ChristianForums banned Christ.

[Sarcastikus]

Do you believe God transcends logic and reason, or merely that he transcends human logic and reason? Or somewhere inbetween?

Human logic and reason. It's like Paul (I think) wrote in one of his epistles, "The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man."

I think I somewhat see what you are seeing with a base linking of opposites. One cannot exist without the other. Good and Evil, Right and Wrong.

Or as a friend of mine once said in reference dualities, "They're opposite ends of the same stick."

I would also challenge the statement that "God is existence". Where is that inherently a requisit? I mean God's existance can be tied to the existance of all other things, but that does not mean that God is all other things, or that he is their 'existance'--whatever that entails.

What I meant was that God like the "foundation" of/for existence, or what Tillich refered to as "the ground of being."

 

[godrulz]

Brigham Young was a false prophet like Joseph Smith.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Human logic and reason. It's like Paul (I think) wrote in one of his epistles, "The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man."

So would you then say that God doesn't transcend logic and reason in it's totality? That he coexists with it?

Or as a friend of mine once said in reference dualities, "They're opposite ends of the same stick."

This is why the Garden of Eden is so vital in our theology. Traditional Christianity condemn and villafy Eve and Adam. Yet without their permited lapse there'd have been no possible growth, knowledge, or redemption.

What I meant was that God like the "foundation" of/for existence, or what Tillich refered to as "the ground of being."

You might find this interesting, it ties together opposition and being--

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

--2 Nephi 2:11-13

 

[godrulz]

God was grieved to the core at the Fall of man. He wanted to wipe man out. He then implemented a plan of redemption that involved Him becoming a man in Christ and dying a horrible death to save us.

Mormons wrongly assume the Fall was part of God's divine plan for supposed pre-existent spirit children. I will believe Genesis, the older revelation, over Nephi, the new spurious 'revelation'.

 

[Mustard Seed]

God was grieved to the core at the Fall of man. He wanted to wipe man out. He then implemented a plan of redemption that involved Him becoming a man in Christ and dying a horrible death to save us.

Mormons wrongly assume the Fall was part of God's divine plan for supposed pre-existent spirit children. I will believe Genesis, the older revelation, over Nephi, the new spurious 'revelation'.

Then you have a God that's impotent to effect his own plans. If God didn't plan on such occuring then he's demonstrably impotent in the face of agency of other beings. You would also be mocking Christ's title as the Christ. Christ means he was anointed, chosen, foreordained to save man. If it was never God's intention to have to save man then he's impotent. If there was another way to facilitate the progresion of man WITHOUT permiting opposition then I need you to detail how that would occure. Because I see no tenable argument (for that matter, I don't see any actual argument at all) that can produce such.

 

[godrulz]

Then you have a God that's impotent to effect his own plans. If God didn't plan on such occuring then he's demonstrably impotent in the face of agency of other beings. You would also be mocking Christ's title as the Christ. Christ means he was anointed, chosen, foreordained to save man. If it was never God's intention to have to save man then he's impotent. If there was another way to facilitate the progresion of man WITHOUT permiting opposition then I need you to detail how that would occure. Because I see no tenable argument (for that matter, I don't see any actual argument at all) that can produce such.

God is not impotent, but that does not mean that He rules with brute force. His rule is providential, not meticulously controlling and micromanaging. God desired reciprocal love relationships, not robotic automatons who obey without love. This necessitated give-and-take relationships and significant, genuine freedom. The fall of Lucifer and Adam were possibilities due to this type of creation. It was not a necessary, foregone certainty. God did not desire nor intend heinous evil and is not responsible for such since this would be contrary to love, holiness, and righteousness. Man and Satan introduced evil and rebellion, not God. Jesus, God with a face, came to oppose sin, selfishness, sickness, and rebellion, not affirm it as God's will. God could have created a deterministic universe, but He did not. He could have stamped out evil and rebellion at His inception, but He did not. Your view of God's sovereignty is faulty. Issues of justice, freedom, love, holiness, etc. are involved. There is no biblical reason to feel God planned the fall (though His contingent response of a plan of redemption was certaintly planned, but it was not implemented and actualized until after the Fall- Gen. 3).

Your views on exaltation to godhood and perfection are also faulty. Mormonism truly is not biblical Christianity.

 

[Mustard Seed]

God is not impotent,

I never said he was.

God desired reciprocal love relationships, not robotic automatons who obey without love. This necessitated give-and-take relationships and significant, genuine freedom.

Is freedom possible if there's not an evil to chose? Is love possible without hate? Discernable?

The fall of Lucifer and Adam were possibilities due to this type of creation. It was not a necessary, foregone certainty.

Then what were the contingency plans that would present a multiple choice universe for the actual utilization of agency beyond the mere "don't eat this fruit?

God did not desire nor intend heinous evil and is not responsible for such since this would be contrary to love, holiness, and righteousness.

How can love holiness and righteousness ever be discerned if profanity and evil are never known? If they are not discernable then how are they relevant? How are we any less a robot if we have agency but lack choices with which to exercise such?

Man and Satan introduced evil and rebellion, not God.

I never said God introduced it. I simply say he facilitated such, enabled it.

Jesus, God with a face, came to oppose sin, selfishness, sickness, and rebellion, not affirm it as God's will.

I never said such was God's will. You continue to imply aspects of my belief that do not exist outside your flawed perception of my beliefs.

God could have created a deterministic universe, but He did not.

No. He couldn't have. That would have been an exercise in futility. If God did that he would not be God because he would be doing something pointless, if God ever did something without a purpose he would cease to be omnipotent and omniscient. He would cease to be God.

He could have stamped out evil and rebellion at His inception, but He did not.

But he did. Satan and Sin's days were numbered before they began. He effected the mechanism for the cutting off of such from before Satan thought to try and deceive, before Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden.

Your view of God's sovereignty is faulty. Issues of justice, freedom, love, holiness, etc. are involved.

Your view of my view is where the faultiness lies.

There is no biblical reason to feel God planned the fall (though His contingent response of a plan of redemption was certaintly planned, but it was not implemented and actualized until after the Fall- Gen. 3).

I agree it was not, as a concrete item, implemented untill after the fall. But there's also no biblical, or any other, valid reason to feel God didn't plan the fall.

Your views on exaltation to godhood and perfection are also faulty. Mormonism truly is not biblical Christianity.

You've made that same assertion more times than I care to count. Still not any closer to being true than it was the first time you formed it.

 

[no avatar]

A prophet of God's words answering your question. Please note that marriage is one itemd tied to Salvation. We also hold baptisms by proxy for the dead, along with other vital ordinances, are carried out to the same effect as marriage, which is the key point described below--

Vol. 18, p.51
Here is another question. A great many of those good people abroad,
who, with their ancestors, back for seventeen hundred years, while God
had no authority or Church on the earth, have gone down to their
graves, without knowing anything about the pattern of marriage as
recorded here in the Bible, which is eternal in its nature. What are
you going to do with them? I answer, it would look rather hard if
there was no provision made for them, would it not? There are about
seventeen centuries or generations, and if we compute a thousand
million of people for every generation, coming upon and passing away
from the earth, we shall have about fifty thousand million altogether,
[p.52] who have gone down to their graves without baptism, without the
administration of the ordinances, without divine authority to
administer in their marriages! Do you suppose that the Lord has made
no provision for all these things? All must have a chance. There is
not an individual that ever lived upon the earth, from the days of
Adam down to this time, whether it was among the heathen or savages,
who never heard of Jesus or of the true God, and who went down to his
grave in total ignorance; there never was a man or woman on the face
of the globe, but what will have an opportunity, either in this life
or in the life to come, to obey and enjoy the benefits of the Gospel
of Salvation.

Vol. 18, p.52
"But did you not say that there was no opportunity for them to attend
to these ordinances in the life to come?" I did. "Then why did you
say, that there will be an opportunity for them?" There is quite a
difference between having an opportunity, and attending to the
ordinances. You can not attend to the latter in the life to come.
Parties who have died in this generation or in the generations passed,
without having an opportunity to be baptized by a man holding
authority, will have an opportunity of hearing the Gospel in the life
to come; but they can not attend personally to the ordinances thereof.
Why? Because. God has ordained that men, here in the flesh, shall be
baptized in this life; or, if they die without a knowledge of the
Gospel and its ordinances, that their friends in the flesh, in the day
of his power, when he brings forth the everlasting Gospel, shall
officiate for them, and in their behalf. This is another peculiarity
of the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints?baptism for the dead.

Vol. 18, p.52
You see a Temple building here, east of this tabernacle, and a great
many inquiries are made respecting the nature of this building. Some
suppose that we are going to hold meetings in it, and preach to the
people; but no, that pertains to the tabernacle. God has pointed out
the uses of a Temple by new revelation, the same as he pointed out the
object of a tabernacle in the days of Moses, and the object of the
Temple of the Lord in the days of Solomon; and among those objects he
has told us that in the basement of the Temple there should be a
baptismal font. What for? That those who are living here on the earth
may be baptized for and in behalf of those who die without a knowledge
of the Gospel.

Vol. 18, p.52
Does that reach back to all generations who have died in ignorance?
Yes. To all our ancestors? Yes; it reaches back to our fathers, our
grandfathers and their progenitors away back to ancient days, when the
Priesthood was upon the earth. Baptism for the dead! The same thing
was attended to in ancient; times, so that we have not got a new
pattern, it is the old pattern renewed. Paul says, in the 15th chapter
of the first of Corinthians?"Else what shall they do who are baptized
for the dead? if the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized
for the dead?" Sure enough! it was a strong argument to prove the
resurrection of the dead, that the people who belonged to the ancient
Christian Churches had the privilege of going and being baptized for
those who had died before the Gospel came among them.

Vol. 18, p.52
Now do you not see that we are not so uncharitable as a great many
would suppose? Instead of sending all the generations who lived in
former ages to hell, because they did not happen to hear the Gospel,
and because there was no Christian Church [p.53] upon the earth; I say
that, instead of sending them all to an endless hell, God has made
provisions that the living may act for and in behalf of the dead. The
ordinances thus attended to here on the earth in behalf of the dead,
will be recorded and scaled here by proper authority; and what is thus
recorded and sealed here will be recorded and sealed in the heavens in
behalf of those individuals; and if those spirits who are in prison
and in the eternal worlds will repent when the Gospel is taken to
them, they can have the benefit of the ordinances administered for and
in their behalf here, and they will have part in the first
resurrection.

Vol. 18, p.53
Then again, if baptism for the dead is true, every other divine
ordinance is equally true and necessary for the dead, for one is just
as consistent as the other. The laying on of hands in confirmation
upon a person that is living here in the flesh, for and in behalf of
those who are in their graves, is just as consistent as baptism for
the dead.

Vol. 18, p.53
Again, if our fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers, have
died without being married by divine authority, the same authority
that would cause a people to act for the dead in relation to baptism,
would cause them to act for and in behalf of the dead in relation to
their marriage ceremonies too. Such a plan gives them all a chance.
For there are no marryings, nor baptisms, nor confirmations, in and
after the resurrection. The resurrected dead can do none of these
things; but if it is done here for them, and they will accept of it,
it will be acknowledged in the heavens. Hence, here is another
peculiarity of the Latter-day Saints pertaining to the Temple, the
house of the Lord to be built in the tops of the mountains in the
latter days, as Isaiah says in the second chapter?"Many people shall
say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of
the God of Jacob, that he may teach us of his ways, that we may walk
in his paths." A Temple, therefore, instead of being a place for
teaching and preaching, is a place for the administration of holy
ordinances.

Vol. 18, p.53
Another question. A great many have wondered why so many people in the
eastern, southern and middle States have been stirred up for a number
of years past in searching out their ancestors. Now the Lord does a
great many things unknown to the people, and this is one of them. The
people do not know why they are interested in their ancestry, but they
are wrought upon by some invisible operation, and they feel very
anxious to know about their progenitors. I think that some four
hundred different families have already got extended family records,
tracing their ancestry back from generation to generation to the first
settlements of the New England States, and then back into Old England
if it is possible, to make out the connection. Do they know what they
are doing this for? No; they feel wrought upon, that is all they know
about it. Now I will tell you why it is, for a great many of the
people in this congregation, and many who are scattered through the
villages, towns and settlements in this Territory, emigrated from the
New England States, and they had fathers and mothers, grandfathers and
grandmothers, and ancestors, now in their graves, who were just as
pure, upright, virtuous and honest in their feelings as we their
children are. Now we are going to act for them. We have not time to
search up all these genealogies, but all we have to do is to go and
get the books which the Lord has wrought upon them to get up,
containing the names of hundreds [p.54] and thousands of the dead, and
we will receive baptism, confirmation and marriage for eternity, and
all the ordinances of the Gospel for them, that they, if they will
receive what is done for them, may come forth in the resurrection, and
inherit all that their children will inherit. Why? Because they were
worthy of it. Our pilgrim fathers were a good people, just as worthy
as we are, but unfortunately they did not happen to live in the time
that God has set for establishing his kingdom on the earth, and
sending his angels from the heavens.

Vol. 18, p.54
Thus you see that this Gospel reaches after the dead as well as the
living. Our Savior set the example in regard to this matter, for we
are told that when his body lay in the tomb, his spirit was not idle;
and instead of going off into the heavens and sitting down there for
three days and three nights in perfect idleness, he had something to
do, and while his body lay in the tomb, his spirit went and opened the
prison doors in which were confined those who were drowned in the
flood. What! Were they in prison? Yes. Did Jesus truly visit them?
Yes. Did he preach to them? Yes. Where have we this recorded? In
Peter's declaration. He says that, "Jesus was put to death in the
flesh, but quickened in the spirit, by which he also went and preached
to the spirits which were in prison, which sometime were disobedient
when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while
the ark was preparing." Oh indeed; He went to those old antediluvians
then, that had not received their resurrection, and preached to them.
What did he preach to them? The following verses tell us what he
preached. What would you think he preached? Says one?"If he followed
the examples of our sectarian preachers, he would go and tell them
that their doom was irrevocably fixed, that they were cast down to
prison, never to be recovered; that as the tree falls so it lies, and
that there was no hope in their case." Well, that was not the kind of
preaching that Jesus did to the antediluvian spirits. "For, for this
cause," says Peter, "was the Gospel preached to them that are dead,
that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, and live
according to God in the spirit." Though they were in the spirit world,
without any bodies, yet they had the privilege of hearing the same
Gospel that Jesus preached to those here in the flesh. They could
repent, for that is an act of the mind; they could believe in Jesus,
for that is also an act of the mind; but the spirits could not be
baptized, for that is an act of the body, it is something that
pertains to this life. Jesus could preach repentance to them, he could
preach the same Gospel to those antediluvians that he had preached to
men in the flesh, and they could then be judged according to men in
the flesh, and live according to God in the spirit. Men in the flesh
could be baptized for them, and they could come forth and receive all
the blessings of those who received the Gospel in the flesh.


--Brigham Young

taken from

http://www.mormonismi.net/jod/18.txt​

To sum it up in the words of Joseph Smith--

[God is] acquainted with the situation of all nations and with their destiny; He [orders] all things according to the council of His own will; He knows the situation of both the living and the dead, and has made ample provision for their redemption, according to their several circumstances, and the laws of the kingdom of God, whether in this world, or in the world to come.

--Joseph Smith Jr.

Know how I can tell this isn't ChristianForums?

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROMOTE MORMONISM ON CF!

 

[godrulz]

Is freedom possible if there's not an evil to chose? Is love possible without hate? Discernable?




Then what were the contingency plans that would present a multiple choice universe for the actual utilization of agency beyond the mere "don't eat this fruit?





How can love holiness and righteousness ever be discerned if profanity and evil are never known? If they are not discernable then how are they relevant? How are we any less a robot if we have agency but lack choices with which to exercise such?




I never said God introduced it. I simply say he facilitated such, enabled it.




I never said such was God's will. You continue to imply aspects of my belief that do not exist outside your flawed perception of my beliefs.




No. He couldn't have. That would have been an exercise in futility. If God did that he would not be God because he would be doing something pointless, if God ever did something without a purpose he would cease to be omnipotent and omniscient. He would cease to be God.



But he did. Satan and Sin's days were numbered before they began. He effected the mechanism for the cutting off of such from before Satan thought to try and deceive, before Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden.



I agree it was not, as a concrete item, implemented untill after the fall. But there's also no biblical, or any other, valid reason to feel God didn't plan the fall.


.

The triune eternal God loved and had ultimate freedom trillions of years before creation, Fall, or evil. The possibility vs necessity/certainty of evil is inherent when finite free moral agents besides God were created. God is love. God is eternal. Evil is not necessary for their to be love. It is possible when there is genuine freedom, but is not necessary to prove freedom. God did not desire nor expect man to rebel. He created perfect conditions and provisions so it was not necessary (though it was possible).

God is love. This was true even before hatred or evil came into existence a comparitely short time ago in God's history (creation is not eternal; the Creator is eternal).

I forget the philosopher that held to your views. He has been refuted, so you are behind the times.

God did not facilitate nor enable evil. He gave us significant freedom making it possible without Him being culpable or responsible for our rebellion. God did not intend nor desire evil (contrary to His will and character...Jesus opposed evil, not affirmed it as God's will). Your LDS assumptions are not biblical. If God planned the Fall, then He is responsible for evil and suffering. The Genesis record is that there were consequences to the Fall and that it broke God's heart. God is not the originator of His own suffering nor the suffering of the race He created.

God had redemptive purposes after the fact of the Fall. This does not mean He purposed the Fall. Things were originally 'very good'. Then He became grieved and regretted making man due to his rebellion. Accept the historical narrative without your LDS filter.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Know why I'm glad this isn't ChristianForums?

YOU CAN'T PROMOTE DISCUSION OF THE BIBLE OR CHRISTIAN BELIEFS ON CF'S CHAT BOARD!

 

[godrulz]

Know why I'm glad this isn't ChristianForums?

YOU CAN'T PROMOTE DISCUSION OF THE BIBLE OR CHRISTIAN BELIEFS ON CF'S CHAT BOARD!

I think they would let you quote Ps. 23 as an encouragement to a depressed person. I think they would be leary of LDS doctrinal interpretations.

 

[Mustard Seed]

The triune eternal God loved and had ultimate freedom trillions of years before creation, Fall, or evil. The possibility vs necessity/certainty of evil is inherent when finite free moral agents besides God were created.

Did God then know evil before he created us? If he did how did he? If he's always known it then wouldn't that mean it essentialy proceeded from HIM?

God is love. God is eternal. Evil is not necessary for their to be love.

How can love be discerned if everything is the same? If there's never been a single existance of opposition or contrast to love through all eternity then how can it be discerned? If it can't be discerned by God (if he is not the originator of evil) then how could God have any basis from which to discern it?

It is possible when there is genuine freedom, but is not necessary to prove freedom.

Then back up that statement. Demonstrate a time where genuine freedom existed without any possibility for evil so that in no way could the evil be contrasted next to the good.

God did not desire nor expect man to rebel. He created perfect conditions and provisions so it was not necessary (though it was possible).

Then what are those conditions. Elaborate how freedom can be shown when there's no enticement to do other than what God commands. How is someone NOT a de facto robot if they simply carry out what a single source of command tells them to do. How can there be obedience if there's no enticement for one to be disobedient? Is on really obedient if they have no enticement at all to go contrary to what God has told them to do?

God is love. This was true even before hatred or evil came into existence a comparitely short time ago in God's history (creation is not eternal; the Creator is eternal).

So who created evil? And if you say man, then who created man with a tendancy for evil? If you say Satan then who created him?

I forget the philosopher that held to your views. He has been refuted, so you are behind the times.

Must be a memorable argument since you didn't bother to show how he did it or take the time to find who he is. "Yeah, one time I met this one guy. He had a pretty good refutation of your point. So... uh... yeah... uh... you need to get with it."

The confidence I have in the validity of the argument of the talented philosopher you referenced is amazingly... absent. Yeah. As absent as the philosopher's name and argument seemed to be at the time you decided to mention that guy you can't recall and his brilliant points that you also can't recall.

God did not facilitate nor enable evil.

So evil did the planting of the tree by itself. Poofed Satan and the tree into existance DESPITE there being this being God who really would have prefered he not be there. But he respected the agency of evil to poof itself into existance and he respected our agency to follow this poofed in power.

He gave us significant freedom making it possible without Him being culpable or responsible for our rebellion.

He did such on purpose.

God did not intend nor desire evil (contrary to His will and character...Jesus opposed evil, not affirmed it as God's will).

I never said he desired evil. I never said he affirmed it. I say he permited it. Your view holds that either it poofed into existance of it's own accord (evil) OR that God made it. Both are absured.

Your LDS assumptions are not biblical. If God planned the Fall, then He is responsible for evil and suffering.

No. Planning for contingency situations does not make one the purpotrator. Your view is the one that puts God as responsible for evil and suffering. Mine holds that the influence of evil, and opposition, is an eternal principle.

The Genesis record is that there were consequences to the Fall and that it broke God's heart. God is not the originator of His own suffering nor the suffering of the race He created.

Then where did it come from? I hold that evil, as a concept, has been around as long as God (eternaly). You hold that God at one time existed sans any evil. Yours is the position that puts God in the guilty spot.

God had redemptive purposes after the fact of the Fall. This does not mean He purposed the Fall.

What were the other tentative schedueled plans for man if the Fall had never happened? What end would they serve? How would love be discernable to the created beings if they never knew wrath from their Creator?

Things were originally 'very good'. Then He became grieved and regretted making man due to his rebellion. Accept the historical narrative without your LDS filter.

God didn't verbaly grieve for creating man in the Bible untill the time of Noah. And it says that he repented NOT regretted making man. And that wasn't untill he could only find 8 righteous souls on the whole planet after they'd been multiplying for some time.

You are the one with the junk infusing 'filter' that is screwing up your perception of the historical narrative.

 

[Mustard Seed]

I think they would let you quote Ps. 23 as an encouragement to a depressed person. I think they would be leary of LDS doctrinal interpretations.

Nothing I quoted had any distinctive relation to LDS Theology where it differs with Traditional Christian Theology.

 

[godrulz]

Evil did not exist before Lucifer and Adam fell. God did not experientially know evil, though He could extrapolate the possibility and consequences of it when He decided to create other free moral agents (they were created innocent, but misused the gift of free will). God is no less God for not making evil co-eternal with Himself.

Temptation is also not sin. The influence of temptation does not mean Lucifer or Adam had to give into it. Lucifer did not have temptation, but His pride and will led to his downfall. Evil does not proceed from God. He is not culpable for it just because He created man with the freedom to chose to obey or disobey. There was no good reason or excuse for the Fall of His creation. It was not intended nor desired.

God created Lucifer, not Satan. God created Adam innocent, not fallen. The source of evil is the free will of other agents. Man was created in the image of God. He became fallen volitionally and is responsible. Are you responsible for your grown children if they break the law just because you gave birth to them? The soul that sins is the one that will die (Ezek.).

God permitted evil. The alternative would have been to create robots with no alternative. Just because there was the possibility of disobedience does not mean that it was necessary or a foregone conclusion.
Your children can know your love and have a great purpose in life without going the way of sin and destruction. Wrath is not a prerequisite for genuine love. The triune God had loving relations without evil or wrath for an eternity before man messed things up. Rebellious children do not validate genuine love more than obedient children. There is no need for mankind to have probation or misery to know love and freedom.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Evil did not exist before Lucifer and Adam fell. God did not experientially know evil, though He could extrapolate the possibility and consequences of it when He decided to create other free moral agents (they were created innocent, but misused the gift of free will). God is no less God for not making evil co-eternal with Himself.

It's about time you openly conceed the co-eternal nature of evil with God. I do find it odd, though. I mean how do you propose one maintains eternaly the extrapolated possible consequences of evil when there's never been any experience, whatsoever, with it?

Temptation is also not sin.

I never said it was.

The influence of temptation does not mean Lucifer or Adam had to give into it.

I never said they did.

Lucifer did not have temptation, but His pride and will led to his downfall.

Explain how pride opperates if there's not some element convincing the being that they know better.

Evil does not proceed from God. He is not culpable for it just because He created man with the freedom to chose to obey or disobey. There was no good reason or excuse for the Fall of His creation. It was not intended nor desired.

Was there no good reason or excuse for the crucifiction? What would have happened if no one would have killed the Saviour? They all had free will didn't they? God didn't WANT them to kill His Son DID HE? If God wanted it, then was it sin? If He didn't want it then was there a way that Christ could have not been sacrificed for the sins of the world? I mean God doesn't force people to kill His Son does He? Did God set up the situation expecting them to sin in killing Christ?

God created Lucifer, not Satan.

Yep.

I'm with you there.

God created Adam innocent, not fallen. The source of evil is the free will of other agents.

What's the source of free will? Is free will then the cause of evil? Wouldn't that make free will evil?

Man was created in the image of God. He became fallen volitionally and is responsible.

I agree with you there.

Are you responsible for your grown children if they break the law just because you gave birth to them? The soul that sins is the one that will die (Ezek.).

In as much as you did not teach them correctly the sin will be on your head. But where you did all you could to teach them as God would have you you are free from their sins and blood.

God permitted evil. The alternative would have been to create robots with no alternative.

We agree then!

Just because there was the possibility of disobedience does not mean that it was necessary or a foregone conclusion.

Then what were the other possible conclusions/alternate routes?

Your children can know your love and have a great purpose in life without going the way of sin and destruction.

But they can't know my love if they never experience hate or disinterest from any source. They can't know great purpose unless they witness mediocrity or great failure. They will, at some point, go on the path of sin and destruction, otherwise they'd never have need of Christ.

Wrath is not a prerequisite for genuine love.

It is a prereuisite to both know how to give and comprehend genuine love.

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

Unless you disagree with the Bible.

The triune God had loving relations without evil or wrath for an eternity before man messed things up. Rebellious children do not validate genuine love more than obedient children. There is no need for mankind to have probation or misery to know love and freedom.

Where does it say that the "triune God had loving relations without evil or wrath for an eternity before man messed things up"??? I believe God has always had loving relations but that is because He's known, and experienced, evil--JUST AS CHRIST DID IN THE ATONEMENT.

If God could and did have loving relations without evil or wrath then why did he change the status quo? If he had access to infinite joy and loving relations then why did he go and create man? You set God out as an utterly irrational being.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

It's about time you openly conceed the co-eternal nature of evil with God..

Mormon Theology is so whacko and vile.

Don't forget to send Heavenly Mother a Mother's Day card.

 

[godrulz]

It's about time you openly conceed the co-eternal nature of evil with God.



What's the source of free will? Is free will then the cause of evil? Wouldn't that make free will evil?


If God could and did have loving relations without evil or wrath then why did he change the status quo? If he had access to infinite joy and loving relations then why did he go and create man? You set God out as an utterly irrational being.

Evil is not co-eternal with God. God is holy and there was no evil until His creation rebelled.

Free will is an aspect of being in the personal image of God. God has free will. Does this make God evil? What are you smoking? Free will gives us the capacity to chose between right and wrong. The misuse of free will does not mean that the capacity to chose is inherently evil, especially if we do not chose evil as God does not chose evil.

God is not irrational in creating. He does not have to create since He is complete in Himself. He chose to create out of a desire to have love relationships with significant others. This introduced the potential for new joy and experience, but entailed risk that He could be rejected, hurt, and grieved. A no-risk model of divine relationality may resonate with Mormonism and Calvinism, but it is not the biblical model (see John Sanders: "The God who risks...a theology of providence).

You continue to give me reasons to understand the superiority of biblical Christianity over Mormonism (since it is not true, its weaknesses become more apparent as it is examined in light of truth).

 

[Sarcastikus]

oftenbuzzard - in an earlier posting in response to Mustardseed you said that God couldn't create a deterministic universe. Isn't that placing limitations on what God can and can't do? If God is omnipotent, etc. then "he" should be able to do anything, even creating a deterministic universe, though I'd guess such a universe wouldn't be as entertaining as what we apparently have now.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

oftenbuzzard - in an earlier posting in response to Mustardseed you said that God couldn't create a deterministic universe. Isn't that placing limitations on what God can and can't do? If God is omnipotent, etc. then "he" should be able to do anything, even creating a deterministic universe, though I'd guess such a universe wouldn't be as entertaining as what we apparently have now.

Please cite the post. I do not recall making that statement.

I have said that God can do all things consistent with His character and that do not involve a logical inconsistency (eg. create a rock too heavy for Him to lift).

I believe in both Divine sovereignty and Human responsibility. The Bible places the two side-by-side without explanation and without apology (Acts 2:22-23).

I bewlieve in a biblical universe. Ie. I accept the Bible's revelation of how God relates to His creation. Philosophical labels and theories I leave to eggheads.

 

[Sarcastikus]

Please cite the post. I do not recall making that statement.

Sorry, it was in an exchange between godrulz and mustardseed. I get you rightwing Christian fanatics mixed up sometimes since you all seem to spout the same one-size-fits-all theological formulas.

I believe in a biblical universe. Ie. I accept the Bible's revelation of how God relates to His creation. Philosophical labels and theories I leave to eggheads

I'm apparently an egghead. Philosophizing and theorizing come naturally to me, it's just my cognitive style. The more I learn about the world and how different philosophies and religions view it the more I realize that fundamentalist interpretations are incomplete visions.