Total posts: 114
-->
@n8nrgim
I’d be a big fat liar if I told you I came to the Christian belief on reason alone, but now that I’m more mature I do try to Peruse truth, as a general rule of thumb I am unconvinced until convinced, it’s allowed me to avoid a lot of false things. I’ll take a look at the thread though.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I find it rather interesting, how could a god turn all things good, I feel as if I’m lost on this subject but maybe that’s just because of the nature of it, there’s sort of a paradox in understanding it, if god is infinitely beyond us, how could we possibly expect to have a complete understanding of it, analogously we can’t even get close to understanding a 4d cube, but we can get a idea through a tesseract, which is just the shadow of a 4d cube. We can’t understand god’s actions fully but we can get a understanding through his word, and his son.
Suffering will not end, it will not end until the day we all get our garden back, god taking away our garden is one of the most merciful acts possible, at the end of genesis 2, it says god drove adam & eve out of the garden then says “for if they ate of the tree of life, they would live forever” wouldn’t be horrible if man had to live in their sins forever?
You can not naturally have darkness without light, a crooked without a straight line, coldness without warmth, bad without good or vice versa. God consequently created the standard for bad by creating the standard for good.
I think it’s impossible to show bad leading to good is impossible, as I pointed out a doctor may harm a child by giving him a shot, that is a bad thing yet it can be the means to a good
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It’s certainly a possibility, I’m not 100% certain, just think it’s possible
Created:
The problem of evil is well known so I don’t feel the need to explain it in depth but I’ll summarize
Either god is not willing to stop evil, then god is not all good
Or god is not able, in which case he is not omnipotent
Or god does not even know evil exists, in which case he is not omniscient
It’s a curious question as to why a all-loving god would allow evil, maybe I can’t tell you why exactly, but perhaps I can show it doesn’t necessitate a contradiction.
Premise 1: it’s not logically contradictory for bad to be a means to a good.
It doesn’t appear as if bad things causing good things is contradictory, for example when someone gets a shot, that shot causes pain, which is bad to cause, but it’s the means to a good, the good being the medicine that is delivered.
Conclusion 1: there is a possible world where evil can lead to good
Follows logically from premise 1, if it’s possible then there is a possible world where it is that case
Conclusion 2: A all-loving god could have morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering
Follows logically from conclusion 1, same way the doctor would be justified for causing pain if it lead to a good.
So to conclude I don’t think it necessitates contradiction, of course I could be wrong and I hope someone corrects me if I am, although I don’t think I am.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It was already explained.
You didnt explain it to my knowledge
You just dont accept any explanation other than the magical sky daddy.
I dont accept any others, because they cant account for the origin of christian belief, that simple.
I gave you an explanation. It is up to you from now on to either use brain either keep defending magical sky daddy. I dont even need to say that Christians would sooner stop believing in proof than in their magical sky daddy. Its a sad culture of inherited delusions.
Your explanation fails on soo many levels that no academically honest person could accept it.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
They have been here all the time, otherwise the humanity would have fucked itself up long time ago. I guess they will show up sooner or later, but the clues come from the similar testimonies of the many contactees that exist out there. There are several books on that matter.
Would you lay out some of the testimonies?
I said the aliens were deemed as angels and gods because the people at that time were not conscious enough about how vast the universe is and they didn't have the technology we have now. UFO investigators presume this because the stories in the bible are quite similar to the testimonies of contactees in our times. I'm not going into the details of it because there is plenty of information on the Internet.
Just because they dont comprehend the vastness of the universe, doesnt instantly conclude god, and the angels were aliens, I am unconvinced they are, convince me.
The communication of any message is always liable to "noise" or defects of the people that are in charge of passing along the message. You should check out the broken telephone game to know what I'm talking about.
There is soo many manuscripts, that are soo accurate, that you cant wave a magical "noise" wand at it, and expect it to go away. I will admit, some additions were added to the new testaments, but it was not to fit a political narrative, for example look at the ending of mark, it was added. But the idea of the text hasn't been manipulated to share a different political ideology or anything along those lines.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
As I said, there is explanation, but you reject every explanation making it pointless to talk about any explanations.
The explanation doesnt explain the origin of the christian belief, there is no naturalistic explanation that can meet 8 criteria ive found
The claims that were made
The skeptics that converted
How other people would react to the gospel (Why would you pick the story of your messiah being executed.
Why you would pick women to be the 1st witnesses
The immediate proclamation in Jerusalem
The voluntary suffering of the disciples
The empty tomb
No naturalistic theories can explain the 8 criteria I just layed out.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Few issues with this.
1 could it account for enemies of christ converting, like jame's & paul
2 could it account for why they choose women to be the 1st witnesses to the resurrection (women testimony held less value)
3 The near immediate proclamation of the resurrection in Jerusalem (why would they spread it in Jerusalem of all places)
4 The voluntary suffering of the witnesses
5 The empty tomb (This is historical since it appears as if early non-christians claimed the tomb was empty)
I think you'd need to adress all of these points and why them lying could account for that
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I think alliens have been guiding the human beings to their evolution in different cultures and civilizations (they still do it according to many testimonies) which means all the darwinian theory is bullshit. I don’t know if the scriptures say the truth, but if it does the only explanation for that is the allien participation in the jewish fate.
Okay I dont really see any evidence elsewhere that aliens helped humans except for a few testimonies that have naturalistic explanations.
No evidence but lot of clues. I've always deemed the documentaries of History Channel about it as bullshit but they make sense today. There are many authors that have been investigating the phenomena and it all makes sense.
feel free to tell me the biggest clues, I believe there are aliens somewhere (there just must be) im unsure if they visited earth.
The bible has plenty of stories of encounters with "angels" and "God". According to several investigations, these ancient encounters resemble the today's encounters with alliens. So, it's quite logic to think that if the gospels say the truth the most likely explanation for that is the participation of these alliens who are the only ones that had the technology and capacity to make all the magical stuff of the bible, like the resurrection.
Well how do we know these angels & god are aliens? I see no reason in the bible to really believe they are. And again I dont think this theory is compatible with skeptics converting & the empty tomb, you'd have to also make a case it's more probable than the resurrection which I have no clue how we would do that.
Needless to say, I still think the gospels have been manipulated for political and religious purposes, and they are still manipulated by stupid interpretations. So, maybe the Jesus' message was part of the allien project, but there is also in the biblical content a lot of prejudices and beliefs from people of that time. We've got to be careful with it.
I doubt they were manipulated, they could've been, I could be wrong, but I highly doubt it. We have over 3000 manuscripts of the bible, and pretty munch every bible verse has been quoted by a early church father before
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I may be missing something, but I dont see how this would allude to mary's genealogy, it seems as if it's joseph.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
There is also the theory that all these fancy stories are based on real facts, but related to an advanced extraterrestrial technology and the UFO phenomena.
You think aliens resurrected jesus?
According to it, the ancient cultures had contact and help from these beings in the following order: Babylonia, Egypt and Israel (see History channel documentaries for more reference).
Havent seen any evidence of that
These alliens have been doing genetical improvements in the human being by means of virgin conception of aristocrat women (artificial insemination) and also giving the right to resurrect those new specimens that worked well, like Jesus. So, Jesus was probably a new human being with extraterrestrial genes that was resurrected to be taken to "heaven" like Elijah was taken by "a chariots of fire".
Ummm, interesting view. Let's discuss why it doesnt explain the origin of christian belief.
I have two issues with it, 1 even if it could explain all the factors (which it cant) why would it be more probabilistic than the resurrection
2, it cant account for the enemies of christ converting (james & paul), It would not account for the empty tomb (which in my view is historical), this theory perpetuates the gospels are true, which would mean you'd have to accept the explanation they gave of saying the disciples stole the body, how could you say the disciples stole the body, yet have aliens resurrect jesus.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
How does it being written in greek follow it was made up years later?
Well looking at the evidence most scholars date claims of the resurrection back to the mid 45's, around 15 years after the death of Jesus, the reasons for this are overwhelming and based around 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.
-Mnemonic structure with parallelism
-Less than 50 words
These 2 reasons point towards it being an early creed for catechizing new Christians (easy to learn and memorize)
-Paul also says at the start that he delivered to you (the Corinthians) what he received, meaning it likely came from the disciples themselves.
-The creed also uses the name Cephas, for peter which was an early name for peter, only later on was he called peter
-It also has an independent tradition that is not from the gospels, which is appearing to peter & James (peter likely added his name after learning it)
There is not a single scholar to my knowledge that dates this after the mid 40's, so we can reasonably rule out the mythic theory
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I dont think there is a naturalistic explanation for it, I am genuinely unconvinced, so I want someone to convince me.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
The first Christians were more divided than you think. It's an error to say all first Christians believed in resurrection, the trinity, the virgin birth and all this fancy stuff. Actually there was a group among them that believed (and still believes) Jesus was a mere human as you and me. They are called the gnostic Christians.
They were split yeah, no one can reasonable deny that, that's mostly because there wasnt a cannon or even a full bible till like 300 ad.
Where did these fancy stories come from? Basically from other ancient cultures, like the Egyptian and Babylonian. Jews really liked to mix up their traditions and beliefs with other culture's. You can also find in the old testament different references to other ancient cultures' stories. Why did that happen? I don't know, since there was no copyright back then I suppose everything was possible.
So this is the mythic theory? (The theory that it was just made up years later after the apostles, and the apostles never actually claimed that)
Created:
It is different than the apostles just making up a story. Cult members in general don't think they r making anything up.
So do you think they were genuine in their belief of the resurrection?
But while the theory that Jesus led a cult doesn't address your proposed ideas in your opening post, the theory is still possible, isn't it, as a natural explanation?
Is it possible as in should it be taken into consideration, of course im open to taking any theory into consideration. But does it meet the criteria id have to look into it. (for example im concerned it may not meet the criteria of enemies converting, or the empty tomb [which is very debatable])
Created:
-->
@Stephen
answering a question with a question of your own is not answering my question.
Im asking you to specify what you meant.
Well you made the statement of doubt. Why don't you explain why, and on what grounds you have to doubt.
Sure, ive looked at the major theories and none of them explained all the factors of the origin of christian belief.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Would you tell me what cult theory is, and is it like the conspiracy theory? (That they just made it up)
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Thought I ought to ping you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
You obviously dont understand what I said, your nagging me trying to get me to create a post, so I gave in and created a post, so I asked why your still nagging me to create a post.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
They may not be wrong, christianity was considered a cult back then, as to if jesus lead it, debatable, it was certainly based around him though
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I made the post brother d, I have no clue what your doing here.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
What was the origin of christian belief?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But you did use the excuse of being prohibited from creating a thread of your own because of your low post count, which implied that you would once you had reached the required amount of posts that allowed you to do so. And the topic was the blood line of Jesus if I recall correctly.
Your right, I did say I didnt have enough, I did make a post about it too if you want to go look.
Are you intending to create the aforementioned thread?
Just created it.
Created:
I said I wouldnt make this post, yet here I am. I challenged brother d to a debate on his unbiblical ideas, yet he refuses to do a debate on the debate section, so be it we all have our preferences, so here I will show how Jesus is of the flesh of david, but 1st let's address why this is important. The old testament is not explicit in the messiah being son of david (explicit meaning directly stating it) but it is still a truth in the old testament that the messiah will be of david's line.
Isaiah 11:1
And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
The rod is referring to a messianic figure in the context, and jesse is the father of david, therefore of the line of david.
Jeremiah 23:5
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
This verse is more explicit saying that the messiah will be of david as well.
So now let's get into why jesus is descendent of david, since this is a internal critique I will be using bibical answers.
Let's look at Jesus's birth "parent's" Mary, and the holy spirit. We know Mary is married to Joseph (Matthew 1:24) which would make marry of david as well under jewish law (Genesis 2:24) since they became "one flesh" from marriage.
Let's establish joseph is of david as well (matthew 1:1-16)
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Aram, 4 and Aram the father of Aminadab, and Aminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of King David.And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph,[d] 8 and Asaph[e] the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9 and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos,[f] and Amos[g] the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Salathiel, and Salathiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, who bore Jesus, who is called the Messiah.[h]
Explicitly says jesus is son of david, the jews understood this as well (Matthew 22:41–42)
41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them this question: 42 “What do you think of the Messiah?[a] Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.”
I think we can conclude from the bible that jesus is son of david, even if joseph's sperm wasn't the one that made jesus, since marry is of david from marriage.
edit: Should be noted jesus would be son of joseph under law as well, meaning he is indeed of david.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have repeatedly explained many times on this forum and to you very recently that I am more than content to discuss, question and criticize the scriptures right here on the open forum. Where members can see , read, judge ,comment on or refute anything that I have written. You don't have to join my threads and neither does anyone else. Sending me offers to debate is a waste of your time and my own. Especially offers of debate that you have simply lifted from other web pages.
I prefer to debate on the debates section, it's more personal, formal, and less time consuming. You don't have to accept the debate, im completely fine with that, just don't call someone a runner because they don't want to debate your way, that is simple human decency. (I know you haven't said anything like that, so that's not at you rather it's at brother d)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
here is the debate challenge I sent you https://i.imgur.com/oWBqQPf.png feel free to accept.
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I sent you a debate request, you denied it because you didnt want people to vote on it. I really dont care if you want to debate, I don't consider it running to simply decline a debate, but it is childish to say someone is running after you declined a debate.
Here's the receipts that I sent him a debate challenge https://i.imgur.com/oWBqQPf.png
Created:
-->
@FLRW
There is no direct empirical or archaeological evidence to support the claim that Joseph Smith, Jr. found actual gold plates as described in the founding narrative of the Mormon faith. The existence of the gold plates is primarily a matter of faith for believers in Mormonism. While some witnesses at the time reported seeing the plates, these accounts are often considered subjective and have not been independently verified. We can make a naturalistic theory to this, and say he lied and still meet the criteria for the explanation. Of course my theory could be wrong, and ill admit it is if further evidence is shown.
My main critique was that there is no naturalistic theory that can explain the origin of the christian belief (origin meaning the belief in the resurrection, the spread of it, the enemies that were converted, etc.) but mormonism has a explanation, a natural one at that.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I think it isnt a minority opinion that the apostles were genuine in their belief (atleast that some of them were), ehrman even accepts that some saw genuine visions, although he says some didnt. Of course there are theories to explain a genuine belief like the swooning theory, the hallucination theory, etc. But I think these theories majorly fail.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well im going hunting tomorrow so feel free to curse me with artemis, I dont see a reason for her to exist, so im not afraid.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Again I havent seen any real good reason to believe Artemis was real, I am unconvinced, convince me.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont even see a real reason to believe Artemis was real either. So I conclude I have no reason to believe any of these beings even existed.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Well how munch later do you think it was created? 30 years? 40? 50? less than that?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Was it made up by the apostles, or did people make it up in the apostles names?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont see any real good reason to even believe those beings existed.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
So I want to expand on your theory, Are you saying early christians lied about the resurrection, or were they genuine in their belief, or did they just make it up years later?
Created:
There are many naturalistic theories to explain why the disciples came to believe/claim the resurrection happened, like the conspiracy theory says they merely lied, or the hallucination theory says they hallucinated it, etc. I am unconvinced that these theories can explain the origin of the christian belief, so convince me.
Created:
Posted in:
If you haven't worked it out Brother D. It the only way The Reverend Tradesecret can communicate with either you or myself after "permanently" blocking us both. We have both shown him to be a bible ignorant clown even with all his alleged theological training in everything from ancient languages to presiding over a congregation of 300 + worshipers and lets not forget his acclaimed miraculous capacity of being able to memorise the bible backward and forward from a very early age.
I havent seen a good reason to believe the bible is ignorant, if you want to debate I will send a debate offer to you as well.
The reason he will only discuss in the debate forum is simply because there is less likely chance of the wider members of the forum getting to see what a complete and utter bible cretin he really is.
I dont think ive made a bad claim on the bible, ive merely represented the case of the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Your the one that replied to me, if you want to stop clogging up stephens thread accept my debate challenge.
And I think ive shown to the membership that im not running, your merely being stubborn and not accepting a debate challenge.
Created:
Yikes.
Disturbing am I right? Well how do you think God feels when he sees our sins? I think he's equally as disturbed, blood is needed to forgive sins.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You do realize christians dont follow the laws of the old testaments right? Those are the jews. Christian law never calls for a sacrifice, Jesus is considered the sacrifice
Created:
Posted in:
When Seth Brown gets 25 posts, and then creates a thread regarding his misguided notion of Jesus is from the linage of David through His mother of Mary, he better not be running away when I Bible Slap him Silly®️ on this topic!!!
I won't be creating a thread, I sent you a debate challenge, feel free to accept it whenever
He is a RUNNER just like Miss Tradesecret, hmmmmm, same syntactical sentence structuring, same Bible dumbness, hmmmmmm.
Okay, I really dont care if you call someone a runner, ive had the decency to respect your wishes to not debate, but you must recognize the hypocrisy. Im not really sure what im running from either.
Created:
Boutta start a war with this one, if anyone wishes we could have a full debate over this.
One of the ways I reconcile the existence of god is to show the rationality of the resurrection (Note the difference between rational & 100% truth, I dont live my life on 100% truths)
I simply cannot explain the events surrounding the resurrection without reference to the resurrection, the claims that were made & the enemies that converted to christianity, I can't explain those happening with the 3 main theories represented (laymen represent them at least, it's important to note that professional scholars present a mixture of theories, although I find all the theories ive seen unfulfilling) by atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
Interesting thought. I can't think of a reason why Adam would have needed a belly button if he was just created. Perhaps so he could fit in with the rest of the people. But is it a point of discussion with atheists who mock God on every level?
It is kinda odd, ill admit to that. It's possible they wouldnt have belly buttons, but I don't see them being created from dust follows they didn't have belly button rings. I dont see why it quite matters to brother D.
Another interesting thought. The "We" in Genesis might be referring to God and his angels. Some theologians take that view, along similar lines to the beginning of the book of Job. It may be referring to the Trinity of course.
I personally think it's referring to the trinity, since the creation account talks nothing of the angels helping (although perhaps im begging the question by assuming this verse doesnt say that) but I wouldnt necessarily eliminate the other view, you can find the trinity elsewhere in the old testaments.
The word Elohim in Hebrew is plural. So either god or gods. The ribs thing is a bit of a red herring though, isn't it? A distraction. The point is - God initiated here at the beginning of the world, a death and a resurrection at which the end - new life came about. True Adam didn't really die. But he went into a deep sleep. And the rose from that deep sleep. A bit like Jonah in the fish, Daniel in the Lion's den and Joseph in the pit. And Isaac on the mountain when Abraham was commanded to kill him. All are pictures of Christ. The true resurrection.
The rib thing was interesting to bring up in the middle of the comment, didn't quite understand the point he was making.
Agreed. But I would extend that further. He doesn't have much understanding of anything.
I find it interesting, I challenged him to a debate since he claimed he was gonna "Bible slap me silly (with a trade mark symbol oddly)" but he doesnt seem to want to do it, wont fault him for it, just odd.
Created:
Posted in:
" whom I created,” then goes on to state "for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth". His way ie, gods way.
I dont think thats what the verse is saying, by "His way" it's referring to the people's way. Genesis 6:12 says "And God saw that the earth was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth." the Hebrew shows it doesn't say "their" or "His" (this is common for sematic languages, we infer based off of what it says already)so its not necessarily inferring god's way. Looking at the translations it seems as if only 4 bibles translate it to "his", so im assuming you looked at the kjv (one of the versions that say that).
Ok so when god said let us make man, to whom was he talking?
Could be referring to the trinity, the Jews say its referring to angels though, although that's not a view I hold.
You love your circular arguments, don't you. God admits to creating everything including Evil.
He created the beings of the earth & the universe, when a man creates a table, I dont think god created that table, same way when a man does something evil, I dont think god created that action.
The bile says we are created in their image. So man's sinful nature had its origins with god.
We were created in their image, but we fall short of that glory (romans 3:23) eve & Adam weren't born with a sinful nature.
Which verse?
Colossians 1:16, I dont think god created a table, when a carpenter makes one. Obviously not, analogously when someone shoots someone I dont think god shoots that person.
Of course you do. You simply want to dissolve god of any blame for the sinful nature of his sons and humans.
I dont think this debunks my claim at all, god created mankind in his image (it's likely angels were as well, although bible doesn't explicitly state it to my knowledge) therefore sinless (I havent seen a good reason to believe god's image is sinful)
Irrelevant. This does not get away from the fact that god created evil, weather or not one chooses to be or practice evil.
The concept of "natural evil" saying that things in creation aren't evil just because they can be bad for humans. And I don't think god created only Adam & eve, I think adam & eve were merely the 1st priests (genesis 1 tells us he created humans then genesis 2 tells us he created adam, then eve) as we know god is good, so god would've picked the best representatives for us.
You have already admitted that god created everything visible and invisible/ seen and unseen when you quoted Colossians 1:16 and there is also gods own admission that he created evil in Isaiah.>> "I make peace, and create evil".
When I make a chair, does god make a chair?
To address Isaiah, its simply expressing how you cant have one and cant have the other, We know what light is, and darkness is merely the absence of light. Once light exists, darkness also exists wherever light isn't. Therefore, by creating light, he created darkness. Analogously, god by creating goodness created the standard for what's bad. Surely its not a bad thing to consequently create the standard for bad by creating a standard for good.
Stop it. The verse is in context and clearly refers to anything, including evil has gods fingerprints all over it.
Go read the context, it's making parallel's. And again do you think god cant be good while still causing things that seem "bad" to us? Even if we grant your premise, which I still disagree with, maybe I cant tell you why, but I can show you it's not necessarily contradictory.
Premise 1: It's not logically contradictory for a good end to come from a bad mean
For example vaccination, it's a good thing but that needle shot causes pain, which is bad.
Conclusion 1: There is a possible world where a good thing can come from a bad thing
Follows logically through modal logic, from premise 1
Given it's not logically contradictory, then god isnt necessarily evil.
And that old chestnut of "free will" is a very poor excuse for the fact that it was god and god alone had created evil. Mankind didn't inherit sin simply by virtue of having mothers , mankind inherited sin from his creator, god himself. Read your bible.
Me and you must be reading different bibles.
Created:
Posted in:
The issue is that I had already shown you twice "the reasoning" from the bible and the mouth of god, if the BIBLE is to be believed. And you do believe the bible don't you?
Yes, and I havent seen god say he has a sinful nature.
There is nothing wrong or "vague" about the title "son/s of god". And as for "vagueness" the BIBLE is "vague" about many things. It is certainly not a "crystal clear" as some here insist on it being. It is ambiguous and full of half stories and evasiveness .
No, the son/s of god is rather vague, it could refer to alot of different things. Jesus, humans, angels, etc.
Where did the ability for the sons of god to sin come from?
God gave them free will, that also gave them the ability to do good.
Oh please, stop with the apologetics. GOD! himself admits to being the creator evil. Read your bible.
He created the possibility for good & the possibility for evil, that is far divorced from just creating evil, adam & eve created evil, god merely created the possibility for good & as a side effect, evil.
Nice, " all things seen and unseen" and that includes Evil and not just the "Possibility" of evil as you have attempted to water down and relieve god of any blame.
In the context the verse is referring to objects & creatures, etc. Evil isnt really a thing, instead a absence of a thing (good) so it'd be absurd to think god created it, when a human builds a table, I dont think god created that table, similarly when a human/angel does something evil I think that human/angel did something evil, not god.
Well of course they ALL do. Haven't you taken in what I have written above. Why would god create only some with a sinful nature and not all?
Oh I disagree with that, I think god created them with free will, and their pride is what caused them to sin & therefore a sinful nature.
Your are simply once again attempting to relieve your god of any responsibility for the creation of evil. You have to accept it, the GOD of the BIBLE admits to creating EVIL. You really aught to read your bible a little closer if you seriously intend to discuss scripture.
Show me the verse where god says he created evil, there is not one.
I quote the prophet native of Tekoa "shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it"?
Taking it slightly out of context, in context the verse will evil happen in a city without having its sufficient cause in Jehovah’s purpose? That's how most scholars interpret it. Sorta plays back into job.
Created:
Posted in:
. "lets look"? Even though I have shown you in the very next line of my comment.
Yes, I was saying lets look at your reasoning? What's the issue with that?
Yes, also known as the sons of god. Or didn't you know that?Angel simply means messenger.
Sons of god is kinda a vague name to call them, although not necessarily wrong. Could also refer to humans who are redeemed.
Why not? They were first to sin. If they didn't have a sinful nature then where did their ability to sin come from?
Their ability to sin came from god, but we must specify, creating the possibility of evil is very different from creating evil, say a doctor when he vaccinates a kid, he created the possibility for good, but also the possibility for blood clots, rare allergic reactions, heart problems, etc. Now if that shot did result in a blood clot, or allergic reactions, certainly that doctor wouldnt be in the wrong, that's simply a risk that could happen, the doctor created the possibility for bad as well. I think God in a way created the possibility for good, and the possibility for bad, I dont think that makes god bad the same way it doesnt make the doctor bad.
The bible doesn't mention god created angels period!.
I think Colossians 1:16 heavily alludes to god creating angels.
Well of course I am. The sons of god disobeyed and sinned against him in the first instance. There by they must have had a sinful nature to begin with as I have explained to you already.
Im not disagreeing with you, the angels can have a sinful nature (not to say all of them do)
So if every man "born of women" did "inherit sin" from Eve "the mother of all living" then it came from only one place; god. Who also admits to creating evil.
I think this is actually really relevant to what I said earlier, he created the possibility for evil, as well as the possibility for good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Doesn't God by his own admission have a sinful nature.
I haven't seen a reason to believe that, but sure lets look.
Then, why should it be thought necessary for all men to be born with a sinful nature to account for their sins?
To say it's necessary is to say it couldnt of been any other way, and obviously it could've been another way, it's not logically contradictory for someone to not have a sinful nature. The Christian belief as to why all are born with a sinful nature is because of eve's sin, it was spread like a gene (although not a literal gene of course) there's more to it as well, its very likely adam & eve werent actually the only humans, so its likely the other ones sinned as well
Were not the son's of god created first?
are you referring to angels here?
It is the firm belief of Christians and the Christian Church that the son's of god "fell" i.e. sinned; the bible is riddled with verses telling us this, 2 Peter being just one. But the Pastors, Chaplains and Priests can never face up to - going by their own beliefs - that the son's of god too must have had been created /born with the same sinful nature.
I dont think it would follow they are necessarily created with a sinful nature (I see no reason to believe they were born), adam & eve were created in god's image (The Bible never refers to angels being made in the image of God, although many theologian friends of mine believe its very likely they were as well) and since they were made in god's image they don't have an sinful nature, at least not at that moment, but you see god also gave them free will, which gave them the option to make that sinful choice which eventually lead to the fall.
They -the Pastors, Chaplains and Priests - will ignore the clear biblical fact that it was only after the son's of god sinned, that Eve is said to have sinned and not before, while also ignoring the what we have and are, all comes from god according to their very own ideology!
I think your right in saying the priests, chaplains are wrong for saying eve was the 1st sin, and not all we have comes from god, alot of it I believe is self caused through free-will or other means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I think dust is just representing some non-important or minuscule, maybe a single cell organism like evolution states but the Bible doesn’t make it clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
He doesn’t seem too keen, more just a “mocker” to be honest, thanks for the welcome.
Created: