I have now.
Which is completely compatible with what I've said. God would rather allow us complete freewill than restrain us from doing evil.
Vice President’s Commentary On Bob Enyart’s Interview Of MSA
- Thread starter Metro State Atheists
- Start date
I have now.
Which is completely compatible with what I've said. God would rather allow us complete freewill than restrain us from doing evil.
While we all must take that leap, it seems strange to call it faith. What is the alternative to saying that reason is trustworth? It can't even be expressed without self-contradiction. Calling such an act as accepting the validity of reason by necessity "faith" seems to undermine the entire concept of faith.
Stranger to call it anything else, absent reason...:chuckle: Sorry about that.
Recognizing that it isn't necessarily so, that the delusion the rationalist sees the faithful living through might be nothing more than a reflection of his own.
And that would be the point...faith is the fulcrum upon which the world moves or is moved.
I allow no such thing, though most of those found in Bedlam would agree with you whole heartedly, regarding their own position.
Rather it places it where it need and must be, in a position of foundational preeminence.
You are missing the point and confusing “perfection” which is not suggested with God’s description of “good”. Adam and Eve where Godly “good”, the best that could be made to fulfill the “objective”, but that does not mean God made them, “perfect” in that they instinctively posed Godly type Love form all eternity. God can not create a being that of is own free will chose to Godly type Love automatically and still be Godly type Love (that would be like programming a robot to love, which might be wonderful, but that is not Godly type Love). Godly type Love requires a free will moral decision on the part of the agent himself with likely perceived alternatives (the pleasures of sin for a season). Ready 1 Cor. 13 and 1 John and one of the gospels to see what type of Love I am talking about. Would you want someone to “love” you because a gun was pointed to her head and she really had no choice? Would you like to be “Loved” personally by the greatest person imaginable that just wants to know you and be with you and do all He can for you and expects nothing in return or would you liked to be loved because that is what they owe you, for what you have done for them (pay back love)?
Man’s object is not to keep from sinning. All mature adult humans have fail at that object. The objective is to obtain Godly type Love, so we can Love God and others with this Godly type Love. The easiest way for mature humans to obtain Godly type Love is through accept God’s Love and the easiest way to accept God’s Love is through accepting God’s forgiveness. If we accept God’s forgiveness then we will automatically “Love” Luke 19: “… he that is forgiven much will Love much…” In order to accept God’s forgiveness of our sins we have to sin (this is no problem for all people including Adam and Eve). Sin is part of the plan and has an objective, which is seen in the Garden story.
Now once we have Godly type Love we do not have to go on sinning to get Godly type Love, but those without Godly type Love should and do go on sinning until they reach the point wanting relief from the burden of sin, forgiveness from their creator and help to be better. There does come a point when God has afforded a person every opportunity to repent and turn to Him.
There are books on this stuff.
In scripture: God presents us with a mission statement (given as a command) Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and energy and Love other.
We must first conclude what a God would be like if there was a God. That would mean taking the time to show He would: have no beginning, be extremely powerful, be extremely good, not be arbitrary, and fit the description of the Christian God.
The atheist Steven Hawkins concluded man has an object, but he did not know what it was.
Let me say this, I understand “Godly type Love” to be man’s objective, because it perfectly fits what has and is happening in the world and fits what is in scripture. It does not fit what other religions teach, so others will not believe this to be the objective if they believe other teaching. It is for me the most likely alternative objective of man from what I have studied.
If you have a different objective we can compare to see which would be the best. If you were a truly all Loving God what objective would you give to your created beings?
I am not trying to assume anything, just define what type of Love I am talking about, since “love” in the English language has such a wide definition. You could read any Christian description of “Agape” or Godly type Love as used in scripture.
Logic my friend.
If God is the ultimate Lover and this “Love” is defined in part as being unselfish, then God would be the most unselfish being there could be. God would then have to be driven by this “Love” to serve others (it is still out of His choice), because “Godly type Love” compels individuals to do stuff and for God that would be everything. We talk about “free will” and the way Godly type Love is defined there has to be free will, but if you have the ability and can allow Godly type Love to always prevail (like it would be for God) then God will always do the very best thing every time which is the most Loving thing. That does not mean God can not destroy or punish evil individuals (bad for them), since that is the best thing for agents that can, will and do Love like He Loves.
If God did not make humans as the result of His Love then what other logical reason could there be and still be consistent with God being the ultimate Lover and example of that Love?
The only thing I see that gets me into heaven is accept God’s Love.
I miss the point? God has shown the Garden situation to be a lousy place fulfill my earthly objective, so I do not want to be there now.
I can not write a book in one post and do not want to or would you read it if I did. I am a Christian explaining a Christian’s understanding of the objective, which then turns around and consistently explains why things happen. If you start with another objective, then you will conclude God is arbitrary, God is inconsistent, God does not care, God is evil, and so on. I am trying to show how everything is consistent given this objective.
I would go further and say sin has an purpose.