There is a god

Y'see, I couldn't base my lifes purpose on such an obvious and immediately apparent flaw.
Simply put, finite minds cannot fully comprehend the infinite.

So we're not actually /supposed/ to understand god?

 

I don't know how relavent this aspect is to the disscussion, but could someone clearly explain the role of Christ in the trinity to me? I mean, simply, if his role is that of redemption, what was it before redemption was even neccesary? Did he simply exist arbitarily? I guess the same question goes for the Holy Ghost.

 

Why does the universe have to be finite?

I believe it always was here and always will be here.

 

You should reask that question in the "God vs. Jesus" thread. First read through it because you might find your question answered.

Y'see, I couldn't base my lifes purpose on such an obvious and immediately apparent flaw.

I'm glad, cheese_boy, that we agree on the fact that we humans can't base our life's purpose on our apparently flawed human reasoning. You see, the flaw is not in the idea of an infinite God, but in our understanding of Him.

So we're not actually /supposed/ to understand god?

Not completely, no. We weren't designed that way. However, do we have to understand Him PERFECTLY to have a relationship with Him? Do we perfectly understand any human we have a relationship with? We can get pretty darn close, but it's simply not possible to completely understand everything about them.

Jediflyer, that's fine if you want to believe that way, but the physical always has a beginning. The universe is physical. I can't help but believe it had a beginning.

 

No, the flaw is in your need to develop the idea of a god.

You are afraid you have no purpose in life so you make up a god to give you a purpose.

 

But why would he bother to create us, punish us eternally for /his/ temptation of two simpletons (after all, why put the tree there if you don't want them to be curious?) and then leave us in a state of complete ignorance as to his meaning?

Actually, to go further with this, why give us the choice not to believe in him but punish us for taking advantage of that choice? That's a 'meaning' I'd rather shun.

 

"No, the flaw is in your need to develop the idea of a god.

You are afraid you have no purpose in life so you make up a god to give you a purpose."

There's no need to get obnoxious. You're more intelligent than that. I haven't developed anything about God. He's shown me. I listened (with quite a bit of struggle to do otherwise, admittedly).

"But why would he bother to create us, punish us eternally for /his/ temptation of two simpletons (after all, why put the tree there if you don't want them to be curious?) and then leave us in a state of complete ignorance as to his meaning?"

First of all, God doesn't tempt. The Tree was there for choice; not temptation. He warned of the consquences of choosing the Tree, and man chose th Tree anyway. Can't blame God for what mad did, if man was given choice (and I believe He was, despite the fact that God knew which way man would choose).

As for being eternally punished, I no longer believe the lost person burns for eternity. Hell fire is eternal. Man goes there and is punished. But does man stay there, alive and conscious, for eternity? Doubtful. I've seen plenty of verses that lead me to believe otherwise.

 

Can't blame God for what mad did, if man was given choice (and I believe He was, despite the fact that God knew which way man would choose)

So it was a temptation? Or at least, a test we would inevitably fail? What a loving guy this god is.

 

No, the flaw is in your need to develop the idea of a god.

You are afraid you have no purpose in life so you make up a god to give you a purpose.


Lets turn it around and say that you are affraid to accept accountability from God for the things you do and therefore deny that he exists!

If you do not believe in God then you have absolutly no accountability to anyone. None what so ever. You could slit two peoples throat and get away with it, and life goes on!(can you say OJ)

Purpose or accountability?
Which is the greater threat to mankind!

 

It wasn't a test; God knew the outcome beforehand. It was a choice, so that man would not be forced to love God.

God gave man the option to follow His will or not. However, since God's will is naturally LIFE, the opposite to that is DEATH. Man chose the opposite, and death. God knew this of course, and had already planned out a way of redemption.

 

so that man would not be forced to love God.

I don't, but that means I'm going to hell, apparently. Sounds 'forced' to me.

 

Of course not. You chose not to like the idea of who the Bible says God is. You chose not to be with that God. So you won't be. God didn't force you.

What more do you want? Can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want life, you must go to Life. If you don't like the idea of who Life is, what other option is there but death?

 

But for taking that choice, my soul is damned eternally. It's a threat to /make me/ love god, or at least it seems very much like one.

 

If you do not believe in God then you have absolutly no accountability to anyone. None what so ever. You could slit two peoples throat and get away with it, and life goes on!

What? No you can't. You would answer to society, to law, to /real people/.

 

LOL

 

Well, I guess we would have to investigate to see what God's intentions were... I've already given my view of them, yet you still see it differently.

In any event, from what I've read, your soul won't be burning eternally. Just to be clear on that. You will be eternally dead (after some kind of punishment or another), but not eternally burning. "You" in the general sense of the word of course.

 

God did not plan for mankind to sin!

HE only created a way out for them after the deed was already done.

The first prophecy ever and the first one about Gods seed in Genesis 3:15 right after the original sin was committed

 

Sorry, Fireman, I really don't to come across as an ass to you, that's not my intention at all.

Edit: right back atcha.

 

I know, and I appreciate that. You're a respectable person to debate with.

 

What? No you can't. You would answer to society, to law, to /real people/.

Yeah kind of like OJ did huh?

 

God did not plan for mankind to sin!

HE only created a way out for them after the deed was already done.

The first prophecy ever and the first one about Gods seed in Genesis 3:15 right after the original sin was committed

This is where I get confused: Fireman was very concise with his interpretation of the Tree/Apple story - he said that God knew that they would take the fruit, and that it was an opportunity for them to choose - even though he understood they would choose to take it; I'll call it an 'experiment'.

And now you're telling me God never wanted us to sin?

So how about you do what Fireman did and give a reason, supporting this assertion, as to why an all-knowing God put a tree in front of his creation and allowed them to sin right in front of him, condemning humanity to a life of pain and anguish? Was is a test? Was it a design oversight in his landscape architecture? Could he not foresee?

Yeah kind of like OJ did huh?

So that's that? I can now go and slit people's throats because he got off when perhaps he shouldn't have? Let's abolish law and order and let god sort it out, because OJ got away with it!

What planet are you on?

 

So that's that? I can now go and slit people's throats because he got off when perhaps he shouldn't have?

Thats exactly my point. Obviously if you have enough money in this world you can get away with murder!
Were is the justice and accountabiblty if you do not believe in God?

So, since I believe in God, I believe that in his wisdom he will know what best to do with people like that. But that is only for him to decide, not me! I do not stress over things like that because it is foolish to!

As for the differences between Fireman and myself, well thats another issue! You know what Judge Judy says.

IF IT DON"T MAKE SENSE IT PROBABLY ISN'T TRUE

God put the tree in the garden to remind mankind who they were accountable to. To draw the line so to speak, to set the rules. He has that right because he is the universal soverign and he created them!

Were they unreasonable restrictions. No! They could eat from every single tree in the whole entire garden everywere, but one.

 

Were is the justice and accountabiblty if you do not believe in God?

I say again: the law, society, /real people/.

So, since I believe in God, I believe that in his wisdom he will know what best to do with people like that. But that is only for him to decide, not me! I do not stress over things like that because it is foolish to!

But I don't believe in god. Why does this make me more likely to go out and commit a crime?

God put the tree in the garden to remind mankind who they were accountable to. To draw the line so to speak, to set the rules. He has that right because he is the universal soverign and he created them!

Were they unreasonable restrictions. No! They could eat from every single tree in the whole entire garden everywere, but one.

But if he /knew/ they would eat from that one tree, why give it to them in the first place?

 

I must say, I'm a bit disappointed in Isaac Asimov's analysis of the "Reagan Doctrine." I always gave him credit for being more logical than that.

The first few paragraphs are fine, and are great in pointing out the fundamental flaw in what Reagan had suggested: are we really to believe that every good action is motivated by the incentive of an afterlife?

However, once he begins exploring the "reverse" of the Reagan Doctrine, he's no longer really addressing the question from a logical perscpective.

You see, the Reagan Doctrine could be represented as:

~G -> ~T

Where "G" means belief in God and "T" means trustworthiness.

What Asimov did was take the converse of that:

G -> T

However, if you study logic, you know that the converse of a true statement is not necessarily true. What is always true is the contrapositive of a true statement. In this case, that would be:

T -> G

So, to disprove the Reagan Doctrine, you would have to show a trustworthy person who doesn't believe in God and an afterlife.

So, unfortunately, the bulk of the Asimov article is useless. As I said, I'm disappointed.

 

But I don't believe in god. Why does this make me more likely to go out and commit a crime?

I doesn't necessarily make it more likely, it makes it easier for you to do it!

But if he /knew/ they would eat from that one tree, why give it to them in the first place?

He didn't know! There was no reason for God to think that they would disobey.

Just because God has the ability to see in the future doesn't always means he does!