|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 1, 2018 15:12:42 GMT
God doesn't need to do anything. God wants to do things. Thus, "God's Will" not "God's Necessity." God, presumably, then doesn't will to end childhood cancers, which He wanted to create. And the Bible suggests that He takes pleasure in His creation and deliberately created natural evil, the act of which Winter thinks is "terrific". Winter has also assured me recently that his god deliberately created sin. Nice deity he has going there.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 1, 2018 15:17:13 GMT
tpfkar ok I can see we are having issues with communication: my understanding of the theology you are espousing: God is omniscient God is omnipotent God is omnipresent This would mean God knows all things at all times, that he has perfect understanding and vision not affected by time, he can see perfectly all that is and will be and all that was. In the light of that, why on earth would God™ need to change his plans, surely he could craft the perfect plan prior to implementing it, after all he knows exactly what is going to happen. Around and around we go. Same answer as before. Who said he needed to do it? Not I. Certainly not God! God doesn't need to do anything. God wants to do things. Thus, "God's Will" not "God's Necessity." He is a Fraudulent (bestial) Troll, after all. hair's breadth difference
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 1, 2018 15:21:43 GMT
I did not say he needed to make a perfect plan, I asked you why he would make an imperfect one? Lol, now you are falsely attributing your own words to yourself! Let's review. Winterssuicide: Lol, the parameters and actions within his plan do change. That's....the whole point I'm trying to make. He's the one who changes them. Gadreel's first sentence in response: Why would he need to? ^implies a meaning of "Why would God need to change his plan?" Gadreel later: I did not say he needed to make a perfect plan. I know you didn't say that. You asked - point blank - why he would need to change His plans. Now you are trying to alter your own words to the more specific, "I did not say he needed to make a perfect plan," because, technically you indeed did not ask that question, but you most certainly did ask why "he would need to change the plan." And my answer to that question remains the same: "Who said he needed to?" If, as many do, we see Jesus as God on earth, then we read
Matthew 21:3 "If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need of them,' and immediately he will send them."
Mark 11:3 "If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' you say, 'The Lord has need of it'; and immediately he will send it back here."
Luke 19:31 "If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' you shall say, 'The Lord has need of it.'"
Luke 19:34 They said, "The Lord has need of it."
So some Trinitarians can argue that God has needs, at least sometimes.
And as far as 'perfect plans' go, the problem is this: that if you are arguing that a plan of God's is not, necessarily, perfect then since we are making a comparison we can imagine one that is perfect, though not of God's. That is, we can imagine something by definition that is more perfect or superior to the work of the Almighty. But if a perfect being exists, with perfection his essence, because of His nature it ought to impossible for God to come up with something imperfect (which makes one wonder why He feels the need to "repent" - or "change His mind" as some apologists would have it - a few times in scripture) Or, conversely, if God's works or plans are indeed imperfect, then since God is the source of all gradation then His imperfections in thought or deed must be the most imperfect of all such things. I think we get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 1, 2018 17:27:33 GMT
You are taking the word need to literally, lets try again, what possible reason could God™ have for changing his plans, his planning should be perfect if he has the attributes mentioned. What I am saying is there should be no reason at all to change his plans, what reason can you provide for God to want to change his plans? Ask Him if you want the best answer. Based on my understanding of scripture, my speculation is that He is an emotional being who is slow to anger, but does indeed get angry, and, at times, his love and mercy overrule his righteous anger. You are missing the point by a country mile, God™ has perfect foreknowledge, why would the plan he made not be perfect, it should not have to be changed for any reason as God™ has always known all the parameters and what is going to happen. Why would God™ enact a plan that he knew he was going to have to change, why not just enact the plan that worked to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 2, 2018 0:24:15 GMT
Total straw man. We were talking about whether or not gouging and cutting were meant figuratively or literally. We have no disagreement on the literal meaning of whether Jesus was advising gouging and cutting. We both agree he did not intend for that. Do we? Because that’s very different from what you originally said. My response was not a straw man because you previously said: I'm not sold that gouging and removing limbs was figurative. So now it looks like you’ve changed your mind, which means that you agree with was figurative and now we are on the same page. But don’t accuse me of straw man arguments when you change your position in the middle of the discussion. Except that it’s not a completely different topic. The topic is whether Jesus’s description of hell was part of a parable that uses figurative language, imagery and symbolism to make a broader point, or if it was a literal description of a real thing. The answer must be one or the other, not both or “half and half”. No, actually I’m not doing that. That is what Jesus does in Matthew 5 (verses 29 through 30) according to the most fundamental and traditional interpretations of it. I don’t disagree with any of this. I’m not sure why you think I’m saying something different. And with all due respect, I think this is kind of tangential to the topic of hell (which is what we were actually disagreeing about).
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 2, 2018 0:38:45 GMT
You are taking the word need to literally, lets try again, what possible reason could God™ have for changing his plans, his planning should be perfect if he has the attributes mentioned. What I am saying is there should be no reason at all to change his plans, what reason can you provide for God to want to change his plans? Ask Him if you want the best answer. Based on my understanding of scripture, my speculation is that He is an emotional being who is slow to anger, but does indeed get angry, and, at times, his love and mercy overrule his righteous anger. Speaking of God changing his plans (or not) Numbers 23:19God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Jeremiah 26:3Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from their evil ways. Then I will relent and not inflict on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done. Psalm 110:4The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. ” Jonah 3:10When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened. The bible seems to alternate greatly between implying that God either does, or does not change his mind.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 2, 2018 2:13:29 GMT
God doesn't need to do anything. God wants to do things. Thus, "God's Will" not "God's Necessity." God, presumably, then doesn't will to end childhood cancers, which He wanted to create. And the Bible suggests that He takes pleasure in His creation and deliberately created natural evil, the act of which Winter thinks is "terrific". Winter has also assured me recently that his god deliberately created sin. Nice deity he has going there. Not being a Christian, I am not sure ( and by the arguments in this thread and in general amongst them I don't think any of them know for sure...except maybe Winter who knows everything) butt I think it is part of God testing man in a system with in built inevitable failure...to ...something...something...maintain power and control over us.....something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 3:11:17 GMT
No I don't, since I see no reason to think there is a heaven or a hell.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Feb 2, 2018 4:34:14 GMT
You are missing the point by a country mile, God™ has perfect foreknowledge, why would the plan he made not be perfect, it should not have to be changed for any reason as God™ has always known all the parameters and what is going to happen. Why would God™ enact a plan that he knew he was going to have to change, why not just enact the plan that worked to begin with? Because one night, God drank too much ale, fell down and hit his head on the end table. He was incapacitated for awhile, so his secretary, Helen, had to take over a variety of godly duties. To be honest, Helen, was not very bright or good at her job, but God kept her around because she had a nice bum. By the time god was discharged from the hospital, the damage that Helen caused was too late. God asked Helen what she had done during his absence. She mumbled something about a snake and an apple...blah, blah, blah. They both had a good laugh, but this hurt god’s head, because he was still recovering. The two decided to take a vacation in another Universe. That vacation has lasted over 4 billion years. We have been on auto-pilot ever since God and Helen went on their vacation. However, they promised to bring back some really cool t-shirts for everyone. All in all, I find this the most plausible explanation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 14:59:37 GMT
Ask Him if you want the best answer. Based on my understanding of scripture, my speculation is that He is an emotional being who is slow to anger, but does indeed get angry, and, at times, his love and mercy overrule his righteous anger. Speaking of God changing his plans (or not) Numbers 23:19God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Jeremiah 26:3Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from their evil ways. Then I will relent and not inflict on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done. Psalm 110:4The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. ” Jonah 3:10When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened. The bible seems to alternate greatly between implying that God either does, or does not change his mind. This is why it is incumbent upon the reader - if so inclined - to discover the nuance of what is being presented. God does indeed change his mind. God does not change his mind once he has made a promise or prophecy to his people. Therein lies the nuance. It's akin to the argument I've been having with gadreel about the differences in what is meant when the scriptures refer to certain foods as "good" to eat or a created thing being "good" in the sense that it functions as it was designed to function vs. the the completely different kind of "good" that is defined as the antithesis of evil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 15:05:36 GMT
Do we? Because that’s very different from what you originally said. My response was not a straw man because you previously said: I'm not sold that gouging and removing limbs was figurative. So now it looks like you’ve changed your mind, which means that you agree with was figurative and now we are on the same page. But don’t accuse me of straw man arguments when you change your position in the middle of the discussion. But I didn't change position. I explained the nuance behind what I mean by what I said, which was my example that it is indeed better for me to be blind than to be perpetual sinner. Disagree with that. They are not the same thing. Sin has to do with not following the Law, but it is by Grace we are saved, not the following of the Law. As I said, intertwining circles with areas that do not overlap. What? Of course you can use real things with existing, real parameters as symbols.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 16:10:47 GMT
God, presumably, then doesn't will to end childhood cancers, which He wanted to create. And the Bible suggests that He takes pleasure in His creation and deliberately created natural evil, the act of which Winter thinks is "terrific". Winter has also assured me recently that his god deliberately created sin. Nice deity he has going there. except maybe Winter who knows everything ORLY? Gee whiz, I thought we had gotten off to a mutually respective start.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 2, 2018 16:31:52 GMT
Do we? Because that’s very different from what you originally said. My response was not a straw man because you previously said: I'm not sold that gouging and removing limbs was figurative. So now it looks like you’ve changed your mind, which means that you agree with was figurative and now we are on the same page. But don’t accuse me of straw man arguments when you change your position in the middle of the discussion. But I didn't change position. I explained the nuance behind what I mean by what I said, which was my example that it is indeed better for me to be blind than to be perpetual sinner. But that wasn’t actually the question. And that caveat doesn’t invalidate the figurative nature of the passage. No, sin has to do with going against God (irrespective of the law). People sinned before the law was given, and they also sin apart from the law. Romans 2:12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. Romans 5:13To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Romans 6:15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! I agree that scripture says Christians are saved by grace. But you are still ignoring the fact that Jesus made a direct juxtaposition between sin and hell in Matthew 5:29-30. Otherwise, what is the point of the passage? But you must FIRST establish that object of discussion IS actually a real thing (as in literal as described here) in the first place. You cannot use the same passage which uses symbolism to establish that the subject in the passage is literal. That would be circular reasoning, and that’s the part you keep skipping past. There is no reason to conclude that the description of “hell” in this passage is literal when the rest of the passage is obviously figurative and symbolic. That would be an inconsistent reading of scripture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 16:37:45 GMT
But you must FIRST establish that object of discussion IS actually a real thing (as in literal as described here) in the first place. You cannot use the same passage which uses symbolism to establish that the subject in the passage is literal. That would be circular reasoning, and that’s the part you keep skipping past. There is no reason to conclude that the description of “hell” in this passage is literal when the rest of the passage is obviously figurative and symbolic. That would be an inconsistent reading of scripture. But the recipients of the message - the Jews - had already been advised of a place (that has been translated) such as hell and believed in the literal place when the parable was given.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 2, 2018 18:34:16 GMT
But you must FIRST establish that object of discussion IS actually a real thing (as in literal as described here) in the first place. You cannot use the same passage which uses symbolism to establish that the subject in the passage is literal. That would be circular reasoning, and that’s the part you keep skipping past. There is no reason to conclude that the description of “hell” in this passage is literal when the rest of the passage is obviously figurative and symbolic. That would be an inconsistent reading of scripture. But the recipients of the message - the Jews - had already been advised of a place (that has been translated) such as hell and believed in the literal place when the parable was given. Based on what biblical passages exactly? Please demonstrate where the Jews were advised of such a place in scripture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 18:43:24 GMT
But the recipients of the message - the Jews - had already been advised of a place (that has been translated) such as hell and believed in the literal place when the parable was given. Based on what biblical passages exactly? Please demonstrate where the Jews were advised of such a place in scripture. Psalm 116 Psalm 18 Job 11
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 2, 2018 18:51:34 GMT
Based on what biblical passages exactly? Please demonstrate where the Jews were advised of such a place in scripture. Psalm 116 Psalm 18 Job 11 Can you be more specific and give me the actual verses you believe speak to what you claim?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 18:54:27 GMT
Can you be more specific and give me the actual verses you believe speak to what you claim? "It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?" "The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me." And there are ton of other references to the physical places of "Hades," "Gehena," and "Sheol."
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 2, 2018 18:59:40 GMT
Can you be more specific and give me the actual verses you believe speak to what you claim? "It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?" "The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me." Both of these passages are poetic, but neither of them actually “describes” hell as a literal place. I’m aware of that. But A) any reference to Sheol or Hades is not a reference to an “afterlife”, they are references to death. B) Gehenna was a literal place, however it also had nothing to do with an afterlife except when used symbolically and figuratively. There is logic in applying references to the literal Gehenna to an afterlife, and no evidence that it was interpreted in that way by the Jews.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 19:50:37 GMT
Both of these passages are poetic, but neither of them actually “describes” hell as a literal place. I'm afraid I disagree with that. No, they are references to places where the dead reside and that was how the Jews referred to them and understood them.
|
|