

Well the reall difference is that Protestant theology says that through Jesus the Gap is bridged where as Catholic theology says through the church (which includes all the tradition and offices) the gap is bridged. We both believe there is a gap, just where is it bridged brings the problems.
Yes, but that distinction is a huge one since Jesus is essentially 'one with God' (at this time, as it were). Thus, under Protestant theology, the relationship between you and God is a direct one (via Jesus) - while under Catholic theology, the relationship between you and God can never truly be a direct one (since it requires human intermediaries).

That's a huge distinction with many philosophic implications.

Funny enough, I agree with Nietzsche here. Belief in God is a logical foundation for a at least semi-objective system of morality. I could not argue Dil's point on the morality thread.
Indeed, I certainly agree. Objective morality requires God.

However, as Nietzsche also pointed out, morality itself doesn't require God.

As another sidenote, I will add here that my argument with Nietzsche is predicated upon the idea that the actual sphere for the adjudication of morality (in a world that is beyond good and evil) is civil society not the individual.

well As I said, I am defining the term as the capicity to trust and love someone in a self sacrificing manner, but I think we can get away with just saying that what ever it is, it seperates humanity from the rest of creation.

Andrewl I know will absolutely love that point.

But how does God demonstrate this "capacity to trust and love someone in a self sacrificing manner"? Jesus seems to do that in his 'earthly incarnation', but otherwise the evidence for God's self-sacrificing love seems pretty thin.

On the contrary, examples of God's vengence, God's retributions, God's punishments and whatnot seem to be quite plentiful in biblical sources. (Hence the accusation against God's pride).

Well I make that point more for others to who may be reading. So many very vocal people say it's literal I have to make a clear statement most of the time. As for trying to be more of a Jesuit, I'm currently working on the whole logical foundation of theology thing right now by reading the better people in that field.
Forgive me if I use the term of Jesuit as synonymous with sophistry. :D

In my personal worldview, sophistry is a reasonable, rational and highly functional technique. Machiavelli was a true master of the art - Socrates and Plato equally so.

[Lily]

But how does God demonstrate this "capacity to trust and love someone in a self sacrificing manner"? Jesus seems to do that in his 'earthly incarnation', but otherwise the evidence for God's self-sacrificing love seems pretty thin.

Thin, indeed. I've always been troubled by the story of Abraham and Issac (or Abraham and Ishmael, depending on the religion). What kind of cruel head game is this God playing? Prove your loyalty by killing your son? Oh, oops! Just kidding, you passed! I mean, come on.

[evanescence]

Foreknowledge does not equate will. God gave us the will to act. If you have foreknowledge of someone breaking the law, does that mean you willed it to happen?

No. But if you have the foreknowledge and the power to stop the event in addition to the creative powers which began the entire process, yes.



I'm not sure what the question here is. God is not arrogant by his nature of being God.

A god who creates people to worship him is arrogant. A god who made man, who is arrogant, in His image is also arrogant.


non sequitur from pcf?

[Michael]

No. But if you have the foreknowledge and the power to stop the event in addition to the creative powers which began the entire process, yes.
I don't believe that is logically sufficient to assert "God willed the event".

A god who creates people to worship him is arrogant. A god who made man, who is arrogant, in His image is also arrogant.
Yes, that's the argument I've advanced here. :D

non sequitur from pcf?
Yes, that would be him. Some of us here know of him from USPO from before that. :)

Many of us here are longtime forum regulars going back quite a few years. I myself estimate I have over 30,000 posts (combined) at various discussion forums around under a various different usernames (Mad_Michael, WhiteRabbit and Dormouse are the most common ones).

[evanescence]

I don't believe that is logically sufficient to assert "God willed the event".

He knew.
He is in control.
He created.
And the Bible even claims that god predestined events to happen.

It seems sufficient to me. How do you see it?


Yes, that's the argument I've advanced here. :D

It seems cut and dry to me.


Yes, that would be him. Some of us here know of him from USPO from before that. :)

He's a mod there now.

Many of us here are longtime forum regulars going back quite a few years. I myself estimate I have over 30,000 posts (combined) at various discussion forums around under a various different usernames (Mad_Michael, WhiteRabbit and Dormouse are the most common ones).

yeah, i read that the entire datebase was lost here. What a bummer.

[Michael]

He knew.
He is in control.
He created.
And the Bible even claims that god predestined events to happen.

It seems sufficient to me. How do you see it?
If a watchmaker creates and winds a watch, and that watch stops working due to some event, it is not logically proper to speak of the watchmaker willing the event of the watch stopping. It may be true, or it might not be true.

As for "he is in control", how is that established? The Bible clearly states in 'Genesis' that God is the creator of the universe. Where does it state that God knows and controls all?

One can reasonably assert that if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then yes, God is in control. But that begs the question of God's omniscience and omnipotence. I'm not certain of this, but I don't think the Bible makes a substantial claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient.

Non Sequitur: we need some doctrinal clarification upon this point!

It seems cut and dry to me.
Not necessarily. The question turns on the interpretation of "in God's image".

With a strict or literal interpretation, that leads to one set of conclusions, with a more symbolic or allegorical interpretation, that leads to other types of conclusions. :shrug:

He's a mod there now.
Yes, I saw that recently. He's an admirable fellow and I flatter myself in thinking that I'm one of his most favorite atheist friends! :D

yeah, i read that the entire datebase was lost here. What a bummer.
Life is a bitch sometimes. :shrug:

[evanescence]

If a watchmaker creates and winds a watch, and that watch stops working due to some event, it is not logically proper to speak of the watchmaker willing the event of the watch stopping. It may be true, or it might not be true.

As for "he is in control", how is that established? The Bible clearly states in 'Genesis' that God is the creator of the universe. Where does it state that God knows and controls all?

a quick cut and paste job:

Job 42:2 I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.

Psalms 33:6-9 [6] By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. [7] He gathers the waters of the sea into jars; he puts the deep into storehouses. [8] Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the people of the world revere him. [9] For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

Rev 19:6 Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: "Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns.

Jeremiah 32:17 (NKJV) 'Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You.
Luke 1:37 (NKJV) "For with God nothing will be impossible."
Psalms 115:3 (NKJV) But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.

Daniel 7:14 (NKJV) Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.

Romans 8:28 (NKJV) And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.



One can reasonably assert that if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then yes, God is in control. But that begs the question of God's omniscience and omnipotence. I'm not certain of this, but I don't think the Bible makes a substantial claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient.

The Bible does make that point rather clear, imo; but I wont deny that there is much debate on that topic within the christian circles. I went to a bible college for almost four years and it was Calvinist, yet I have heard Arminian teaching, as well.



Not necessarily. The question turns on the interpretation of "in God's image".

With a strict or literal interpretation, that leads to one set of conclusions, with a more symbolic or allegorical interpretation, that leads to other types of conclusions. :shrug:

it would make more sense if it were symbolic.


Yes, I saw that recently. He's an admirable fellow and I flatter myself in thinking that I'm one of his most favorite atheist friends! :D


Life is a bitch sometimes. :shrug:

Are you a mod here? I can't tell since there aren't any obvious mod tags..unless i'm totally missing it. :shrug:

[wphelan]

a quick cut and paste job:

Job 42:2 I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.

Psalms 33:6-9 [6] By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. [7] He gathers the waters of the sea into jars; he puts the deep into storehouses. [8] Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the people of the world revere him. [9] For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

Rev 19:6 Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: "Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns.

Jeremiah 32:17 (NKJV) 'Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You.
Luke 1:37 (NKJV) "For with God nothing will be impossible."
Psalms 115:3 (NKJV) But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.

Daniel 7:14 (NKJV) Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.

Romans 8:28 (NKJV) And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.





The Bible does make that point rather clear, imo; but I wont deny that there is much debate on that topic within the christian circles. I went to a bible college for almost four years and it was Calvinist, yet I have heard Arminian teaching, as well.





it would make more sense if it were symbolic.




Are you a mod here? I can't tell since there aren't any obvious mod tags..unless i'm totally missing it. :shrug:

He's THE mod/administrator/dictator supreme. We're still a small forum. :D

[Americano]

He's THE mod/administrator/dictator supreme. We're still a small forum. :D

Careful, he can be touchy about the democratic facade.

[evanescence]

oh dear..i must tread lightly. *shivers*

:D

[Michael]

a quick cut and paste job:

Job 42:2 I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.

Psalms 33:6-9 [6] By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. [7] He gathers the waters of the sea into jars; he puts the deep into storehouses. [8] Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the people of the world revere him. [9] For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

Rev 19:6 Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: "Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns.

Jeremiah 32:17 (NKJV) 'Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You.
Luke 1:37 (NKJV) "For with God nothing will be impossible."
Psalms 115:3 (NKJV) But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.

Daniel 7:14 (NKJV) Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.

Romans 8:28 (NKJV) And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.


I don't think any of those citations make the emphatic assertion that God is omnipotent and/or omniscient, though many do come close.

I thought the Luke citation was the best one until I realized that it was a statement directed at the faithful, not a description of God.

The citations all point to God's great power (or faith in God's power), but none appear to be unequivical statements of doctrine.

I'm no biblical scholar (far from it). I'd really like to see Non Sequitur's opinion on the issue since he does give remarkably fair assessments of such questions and his biblical knowledge far exceeds mine. :)

The Bible does make that point rather clear, imo; but I wont deny that there is much debate on that topic within the christian circles. I went to a bible college for almost four years and it was Calvinist, yet I have heard Arminian teaching, as well.
From the citations given, I agree the Bible infers the point, but I don't see an unequivical statement of doctrine there.

And I can see several doctrinal problems if God's omniscience and omnipotence is a matter of doctrine (i.e. the problem of evil).

it would make more sense if it were symbolic.
Yes it would, but many Christians assert that a literal translation of the bible is most correct. :shrug:

Are you a mod here? I can't tell since there aren't any obvious mod tags..unless i'm totally missing it. :shrug:
Yes I am. :)

Sorry, we are pretty low key around here and I don't like hogging the limelight. But I do have a badge and a big gun! :D

[evanescence]

I don't think any of those citations make the emphatic assertion that God is omnipotent and/or omniscient, though many do come close.

There are more, but if these don't convince you, I doubt the others will. If your interested, I can pull more up for you. Also, if god created everything..wouldn't he be able to control his creation?

I thought the Luke citation was the best one until I realized that it was a statement directed at the faithful, not a description of God.

It still describes god since it says that nothing is impossible for him.

The citations all point to God's great power (or faith in God's power), but none appear to be unequivical statements of doctrine.

Why not?

I'm no biblical scholar (far from it). I'd really like to see Non Sequitur's opinion on the issue since he does give remarkably fair assessments of such questions and his biblical knowledge far exceeds mine. :)


What are his qualifications, just out of curiousity?

From the citations given, I agree the Bible infers the point, but I don't see an unequivical statement of doctrine there.

Anything in the Bible should be considered "unequivical" for a christian.

And I can see several doctrinal problems if God's omniscience and omnipotence is a matter of doctrine (i.e. the problem of evil).

yeah, so can I.


Yes it would, but many Christians assert that a literal translation of the bible is most correct. :shrug:


As it should be. If it weren't, why believe anything the Bible says?

Yes I am. :)

Sorry, we are pretty low key around here and I don't like hogging the limelight. But I do have a badge and a big gun! :D


i like that. At PCF, mods get big, fancy tags that says "Moderator" and then for extra effect, there's another tag that says "Moderator Blue" whatever that means. Then some of them even go as far as to add a third title saying something about being a mod. gee wiz. We get the point! :lol: This is a cool place.

[Michael]

There are more, but if these don't convince you, I doubt the others will. If your interested, I can pull more up for you.

Random quotes from the bible can be produced on both sides of most issues. :shrug:

Like I said, I'm not a biblical scholar (nor fluent in Armeniac, Hebrew or Greek). That being said, I'm quite aware of the translational history of the bible making any claim for the veracity of any statement highly questionable.

Also, if god created everything..wouldn't he be able to control his creation?
Not necessarily. If God creates something (or everything), and you abuse that thing, that doesn't necessarily or logically imply that God willed your action.

The bible does speak of God granting freewill.

It still describes god since it says that nothing is impossible for him.
Are these assertions of God's attributes coming from God or are they an expression of faith from a believer?

Why not?
Because none of them are words directly attributed to God, and none of them make the formal claim of omnipotence. Saying God is all powerful or 'almighty' doesn't necessarily equate to omnipotence.

Speaking of which, I've never encountered any Christians asserting that God is omnipotent and omniscient is Christian doctrine. That is (on the contrary) an expression much favored by philosophers used as an argument against the existence of God.

What are his qualifications, just out of curiousity?
He is a seminary student. He is on-track to become an ordained minister.

He's also a Lutheran which is the one doctrinal school that I have the most respect for (I've never encountered obnoxious Lutherans - only obnoxious Catholics or obnoxious evangelicals). :D

And I have had good experiences in the past when I asked Non Sequitur for clarification of Christian doctrine on a disputed point. It is my experience that he answers the question without prejudice (quite uncommon for the religious warrior types which are all too common on discussion forums).

Anything in the Bible should be considered "unequivical" for a christian.
I'm not a Christian and have never devoted much thought to that issue so I don't feel confident expounding agreement on that point.

I do believe that there is considerable Christian diversity upon the 'correct' answer to that question.

As it should be. If it weren't, why believe anything the Bible says?
There are many different answers to this question. Some of the greatest Christian scholars of all time have favored an allegorical interpretation. Others insist on bible literalism. :shrug:

i like that. At PCF, mods get big, fancy tags that says "Moderator" and then for extra effect, there's another tag that says "Moderator Blue" whatever that means. Then some of them even go as far as to add a third title saying something about being a mod. gee wiz. We get the point! :lol: This is a cool place.

Just so you know, one of the reasons I created this forum is because I had been annoyed by the extraordinary number of jackass rightwing moderators at so many forums (several in particular) and the way they are always protected by the forum administrators when they play troll games and ban people they don't like for personal reasons.

I knew I wasn't the only one with that opinion. So this forum is a bit different than most other forums in how it is run. :)

As for the mod-tags, I used to have an "Administrator" tag, but I felt that was a bit pompus and prefered my present title of "herder of cats". Seems more appropriate anyhow! :D

[evanescence]

Random quotes from the bible can be produced on both sides of most issues. :shrug:

Sure if the verses are not interpreted correctly. :D

Like I said, I'm not a biblical scholar (nor fluent in Armeniac, Hebrew or Greek). That being said, I'm quite aware of the translational history of the bible making any claim for the veracity of any statement highly questionable.

Fair enough. However, if one is to study the original Greek or Hebrew, the translation become much more clear.


Not necessarily. If God creates something (or everything), and you abuse that thing, that doesn't necessarily or logically imply that God willed your action.

If god is not all powerful or almighty (the two words are synonymous) then how did he create the universe? It seems illogical to propose that god created this universe and cannot control it.

The bible does speak of God granting freewill.

Yes, and imo this is where the Bible contradicts itself. Read Romans 1 and Romans 9. (I can get those verses if you need me to.) It speaks very clearly of these things, particularly of predestination and foreknowledge. Here's my favorite part:

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
(from Romans 9)


What do you make of that? Free will, eh? :lol:

Are these assertions of God's attributes coming from God or are they an expression of faith from a believer?

The former. Those are the words of Gabriel, the angel.

26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" 35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/#fen-NIV-24921c)] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."


Because none of them are words directly attributed to God, and none of them make the formal claim of omnipotence. Saying God is all powerful or 'almighty' doesn't necessarily equate to omnipotence.

Ok, that point I wont argue. But angels and the apostles/disciples certainly did make that claim about god.

Speaking of which, I've never encountered any Christians asserting that God is omnipotent and omniscient is Christian doctrine. That is (on the contrary) an expression much favored by philosophers used as an argument against the existence of God.

Interesting. I first came across these assertions from Christians.


He is a seminary student. He is on-track to become an ordained minister.

He's also a Lutheran which is the one doctrinal school that I have the most respect for (I've never encountered obnoxious Lutherans - only obnoxious Catholics or obnoxious evangelicals). :D

And I have had good experiences in the past when I asked Non Sequitur for clarification of Christian doctrine on a disputed point. It is my experience that he answers the question without prejudice (quite uncommon for the religious warrior types which are all too common on discussion forums).

He's off to boot camp, now.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131260&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40


I'm not a Christian and have never devoted much thought to that issue so I don't feel confident expounding agreement on that point.

I do believe that there is considerable Christian diversity upon the 'correct' answer to that question.


There are many different answers to this question. Some of the greatest Christian scholars of all time have favored an allegorical interpretation. Others insist on bible literalism. :shrug:

Very true.



Just so you know, one of the reasons I created this forum is because I had been annoyed by the extraordinary number of jackass rightwing moderators at so many forums (several in particular) and the way they are always protected by the forum administrators when they play troll games and ban people they don't like for personal reasons.

I knew I wasn't the only one with that opinion. So this forum is a bit different than most other forums in how it is run. :)

As for the mod-tags, I used to have an "Administrator" tag, but I felt that was a bit pompus and prefered my present title of "herder of cats". Seems more appropriate anyhow! :D

You've done a great job. And I agree. I also go to politicalforum. The mods there are ridiculous.

[SMadsen]

Not necessarily. If God creates something (or everything), and you abuse that thing, that doesn't necessarily or logically imply that God willed your action.

The bible does speak of God granting freewill.
Unless the same God is being attributed with omniscience. Albeit not logically implying a control per se, it does take away free will and thus raise the question if any sort of will at all is involved.

[andrewl]

I am very intrigued by Daniel Quinn's interpretation of all this in his book Ishmael. In brief:

The knowledge of good and evil is the knowledge required to reign over all the world, essentially the knowledge of what organisms should die and what organisms should live. The fruit represents the knowledge of the gods, and the fruit can only nourish the gods. The eating of the fruit represents Adam's delusion in thinking that he might become a god and gain the knowledge of good and evil (of who should live and die, i.e., agriculture) and he therefore usurps the preordained laws of nature, or to put this another way, it represents man foolishly taking on the responsibility of the gods. This is the fall of man.

This origin of this story is the story of Cain and Abel. Cain is the agriculturalist, Abel is the pastoralist/tribalist. Cain kills Abel and puts the land under cultivation, putting man on a path to civilization, endless toil, suffering, and the eventual destruction of all life.

I like this interpretation because it represents an ancient warning from the Semitic peoples who had the foresight to see the danger man faced by abandoning the ways of life that dominated most of human existence up until the agricultural revolution.

Andrew

[evanescence]

Unless the same God is being attributed with omniscience. Albeit not logically implying a control per se, it does take away free will and thus raise the question if any sort of will at all is involved.

Does it make logical sense for god to be everywhere and know everything, and yet not control everything?

[Michael]

Does it make logical sense for god to be everywhere and know everything, and yet not control everything?

Yes it does - according to Christian theology and freewill.

[evanescence]

Unless the same God is being attributed with omniscience. Albeit not logically implying a control per se, it does take away free will and thus raise the question if any sort of will at all is involved.

Yes it does - according to Christian theology and freewill.

Without quoting specific bible verses, the word "almighty" means:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/almighty

That is used in a number of biblical references to describe god, is it not?

[Michael]

Without quoting specific bible verses, the word "almighty" means:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/almighty

That is used in a number of biblical references to describe god, is it not?

As a general rule, I tend to attack dictionary arguments as circular. :D

In this case, I'll just point out that the dollar is also commonly given that adjective (i.e. the "almighty buck").

Now I'll grant that the dollar may be omnipotent, but omniscient and omnipresent it most certainly is not! ;)

[SMadsen]

Does it make logical sense for god to be everywhere and know everything, and yet not control everything?
I concur with Michael on this.

[evanescence]

As a general rule, I tend to attack dictionary arguments as circular. :D

How so? Usually words have several meanings, and yet each meaning is linked to a specific context. When it defined "almighty" in the context of describing god, it used the word omnipotent. All-mighty. Seems clear to me.

In this case, I'll just point out that the dollar is also commonly given that adjective (i.e. the "almighty buck").


:lol: I'm referring to almighty in the Biblical context. The figurative language used to describe the dollar is both silly. In fact, the dollar likely isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Gensis 17:1

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty [a (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/#fen-NIV-399a)] ; walk before me and be blameless.


Psalm 33:8-9 (KJV)
Let all the earth fear the LORD:
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
For he spake, he spake, and it was done;
he commanded, and it stood fast.

Jer 32:27
27 "I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?



6Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting:
"Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns.

[Greendruid]

How so? Usually words have several meanings, and yet each meaning is linked to a specific context. When it defined "almighty" in the context of describing god, it used the word omnipotent. All-mighty. Seems clear to me.




:lol: I'm referring to almighty in the Biblical context. The figurative language used to describe the dollar is both silly. In fact, the dollar likely isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Gensis 17:1

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty [a (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/#fen-NIV-399a)] ; walk before me and be blameless.


Psalm 33:8-9 (KJV)
Let all the earth fear the LORD:
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
For he spake, he spake, and it was done;

he commanded, and it stood fast.

Jer 32:27
27 "I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?



6Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting:
"Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns.


Consider also that the bible wasn't written in English - this is a significant contributing factor to the words of that scripture as professed by English-only scholars. The word "almighty" is likely not quite the same as the Greek that preceded it, or the Aramaic or Hebrew that preceded that. A giant game of telephone is what you're left with. Language, all language, is nuanced with context. The cultural context of a three thousand year old text is ... irretrievable. We can attempt to (re)construct the context but it is never a true reconstruction. Ultimately, we are only constructing with a skeleton of what was once there. The sense of the concept of god's "almighty"ness is likely to have been morphed over that time period, perhaps mutated beyond a recognisable form even.

[Michael]

How so? Usually words have several meanings, and yet each meaning is linked to a specific context. When it defined "almighty" in the context of describing god, it used the word omnipotent. All-mighty. Seems clear to me.
With respect to dictionary definitions in the English language, they do not presume to offer official explanations of what the word means (though that's how they are commonly interpreted).

In reality, dictionaries just passively record common usage. If all of us start using the word "black" to describe the color "white", then "white" will become just another definition of the word "black" in every dictionary.

Ergo, dictionary definitions do not offer authoritive definitions of words. They just describe how given words are commonly used.

Thus, dictionary definitions don't actually add anything to a discussion - they are just circular references to the way the word is most commonly used. There is nothing qualitative, authoritive or definitive about that.

As for the rest, I think Greendruid has addressed the key point I was making about biblical citations - that the words have been through the translation cycle so many times that the original meaning in many cases is long gone.

[evanescence]

Consider also that the bible wasn't written in English - this is a significant contributing factor to the words of that scripture as professed by English-only scholars. The word "almighty" is likely not quite the same as the Greek that preceded it, or the Aramaic or Hebrew that preceded that. A giant game of telephone is what you're left with. Language, all language, is nuanced with context. The cultural context of a three thousand year old text is ... irretrievable. We can attempt to (re)construct the context but it is never a true reconstruction. Ultimately, we are only constructing with a skeleton of what was once there. The sense of the concept of god's "almighty"ness is likely to have been morphed over that time period, perhaps mutated beyond a recognisable form even.

Absolutely. I agree with that.

Here is a website showing the Hebrew names for god. In Genesis when the word "Almighty" is used as a title for god, it is translated from the Hebrew word, Ed Shaddai.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html

[evanescence]

With respect to dictionary definitions in the English language, they do not presume to offer official explanations of what the word means (though that's how they are commonly interpreted).

In reality, dictionaries just passively record common usage. If all of us start using the word "black" to describe the color "white", then "white" will become just another definition of the word "black" in every dictionary.

Ergo, dictionary definitions do not offer authoritive definitions of words. They just describe how given words are commonly used.

Thus, dictionary definitions don't actually add anything to a discussion - they are just circular references to the way the word is most commonly used. There is nothing qualitative, authoritive or definitive about that.

As for the rest, I think Greendruid has addressed the key point I was making about biblical citations - that the words have been through the translation cycle so many times that the original meaning in many cases is long gone.

So basically definitions are also subjective, like everything else. Fair enough, but if we can't define words, how can we properly use them? This can get rather confusing. :lol:

[Michael]

So basically definitions are also subjective, like everything else. Fair enough, but if we can't define words, how can we properly use them? This can get rather confusing. :lol:
No, it is sufficient to realize that dictionaries don't provide authoritive definitions.

There are no short cuts for complex topics. :)

[evanescence]

No, it is sufficient to realize that dictionaries don't provide authoritive definitions.

There are no short cuts for complex topics. :)

What if the Bible literally used the word omnipotent? Would you be happy then? :D

oh, and did you read the Hebrew link in my last post?

[Michael]

What if the Bible literally used the word omnipotent? Would you be happy then? :D
Only if it was in the original Arimiac. :D

oh, and did you read the Hebrew link in my last post?
Umm... no. Despite my name, I do not read Hebrew. ;)

[evanescence]

Only if it was in the original Arimiac. :D


Umm... no. Despite my name, I do not read Hebrew. ;)

If you want, check out that link. See what you think.

[Michael]

If you want, check out that link. See what you think.
The only thing there is the claim of omniscience. I didn't see anything that made the claim of omnipotence.

Speaking of which, the story of the Fallen Angel (or the existence of evil) suggests that God isn't omnipotent.

Btw, "Almighty" was also a common name for Zeus.

[evanescence]

The only thing there is the claim of omniscience. I didn't see anything that made the claim of omnipotence.

Speaking of which, the story of the Fallen Angel (or the existence of evil) suggests that God isn't omnipotent.

Btw, "Almighty" was also a common name for Zeus.

Look at the word "El shaddai". I would copy and paste but the website has that option disabled. I hate when they do that. :rolleyes:

[Michael]

Look at the word "El shaddai". I would copy and paste but the website has that option disabled. I hate when they do that. :rolleyes:
I think that discussion shows that the original (alleged) meaning in Hebrew is not quite the same as the "almighty/omnipotent" terms that it has been translated into. The label of "omnipotent" appears to contain a slight 'overreach' beyond the apparent meaning of the original Hebrew term.

Btw, I have no problem if the Christians want to proclaim their God is omniscient and omnipotent. I'm just pointing out that if they do that, they have some serious doctrinal problems with the existence of evil and freewill just for starters.

[evanescence]

I think that discussion shows that the original (alleged) meaning in Hebrew is not quite the same as the "almighty/omnipotent" terms that it has been translated into. The label of "omnipotent" appears to contain a slight 'overreach' beyond the apparent meaning of the original Hebrew term.

Btw, I have no problem if the Christians want to proclaim their God is omniscient and omnipotent. I'm just pointing out that if they do that, they have some serious doctrinal problems with the existence of evil and freewill just for starters.

We definitely agree on that. It absolutely contradicts. Just read Romans 9.

[Greendruid]

Wow! That explanation of El Shaddai was enlightening to me. No where am I more convinced than with this explanation so far that the meanings of such important concepts, concepts on which dogma hinges, is constructing by the inheriting culture with all of its particular, specific cultural nuances on their vision of their god. Shame on the King James translators and even going back so far as the Romans. "Almighty" is, in my opinion, a horrible translation for El Shaddai. Typical Roman propaganda now that I think about it. How much we have lost. I think if I had an inkling of interest in being a Christian minister I would probably get kicked out of bible college pretty fast! And this is just the word-play that Hebrew seems to be so good at. The Aramaic may be even more cryptic. Interestingly, this leaves some room for the interpretation that God is sexless. I won't go into that much larger subject though.

[evanescence]

It's interesting that people don't question that god can know everything and be everywhere, but he couldn't possibly be all powerful. That makes absolutely zero sense.

[SMadsen]

It's interesting that people don't question that god can know everything and be everywhere, but he couldn't possibly be all powerful. That makes absolutely zero sense.
I don't know which people you refer to but both omniscience and omnipotency are claims that basically render the existence of most theistic gods contradictive.

Omnipresence is too vague a claim to constitute an argument regarding existence.

[evanescence]

I don't know which people you refer to but both omniscience and omnipotency are claims that basically render the existence of most theistic gods contradictive.

Omnipresence is too vague a claim to constitute an argument regarding existence.


How so? Knowing everything and being all powerful would seem like two traits that go together, imo. The same with omnipresence. Of course such traits seem too far fetched to be anything but fairy tales, really. :lol:

[SMadsen]

How so? Knowing everything and being all powerful would seem like two traits that go together, imo. The same with omnipresence. Of course such traits seem too far fetched to be anything but fairy tales, really. :lol:
There a numerous reasons. I'm sure you've heard the one that an omnipotent god can or cannot create a stone that it can or cannot lift itself? That one still effectively ruins omnipotency all by itself.

With regard to simultaneous omniscience and omnipotency, for example, a deity must, in order to be omniscient, know what it is going to do itself. However, being predetermined itself means that it can't change its mind as what it's going to do. Hence, a claim of omniscience eliminates any claim of omnipotency.

The same problem exists with any theism that in its tenets includes humans free will. An omniscient god is contradictive to the free will of its creation. And vice versa.

And so on.

[evanescence]

There a numerous reasons. I'm sure you've heard the one that an omnipotent god can or cannot create a stone that it can or cannot lift itself? That one still effectively ruins omnipotency all by itself.

With regard to simultaneous omniscience and omnipotency, for example, a deity must, in order to be omniscient, know what it is going to do itself. However, being predetermined itself means that it can't change its mind as what it's going to do. Hence, a claim of omniscience eliminates any claim of omnipotency.

The same problem exists with any theism that in its tenets includes humans free will. An omniscient god is contradictive to the free will of its creation. And vice versa.

And so on.

Knowing the future wouldn't prevent god from being all powerful, but it would make it it rather difficult for him to change his mind. That's where the Bible contradicts.

[Michael]

There a numerous reasons. I'm sure you've heard the one that an omnipotent god can or cannot create a stone that it can or cannot lift itself? That one still effectively ruins omnipotency all by itself.

With regard to simultaneous omniscience and omnipotency, for example, a deity must, in order to be omniscient, know what it is going to do itself. However, being predetermined itself means that it can't change its mind as what it's going to do. Hence, a claim of omniscience eliminates any claim of omnipotency.

The same problem exists with any theism that in its tenets includes humans free will. An omniscient god is contradictive to the free will of its creation. And vice versa.

And so on.
Agreed on all points. ;)

[evanescence]

"I'm sure you've heard the one that an omnipotent god can or cannot create a stone that it can or cannot lift itself? That one still effectively ruins omnipotency all by itself."

An infinite being cannot create something more infinite than itself. True. But that doesn't disprove omnipotence. Infinity cannot be exceeded, thus not being able to exceed infinity is hardly proof of your assertions.

[Non Sequitur]

No. But if you have the foreknowledge and the power to stop the event in addition to the creative powers which began the entire process, yes.

see Michael's response. God's direct intervention would have destroyed much of what it means to be human

A god who creates people to worship him is arrogant. A god who made man, who is arrogant, in His image is also arrogant.

non sequitur from pcf?

Who said God created people to worship him? If that was actually the case than all people would all people would worship him and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The misconception here is that worshiping God is an end unto itself. This is not true. Worshiping is a means that is directed toward a goal of a relationship with the divine. Worship is a part of having this relationship, but by no means the be all and end all of it. In fact, worship tends to be only an outward expression of something deeper.

Also, why is being created in the image of God arrogant? I consider it a great gift. That concept is my foundation for human rights and ethics. Without it, those concepts make far less sense to me.

[SMadsen]

Knowing the future wouldn't prevent god from being all powerful, but it would make it it rather difficult for him to change his mind. That's where the Bible contradicts.
Either a god is said to know the future (even if the future is imagined to be the god's presence or past) and is therefore given no chance to change things, lest it did not know the future after all, or a god is not said to know the future and is therefore given the power to change things.

Usually, though, theistic gods are given the ability to know all things because it is rendered all powerful. A thought that seems complete enough to be entertained. But when scrutinized, things like beyond time, dimensionless and infinity must be employed to construct adequate apologetics.

[SMadsen]

A god who creates people to worship him is arrogant. A god who made man, who is arrogant, in His image is also arrogant.
If a man who made a god has all sorts of good and bad characters and the god is made in the image of the man, does the god also become good and bad? Or would the god mainly become good to the man who created it?


PS. Consider that gods are often total dicks to anyone else than those who worship it, for instance, by killing their firstborns, showering them with grasshoppers, blowing their cities up or sending them to hot places after they die.

[evanescence]

see Michael's response. God's direct intervention would have destroyed much of what it means to be human

then god has the power but doesn't use it?



Who said God created people to worship him? If that was actually the case than all people would all people would worship him and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11 KJV). Isaiah 43:7 everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made

Humans were created for god's pleasure and glory. To give glory to god is to worship him. Some other verses: Rev 4; Rev 14:6

The misconception here is that worshiping God is an end unto itself. This is not true. Worshiping is a means that is directed toward a goal of a relationship with the divine. Worship is a part of having this relationship, but by no means the be all and end all of it. In fact, worship tends to be only an outward expression of something deeper.

Also, why is being created in the image of God arrogant? I consider it a great gift. That concept is my foundation for human rights and ethics. Without it, those concepts make far less sense to me.

I meant to say that because man is arrogant, and man is in god's image, god must also be arrogant. I know the argument to that is that man has a sin nature which does not reflect god.

[Non Sequitur]

then god has the power but doesn't use it?

One could look at it that way. I think a more orthodox way of way of saying it is to say God chooses not to use his power in the conventional human sense. What humans expect is often not the way God works

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11 KJV). Isaiah 43:7 everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made

Humans were created for god's pleasure and glory. To give glory to god is to worship him. Some other verses: Rev 4; Rev 14:6

I would never argue that worship is not due to the divine (the phrase goes "it is a right, duty, and joy to worship God in all places and in all times), just that God wants a relationship with his creation.

On a side note, you quotations are a reason why we must be careful of translation. The KJV is the most unreliable translation. In the NRSV (the choice of scholars) Revelation 4:11 goes:
You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.

slightly different end there. If we are talking about about ultimate ends Revelation gives the ultimate purpose for creation: "The home of God is among mortals. They will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them" (revelation 21:4 NRSV).

I meant to say that because man is arrogant, and man is in god's image, god must also be arrogant. I know the argument to that is that man has a sin nature which does not reflect god.

I am beginning to regret the "image of God" comment I made :). That concept is not defined in Bible, Genesis just says it and moves on. While the concept is incredibly important for Christian theology, it has no set definition. All I can say is that it does NOT mean that every thing human is a pure reflection of the divine.

[evanescence]

One could look at it that way. I think a more orthodox way of way of saying it is to say God chooses not to use his power in the conventional human sense. What humans expect is often not the way God works.

Yes, the whole "god works in mysterious ways" argument. :cool:

Do you believe that god is all powerful in the sense that he could control everything if he wanted to?



I would never argue that worship is not due to the divine (the phrase goes "it is a right, duty, and joy to worship God in all places and in all times), just that God wants a relationship with his creation.

On a side note, you quotations are a reason why we must be careful of translation. The KJV is the most unreliable translation. In the NRSV (the choice of scholars)

Which scholars? I only ask because the Bible college I attended was KJV only. I tend to discredit all of them now.

Revelation 4:11 goes:
You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.

slightly different end there. If we are talking about about ultimate ends Revelation gives the ultimate purpose for creation: "The home of God is among mortals. They will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them" (revelation 21:4 NRSV).

Mankind was created to have fellowship with god, and to give him glory. Do you disagree?



I am beginning to regret the "image of God" comment I made :). That concept is not defined in Bible, Genesis just says it and moves on. While the concept is incredibly important for Christian theology, it has no set definition. All I can say is that it does NOT mean that every thing human is a pure reflection of the divine.

Which is interesting. You would think that being made in the image of god would require a bit more explanation. I have always thought it was because we are spirit, soul, and body or some say mind, body, and soul..a sort of trinity if you will. Obviously, unless you're mormon, you wouldn't believe that god has a literal physical form.

[Non Sequitur]

Yes, the whole "god works in mysterious ways" argument. :cool:

Do you believe that god is all powerful in the sense that he could control everything if he wanted to?

Well yes, but what God could do and what he does do are different things.

Which scholars? I only ask because the Bible college I attended was KJV only. I tend to discredit all of them now.

ha, well a typical way to identify a very conservative school is that the word "bible college" is some where in the title.

a good summary of the problems with the KJV is this (http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm) website. Specifically there quote about the KJV is:
"The King James Version (KJV) or The New King James Version (NKJV). The KJV was a great literal translation in its day, but that day was the 17th century! Many earlier and more accurate biblical manuscripts were discovered afterwards and most modern translations—including those produced by very conservative Christians—are based on them. The NKJV updates some of the 17th century language, and I like its literalness, but most of the time it relies on the same late and less accurate manuscripts that were available to the KJV translators in the 17th century."

The problems with the KJV really start with what what documents they use for the Old Testament. There are two versions of the Old Testament, The Hebrew version deriving from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuigent which is a greek translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. The Greek version is, of course, a translation of a much older version and thus much less accurate. Unfortunately the Greek version is the document the KJV uses for it's translation of the Old Testament.

Mankind was created to have fellowship with god, and to give him glory. Do you disagree?

The key there is the fellowship part. Fellowship involves a two way relationship, not just a "do what I say" thing.

Which is interesting. You would think that being made in the image of god would require a bit more explanation. I have always thought it was because we are spirit, soul, and body or some say mind, body, and soul..a sort of trinity if you will. Obviously, unless you're mormon, you wouldn't believe that god has a literal physical form.


Well yes, but often the Bible leaves many such items undefined (much to my dissatisfaction). My personal definition is self sacrificing love.

[Michael]

Well yes, but what God could do and what he does do are different things.
Isn't that the most dangerous argument of all for a theist to make?

That open up God to the accusation of evil (and choosing to let it ride).

[evanescence]

Isn't that the most dangerous argument of all for a theist to make?

That open up God to the accusation of evil (and choosing to let it ride).

Yes it does, doesn't it. And yet to say that god is not all powerful makes him weak. I could easily argue that god is all powerful and yet not evil. However, to do so, I would need scripture. For those who do not believe scripture, such arguments are moot.

[evanescence]

Well yes, but what God could do and what he does do are different things.

Indeed.



ha, well a typical way to identify a very conservative school is that the word "bible college" is some where in the title.

Actually, the words bible college isn't in the title.
www.pcci.edu (http://www.pcci.edu) . . . if you're interested. :)

a good summary of the problems with the KJV is this (http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm) website. Specifically there quote about the KJV is:
"The King James Version (KJV) or The New King James Version (NKJV). The KJV was a great literal translation in its day, but that day was the 17th century! Many earlier and more accurate biblical manuscripts were discovered afterwards and most modern translations—including those produced by very conservative Christians—are based on them. The NKJV updates some of the 17th century language, and I like its literalness, but most of the time it relies on the same late and less accurate manuscripts that were available to the KJV translators in the 17th century."

The problems with the KJV really start with what what documents they use for the Old Testament. There are two versions of the Old Testament, The Hebrew version deriving from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuigent which is a greek translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. The Greek version is, of course, a translation of a much older version and thus much less accurate. Unfortunately the Greek version is the document the KJV uses for it's translation of the Old Testament.

I'll check out your sources, but I have always found the debate about which version of the bible is most accurate to be rather amusing. Christians love to argue about that.



The key there is the fellowship part. Fellowship involves a two way relationship, not just a "do what I say" thing.

Why couldn't god simply create man differently, with free will but without the desire to know what good and evil were? All I'm saying is that the problems we have now seem so preventable.



Well yes, but often the Bible leaves many such items undefined (much to my dissatisfaction). My personal definition is self sacrificing love.

I have also found that the answers to the question I wanted to know the most were conveniently left as mysteries. Personally, I hate the entire concept of faith which is why I am no longer a christian.

[Michael]

Personally, I hate the entire concept of faith which is why I am no longer a christian.

Without faith, how do you function or reason?

Are you going to be stuck inside your own head with the rest of the world floating around as if it was nothing more than your imagination?

I suspect you are chosing to arbitrarily reject on flavor of faith while continuing to rely on a whole bunch of other articles of faith.

How about that sunrise tomorrow? Do you have any faith in that event occuring?

[evanescence]

Without faith, how do you function or reason?

Faith is not a requirement for reasoning, although there are assertions one will make which cannot always be based upon solid fact. However, I would not claim to have faith in that matter, either. To believe something with absolutely no proof, or sign of logic seems dumb to me.

Are you going to be stuck inside your own head with the rest of the world floating around as if it was nothing more than your imagination?

I'm not sure what specifically you're asking here. I do, in fact, "live in my head", but I would venture to say that this is the case with most people. Each of us have only our own perspectives. True empathy is not possible.

I suspect you are chosing to arbitrarily reject on flavor of faith while continuing to rely on a whole bunch of other articles of faith.

How so?

How about that sunrise tomorrow? Do you have any faith in that event occuring?

It has occured for billions of years. I am aware that a catastrophic event may indeed happen at any time. But it requires no faith to be reasonably sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. I do not have faith in that.

[Non Sequitur]

Isn't that the most dangerous argument of all for a theist to make?

That open up God to the accusation of evil (and choosing to let it ride).

I guess what I was really trying to get at is that even in the Bible (God's word given to people to help understand him) God is still hidden in way and doesn't explain why things happen. The possibilities of what God "could" do are endless and that discussion just ends up devolving into scholasticism. The Bible doesn't say why God, in the case of our story, made the world in seven days. Certainly God could have just said, "Ka-blah!!" and the world would have turned out the same way, but the text says the Almighty didn't. The Bible describes a God who works through a process for whatever reason (maybe for our own sake as limited beings). In fact, whenever someone tries to get a straight answer out of God on this question ("God you are all powerful why did this happen?" or "what is the reason for this?") God doesn't answer them. He says, "don't worry trust in me", and moves on (in the case of Job he tells him don't be a fool and then moves on). Notice I did not say "what God could do and what he chooses to do are different things." I said "what God could do and what God does do are different things." The word choose would have implied a choice for evil. Therefore, I stick to my statement.

[evanescence]

I guess what I was really trying to get at is that even in the Bible (God's word given to people to help understand him) God is still hidden in way and doesn't explain why things happen. The possibilities of what God "could" do are endless and that discussion just ends up devolving into scholasticism. The Bible doesn't say why God, in the case of our story, made the world in seven days. Certainly God could have just said, "Ka-blah!!" and the world would have turned out the same way, but the text says the Almighty didn't. The Bible describes a God who works through a process for whatever reason (maybe for our own sake as limited beings). In fact, whenever someone tries to get a straight answer out of God on this question ("God you are all powerful why did this happen?" or "what is the reason for this?") God doesn't answer them. He says, "don't worry trust in me", and moves on (in the case of Job he tells him don't be a fool and then moves on). Notice I did not say "what God could do and what he chooses to do are different things." I said "what God could do and what God does do are different things." The word choose would have implied a choice for evil. Therefore, I stick to my statement.

Semantics. What god does do and what he chooses to do are the same things.

[Non Sequitur]

Semantics. What god does do and what he chooses to do are the same things.

Alright you got me there. I retract that last statement. Put that in my last of retractions from online forums.:o

The rest of the still stands though. To answer Michael's question in a less satisfactory way: No matter how you formulate your theology, you can always level that charge against God. As I pointed out in the last post, Job says that very thing to God and God does not give him an answer. There is no answer accept faith that God is good. As I said, very unsatisfactory.

[Michael]

I guess what I was really trying to get at is that even in the Bible (God's word given to people to help understand him) God is still hidden in way and doesn't explain why things happen. The possibilities of what God "could" do are endless and that discussion just ends up devolving into scholasticism. The Bible doesn't say why God, in the case of our story, made the world in seven days. Certainly God could have just said, "Ka-blah!!" and the world would have turned out the same way, but the text says the Almighty didn't. The Bible describes a God who works through a process for whatever reason (maybe for our own sake as limited beings). In fact, whenever someone tries to get a straight answer out of God on this question ("God you are all powerful why did this happen?" or "what is the reason for this?") God doesn't answer them. He says, "don't worry trust in me", and moves on (in the case of Job he tells him don't be a fool and then moves on). Notice I did not say "what God could do and what he chooses to do are different things." I said "what God could do and what God does do are different things." The word choose would have implied a choice for evil. Therefore, I stick to my statement.

Sorry to press the point, but doesn't this just reinforce the original accusation that God apparently prefers (demands!) humans to be ignorant?

Btw, my grandfather said to me, "never trust anyone who says 'trust me'". Best piece of advice I've ever received. He also said, "never get into a pissing match with a skunk - even if you win, you still lose". Very wise man my grandfather was! ;)

[Americano]

Sorry to press the point, but doesn't this just reinforce the original accusation that God apparently prefers (demands!) humans to be ignorant?

Btw, my grandfather said to me, "never trust anyone who says 'trust me'". Best piece of advice I've ever received. He also said, "never get into a pissing match with a skunk - even if you win, you still lose". Very wise man my grandfather was! ;)

I was raised with a similar philosophy, never trust anyone, especially some family members, when it comes to money. That logic regarding faith formed the basis of my successful argument allowing me to forgo weekly Christian church attendance at age 12.

[Zarquon]

My only generalisation is to avoid generalising as much as possible.

[SMadsen]

Sorry to press the point, but doesn't this just reinforce the original accusation that God apparently prefers (demands!) humans to be ignorant?
Humans must be ignorant as to the wills of gods. If that breaks then the illusion breaks.

[evanescence]

Alright you got me there. I retract that last statement. Put that in my last of retractions from online forums.:o

The rest of the still stands though. To answer Michael's question in a less satisfactory way: No matter how you formulate your theology, you can always level that charge against God. As I pointed out in the last post, Job says that very thing to God and God does not give him an answer. There is no answer accept faith that God is good. As I said, very unsatisfactory.

Agreed. This is the main reason I quit believing. I really did try to live that life, though.

[evanescence]

Sorry to press the point, but doesn't this just reinforce the original accusation that God apparently prefers (demands!) humans to be ignorant?

Btw, my grandfather said to me, "never trust anyone who says 'trust me'". Best piece of advice I've ever received. He also said, "never get into a pissing match with a skunk - even if you win, you still lose". Very wise man my grandfather was! ;)

He does. The only command he gave Adam and Eve in the garden was not to eat of the fruit of knowledge (of good and evil). If they had done this, they would have been ignorant of good and evil..interestingly enough. I suppose being ignorant of both in this situation is logical since one cannot objectively know of good without the concept of evil. Therefore, god wanted them to be ignorant which is the very opposite of our nature. We are curious people, and we thirst for knowledge. God created us that way, and then demanded that we remain without knowledge. :ummm: Faith is demanded here, too.

Why does god care so much about faith??

[evanescence]

I was raised with a similar philosophy, never trust anyone, especially some family members, when it comes to money. That logic regarding faith formed the basis of my successful argument allowing me to forgo weekly Christian church attendance at age 12.

I wasn't necessarily raised to not trust people. I developed that from life experience.

[Americano]

I wasn't necessarily raised to not trust people. I developed that from life experience.

Fortunately, I had an early start.

[Non Sequitur]

Sorry to press the point, but doesn't this just reinforce the original accusation that God apparently prefers (demands!) humans to be ignorant?

Btw, my grandfather said to me, "never trust anyone who says 'trust me'". Best piece of advice I've ever received. He also said, "never get into a pissing match with a skunk - even if you win, you still lose". Very wise man my grandfather was! ;)

It's not a case of wanting ignorance, but a case of being unable to understand the answers in our present condition. We will get the answers, just not yet. Paul in 1 Corinthians writes: "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." I think he said it better than I could. No one is saying full revelation will not ever come, just not yet.

Usually I would agree with your trust me statement. My exception tends to be for the Almighty.

[Non Sequitur]

He does. The only command he gave Adam and Eve in the garden was not to eat of the fruit of knowledge (of good and evil). If they had done this, they would have been ignorant of good and evil..interestingly enough. I suppose being ignorant of both in this situation is logical since one cannot objectively know of good without the concept of evil. Therefore, god wanted them to be ignorant which is the very opposite of our nature. We are curious people, and we thirst for knowledge. God created us that way, and then demanded that we remain without knowledge. :ummm: Faith is demanded here, too.


As I said very early on in the thread, the Knowledge of good and evil does not mean the knowledge of right and wrong. It means to know good and evil "like God" as the serpant says in the story. The "like God" part should be the emphasis and the focus of the problem.


Why does god care so much about faith??


Well, this is one that there are answers to. In fact, there are many answers that go something like this:
1. Faith does not equate belief. The common quip is that even the Devil believes God exists. Faith involves a trusting relationship with the divine.
2. Faith has always been what God is really looking for. Read Galatians.
3. If you see then believe "what credit is that to you" as Jesus says.
4. Faith is easier than the alternative which is trying to earn your salvation. That is impossible ("for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" Romans 3:23) so it's a good thing we don't have to worry about that
5. through faith, the gentile is given the same promise that God gave to the Jews ("I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people" Leviticus 26:12)

Three and Four are the real important ones.

[evanescence]

Fortunately, I had an early start.

..would saved me a lot of trouble.

[evanescence]

It's not a case of wanting ignorance, but a case of being unable to understand the answers in our present condition. We will get the answers, just not yet. Paul in 1 Corinthians writes: "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." I think he said it better than I could. No one is saying full revelation will not ever come, just not yet.

Usually I would agree with your trust me statement. My exception tends to be for the Almighty.

Christians always refer back to this type of argument. "His ways are higher than our ways". It almost always ends an argument. But it's too convenient. If something god does seems contrary to basic logic, a christian can say: "God's ways are higher than our ways", or he can simply quote a similar verse. It's a non answer.

[evanescence]

As I said very early on in the thread, the Knowledge of good and evil does not mean the knowledge of right and wrong. It means to know good and evil "like God" as the serpant says in the story. The "like God" part should be the emphasis and the focus of the problem.

How does god know "good and evil" differently than us? They are concepts, then actions.



Well, this is one that there are answers to. In fact, there are many answers that go something like this:
1. Faith does not equate belief. The common quip is that even the Devil believes God exists. Faith involves a trusting relationship with the divine.

Yes, James 2:19. The devil has seen god in all of his glory. Faith is not necessary for him. It is for us.

2. Faith has always been what God is really looking for. Read Galatians.

Already done.

3. If you see then believe "what credit is that to you" as Jesus says.
4. Faith is easier than the alternative which is trying to earn your salvation. That is impossible ("for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" Romans 3:23) so it's a good thing we don't have to worry about that
5. through faith, the gentile is given the same promise that God gave to the Jews ("I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people" Leviticus 26:12)

Three and Four are the real important ones.

Earning one's salvation is impossible according to scripture. But that doesn't explain faith, unless one says having faith is what earns you salvation. But it doesn't. It's the blood of christ that gives salvation. We do nothing but believe, but the believing is only the medium of reception, not the salvation itself.

[Michael]

Christians always refer back to this type of argument. "His ways are higher than our ways". It almost always ends an argument. But it's too convenient. If something god does seems contrary to basic logic, a christian can say: "God's ways are higher than our ways", or he can simply quote a similar verse. It's a non answer.

Actually, I think it is a perfectly valid answer. :shrug:

It is a base-line admission of pure faith. What more can you reasonably expect from a professed Christian?

Honesty is a mighty rare virtue. ;)

[evanescence]

Actually, I think it is a perfectly valid answer. :shrug:

It is a base-line admission of pure faith. What more can you reasonably expect from a professed Christian?

Honesty is a mighty rare virtue. ;)


For a person who relies on logic instead of faith, it is a non answer. For a person of faith, it is perfectly reasonable.

[Non Sequitur]

How does god know "good and evil" differently than us? They are concepts, then actions.

As I said earlier in the thread, God's knowledge of good and evil is different because he is judge and all knowing. Knowing the end of all things gives God a different perception of good and evil. Also God is not marked by Sin so again, his knowledge is different.

Yes, James 2:19. The devil has seen god in all of his glory. Faith is not necessary for him. It is for us.


Well, my real point was that there is a difference between faith and belief. Faith is a trusting relationship with God where as belief is just accepting that he exists.

Earning one's salvation is impossible according to scripture. But that doesn't explain faith, unless one says having faith is what earns you salvation. But it doesn't. It's the blood of christ that gives salvation. We do nothing but believe, but the believing is only the medium of reception, not the salvation itself.

Yes, Christ's death is what gives salvation, but we receive salvation through faith. And again, the real issue that the alternative is a works theology.

[evanescence]

As I said earlier in the thread, God's knowledge of good and evil is different because he is judge and all knowing. Knowing the end of all things gives God a different perception of good and evil. Also God is not marked by Sin so again, his knowledge is different.

How does this "different perception" of good and evil justify anything? After all Paul says in Romans 9:

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, . . .

So god chooses what ever he likes, but who are we..mere mortals..to question him. Am I right?



Well, my real point was that there is a difference between faith and belief. Faith is a trusting relationship with God where as belief is just accepting that he exists.

I suppose that's just the "Christian definition" of faith, but according to some people, using a dictionary is a lousy argument. :lol:



Yes, Christ's death is what gives salvation, but we receive salvation through faith. And again, the real issue that the alternative is a works theology.

That is essentially what i said. Faith is how we are required to receive salvation, but the salvation comes from christ.

This verse is interesting since people often see Christianity as foolishness:

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 1 Cor 1:27

[Non Sequitur]

How does this "different perception" of good and evil justify anything?

I'm confused, what are we trying to justify? I'm just arguing that the knowledge that the tree bestows in the story is not the basic knowledge of right or wrong, but knowledge of evil as God comprehends it which is not meant for people. That knowledge, according to the story, is bad for us.

After all Paul says in Romans 9...

So god chooses what ever he likes, but who are we..mere mortals..to question him. Am I right?

essentially yes, and I don't see a problem with that. The only qualification is that I don't think questioning is particularly wrong. Job does some questioning as does Moses Abraham, and even Jesus. Just be prepared for an answer out of the whirlwind (Job 38).

I suppose that's just the "Christian definition" of faith, but according to some people, using a dictionary is a lousy argument. :lol:

We could probably let this point drop, I was just trying to clear up a common misconception about the words faith and believe while answering your question about why God is concerned with faith. I have faith in Christ (a trusting relationship). I believe (acknowledge the existence regardless of proof) that the church is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" as the Creed says. Different things there.


That is essentially what i said. Faith is how we are required to receive salvation, but the salvation comes from christ.

This verse is interesting since people often see Christianity as foolishness:

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 1 Cor 1:27

I'm not sure what we are arguing about there, but that 1 Corinthians passage is one of my favorites. Goes back to that whole, "God's ways are not ours" concept.

[evanescence]

I'm confused, what are we trying to justify? I'm just arguing that the knowledge that the tree bestows in the story is not the basic knowledge of right or wrong, but knowledge of evil as God comprehends it which is not meant for people. That knowledge, according to the story, is bad for us.

If god didn't want man knowing "evil as god comprehends it" why would he put the tree in the garden with the full knowledge that man would eat from that tree? It must have been apart of his ultimate plan for that to happen.



essentially yes, and I don't see a problem with that. The only qualification is that I don't think questioning is particularly wrong. Job does some questioning as does Moses Abraham, and even Jesus. Just be prepared for an answer out of the whirlwind (Job 38).

If god did exist, that answer might work, but for the non believer, it's just too easy..too convenient.

[Non Sequitur]

If god didn't want man knowing "evil as god comprehends it" why would he put the tree in the garden with the full knowledge that man would eat from that tree? It must have been apart of his ultimate plan for that to happen.

Now here is an argument that will just end up in us going in circles. I generally try to never argue about what "God's plan" is. Anyone who says they know the "plan" is lying. All I can say is that it is entirely logical to say that God knew from the moment he said "let there be light" (and probably before that point) the course of events and yet still thought the whole venture worth doing. I repeat though, these arguments end up in circles.

If god did exist, that answer might work, but for the non believer, it's just too easy..too convenient.

:D My whole argument is predicated on the idea that God exists. As Luther said "here I stand, I can do no other." All I can say is that doubt is a natural and healthy part of faith.

And Actually I find the answers out of the whirlwind (essentially non-answers) very inconvenient.

[evanescence]

Now here is an argument that will just end up in us going in circles. I generally try to never argue about what "God's plan" is. Anyone who says they know the "plan" is lying. All I can say is that it is entirely logical to say that God knew from the moment he said "let there be light" (and probably before that point) the course of events and yet still thought the whole venture worth doing. I repeat though, these arguments end up in circles.

True. Most philosophical and theological discussions do go in circles ultimately because they are based on opinion and not fact. Most of these questions will never be answered.



:D My whole argument is predicated on the idea that God exists. As Luther said "here I stand, I can do no other." All I can say is that doubt is a natural and healthy part of faith.

And Actually I find the answers out of the whirlwind (essentially non-answers) very inconvenient.

But they're not inconvenient for those who have faith. For those people like me who are cynical and believe in nothing, there are few things less convenient than the typical christian response to difficult questions.

[Non Sequitur]

True. Most philosophical and theological discussions do go in circles ultimately because they are based on opinion and not fact. Most of these questions will never be answered.

Well outside the community of faith most theological discussions go in circles. Inside, they tend to be productive eventually.

But they're not inconvenient for those who have faith. For those people like me who are cynical and believe in nothing, there are few things less convenient than the typical christian response to difficult questions.

What other response would you have? All encompassing answers that satisfies all questions are out there, but they usually fall far short of the mark. This way, at least, the truth is admitted.

[Michael]

But they're not inconvenient for those who have faith. For those people like me who are cynical and believe in nothing, there are few things less convenient than the typical christian response to difficult questions.
If you are cynical and believe in nothing, why does Christian theology concern you? :ummm:

[evanescence]

Well outside the community of faith most theological discussions go in circles. Inside, they tend to be productive eventually.

Christians rarely agree on doctrine. That's where the many, many....many sects of Christianity originate from..disagreement.



What other response would you have? All encompassing answers that satisfies all questions are out there, but they usually fall far short of the mark. This way, at least, the truth is admitted.

If they were all encompassing answers, why would they full short? In my opinion, religion and philosophy is a game of semantics. None of it has ultimate truth because there is no ultimate truth.

[evanescence]

If you are cynical and believe in nothing, why does Christian theology concern you? :ummm:

I like to debate. :shrug: And besides, I used to be a fundamentalist christian..you know, one of those Bible beaters..me of all people. :lol:

[Non Sequitur]

Christians rarely agree on doctrine. That's where the many, many....many sects of Christianity originate from..disagreement.
I actually think that there are far more similarities than differences, just people tend to forget that. At the very least every Christian sect can agree that Jesus is Lord and that is all that really matters. Except for a very rare heretical individual (most notably former Bishop Spong) Every Christian could buy into the Apostles Creed.

And two additional points:1) we are saved by grace, not by knowledge or thought process about God. 2) the catholic Church is something to be believed in just as much as the Bible or Christ is.

If they were all encompassing answers, why would they full short? In my opinion, religion and philosophy is a game of semantics.
Because all ecompassing answers always fall short. Any answer that tries to give a solution to all problems ignores the details of life.

None of it has ultimate truth because there is no ultimate truth.
Well, this is a statement of faith, but Jesus is truth. You know the bible verse.;)

I like to debate. And besides, I used to be a fundamentalist christian..you know, one of those Bible beaters..me of all people.
This actually doesn't surprise me at all.:D

[evanescence]

I actually think that there are far more similarities than differences, just people tend to forget that. At the very least every Christian sect can agree that Jesus is Lord and that is all that really matters. Except for a very rare heretical individual (most notably former Bishop Spong) Every Christian could buy into the Apostles Creed.

And two additional points:1) we are saved by grace, not by knowledge or thought process about God. 2) the catholic Church is something to be believed in just as much as the Bible or Christ is.

Many christians disagree on basic tenants such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and the Trinity, for example. If one disbelieves those basic tenants, how can one be a christian? Then there are the "smaller disagreements" such as should men have long hair? Should Christians listen to rock music? What does being "worldly" mean exactly? I was eye ball deep in Christianity several years ago so I have seen these things first hand. My favorite arguments are which version of the Bible is the most accurate? Is evolution a fact? The day age theory..the gap theory, etc, etc..


Because all ecompassing answers always fall short. Any answer that tries to give a solution to all problems ignores the details of life.

So in focusing on the small details, one cannot see the big picture and vice-versa.. I see. I can;t really argue with that because this seems to be the case with practically everything in life, including science. :(


Well, this is a statement of faith, but Jesus is truth. You know the bible verse.;)

ah-huh, Jesus is the truth! You've got to have faith in that!! :lol:


This actually doesn't surprise me at all.:D

:D That was sarcasm, no doubt..?

:rofl:

[Non Sequitur]

Many christians disagree on basic tenants such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and the Trinity, for example. If one disbelieves those basic tenants, how can one be a christian? Then there are the "smaller disagreements" such as should men have long hair? Should Christians listen to rock music? What does being "worldly" mean exactly? I was eye ball deep in Christianity several years ago so I have seen these things first hand.

Within Christian theology there is no single orthodoxy, but a range of orthodoxy. Thus, a Lutheran (myself) and a Catholic may have different theological claims, but still be well within the orthodox camp. It takes quite a lot to exceed the range of orthodoxy. Different answers to question about culture (rock music, Long hair, church/state relations) don't make you any less Christian. Even with such questions as the trinity, the Eastern Church (greek, Russian, etc Orthodox) have a different theology than the Western Church.

However, different groups have slightly different lines in the sand. Catholics would have problems with people denying the virgin birth and I particularly wouldn't, but the point remains, if one believes that Jesus is Lord (the ancient confession of the church) then you're pretty set.

My favorite arguments are which version of the Bible is the most accurate? Is evolution a fact? The day age theory..the gap theory, etc, etc..

This discussion is understandable if you believe the Bible is the written record of the living Truth (Jesus). As we noted earlier in the thread, Different translations can make a lot of difference. Thus, it's a good idea to get the right translation.

:D That was sarcasm, no doubt..?

:rofl:

Actually, it wasn't. When people have theology discussions they usually use a vocabulary that tells their background (if you know what to listen for). I, for example, us the vocabulary of a liberal Lutheran (emphasizing the Unity of the church and God's grace). Ex-Catholics (those who left the Catholic Church because they hatted it) use a very different vocabulary then former Catholics (those who left, but still have an appreciation for Catholicism). You, use the vocabulary of a ex-fundamentalist.

[Michael]

Actually, it wasn't. When people have theology discussions they usually use a vocabulary that tells their background (if you know what to listen for). I, for example, us the vocabulary of a liberal Lutheran (emphasizing the Unity of the church and God's grace). Ex-Catholics (those who left the Catholic Church because they hatted it) use a very different vocabulary then former Catholics (those who left, but still have an appreciation for Catholicism). You, use the vocabulary of a ex-fundamentalist.
Agreed! I can often deduce what people's politics/religion is just by paying attention to the particular words they use for framing issues even when people are trying hard to be 'non-partisan'.

Indeed, one can usually bust the 'independent' this way by taking note of the fact that they will use particular partisan framing from one side or the other very consistently. This puts the lie to their 'independent' claim.

So I'd be curious if I betray any religious background in my arguments on theology? I suspect I betray my academic background with my penchant for neutral secular terminology! Some people do figure me for being an ex-catholic, but I definitely don't use Catholic framing of any issue. :shrug:

[Non Sequitur]

Agreed! I can often deduce what people's politics/religion is just by paying attention to the particular words they use for framing issues even when people are trying hard to be 'non-partisan'.

Indeed, one can usually bust the 'independent' this way by taking note of the fact that they will use particular partisan framing from one side or the other very consistently. This puts the lie to their 'independent' claim.

So I'd be curious if I betray any religious background in my arguments on theology? I suspect I betray my academic background with my penchant for neutral secular terminology! Some people do figure me for being an ex-catholic, but I definitely don't use Catholic framing of any issue. :shrug:

Honestly, I can't quite nail you down. You should be impressed. My best guess would be that you come from a genuinely agnostic background or from a generic liberal protestant background (Methodist or something like it maybe:shrug:)

As for people saying you might be Catholic, that doesn't fit for me and the only reason I can think is that you have an emphasis on reason that is also typically Catholic. Protestants don't have that Emphasis.

[SMadsen]

My best guess would be that you come from a genuinely agnostic background or from a generic liberal protestant background (Methodist or something like it maybe:shrug:)
Michael, hmmm .. it will appear strange to Michael if anyone tells him that he comes from deeply nit family traditions because of the huge ideological impact of the "peace, love and harmony" decade, the values of which still penetrate the spirits and thoughts in his family and close social network but also in few cases must be reconciled with the solid, religious foundation of at least part of the family. The same foundation, which I'll also guess to be of a Lutheranian/Methodist origin, that makes Michael feel as well at home with religious issues as with non-religious issues. All in all, Michael comes from a bourgeoisie (sociologically speaking, not mentally) with classical liberalistic and free-thinking but also religious roots, all of which have not only spurred genuine academic interests but also allowed them to unfold in an environment without narrow ideological restraints.

No? :p

[evanescence]

Within Christian theology there is no single orthodoxy, but a range of orthodoxy. Thus, a Lutheran (myself) and a Catholic may have different theological claims, but still be well within the orthodox camp. It takes quite a lot to exceed the range of orthodoxy. Different answers to question about culture (rock music, Long hair, church/state relations) don't make you any less Christian.


I agree completely, and this separated me from most of the other fundies.


Even with such questions as the trinity, the Eastern Church (greek, Russian, etc Orthodox) have a different theology than the Western Church.

However, different groups have slightly different lines in the sand. Catholics would have problems with people denying the virgin birth and I particularly wouldn't, but the point remains, if one believes that Jesus is Lord (the ancient confession of the church) then you're pretty set.

I completely disagree. The fact that Jesus is Lord and Savior is dependent on the virgin birth. If he was the result of sex between two sinful people, he cannot be the Son of God, and the prophecies in the OT would also remain unfulfilled.



This discussion is understandable if you believe the Bible is the written record of the living Truth (Jesus). As we noted earlier in the thread, Different translations can make a lot of difference. Thus, it's a good idea to get the right translation.

Too bad the "right translation" is a huge bone of contention within the christian circle. Who is right? :shrug:



Actually, it wasn't. When people have theology discussions they usually use a vocabulary that tells their background (if you know what to listen for). I, for example, us the vocabulary of a liberal Lutheran (emphasizing the Unity of the church and God's grace). Ex-Catholics (those who left the Catholic Church because they hatted it) use a very different vocabulary then former Catholics (those who left, but still have an appreciation for Catholicism). You, use the vocabulary of a ex-fundamentalist.

Do I? What else can you decipher about me then? :lol:

[Michael]

Honestly, I can't quite nail you down. You should be impressed. My best guess would be that you come from a genuinely agnostic background or from a generic liberal protestant background (Methodist or something like it maybe:shrug:)

As for people saying you might be Catholic, that doesn't fit for me and the only reason I can think is that you have an emphasis on reason that is also typically Catholic. Protestants don't have that Emphasis.

Michael, hmmm .. it will appear strange to Michael if anyone tells him that he comes from deeply nit family traditions because of the huge ideological impact of the "peace, love and harmony" decade, the values of which still penetrate the spirits and thoughts in his family and close social network but also in few cases must be reconciled with the solid, religious foundation of at least part of the family. The same foundation, which I'll also guess to be of a Lutheranian/Methodist origin, that makes Michael feel as well at home with religious issues as with non-religious issues. All in all, Michael comes from a bourgeoisie (sociologically speaking, not mentally) with classical liberalistic and free-thinking but also religious roots, all of which have not only spurred genuine academic interests but also allowed them to unfold in an environment without narrow ideological restraints.

No? :p
Both of you are very close.

My religious upbringing is (high church) Anglican. That's episcopalian in American terms. And yes, my family is definitely bourgeois. ;)

Definitely a free-thinking tradition in my family, though most of them regularly attend church. There are no religious fanatics in my family, all are rather quiet and pragmatic types. And religion is rarely discussed - it is considered a private matter of conscience. If religion is duscussed, it is polite and civil and everyone knows I'm an atheist. My mother does make jokes about going to church and 'praying for all us sinners' who don't believe in God. :)

And for what it is worth, the Anglican church has a formal 'alliance' with the Lutherans and is closest to Lutheranism than any other.

For what its worth, I suspect SMadsen probably has a similar background. :shrug:

[Non Sequitur]

Both of you are very close.

My religious upbringing is (high church) Anglican. That's episcopalian in American terms. And yes, my family is definitely bourgeois. ;)

Definitely a free-thinking tradition in my family, though most of them regularly attend church. There are no religious fanatics in my family, all are rather quiet and pragmatic types. And religion is rarely discussed - it is considered a private matter of conscience. If religion is duscussed, it is polite and civil and everyone knows I'm an atheist. My mother does make jokes about going to church and 'praying for all us sinners' who don't believe in God. :)

And for what it is worth, the Anglican church has a formal 'alliance' with the Lutherans and is closest to Lutheranism than any other.

For what its worth, I suspect SMadsen probably has a similar background. :shrug:

Ah ha well Anglicans are good people too.

On a side note, that "alliance" agreement (we call it full communion) raised hell for a couple of years.

[SMadsen]

Both of you are very close.

My religious upbringing is (high church) Anglican. That's episcopalian in American terms. And yes, my family is definitely bourgeois. ;)

Definitely a free-thinking tradition in my family, though most of them regularly attend church. There are no religious fanatics in my family, all are rather quiet and pragmatic types. And religion is rarely discussed - it is considered a private matter of conscience. If religion is duscussed, it is polite and civil and everyone knows I'm an atheist. My mother does make jokes about going to church and 'praying for all us sinners' who don't believe in God. :)

And for what it is worth, the Anglican church has a formal 'alliance' with the Lutherans and is closest to Lutheranism than any other.

For what its worth, I suspect SMadsen probably has a similar background. :shrug:
Your suspicion is correct as far as the pragmatism is concerned. So pragmatic, in fact, that religion was never an issue beyond the aspects of religion that are pragmatic themselves, i.e. official duties (yep, Denmark is not secular), keeping with major traditions and anecdotal points of religious fables.