Misconceptions of Christianity 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
<<<. If we’re addressing the pre fall garden that’s a mystery (in it’s details) that will not be solved in this lifetime. [/quote]
Doesnt this mean that, to have sinned in the first place, the desire or reason to sin must have existed in Adam/Eve, despite Eden being perfect?[/quote]
You could have just asked me this standard question which is the “problem of evil”. I know 2 things, again in short (very very short). #1- Sin and redemption, indeed sin so as to make possible redemption was rendered a certainly by God. ’ 8-Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, 9-who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Timothy 1:8-9)

#2- God, though having rendered evil certain is nonetheless in no way whatsoever responsible for it’s presence or commission. “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” (James 1:13)

I have no idea how that works, but even so, this is a pitiful treatment of the subject. I need sleep. Walking in the Spirit still requires for the time being sleep in the flesh =]

502

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< So, you die. You go up to heaven. Once there, can you make the choice to sin? Just yes or no, please.[/quote]No

Great stuff from Blacksheep again.
[/quote]

If you don’t have the choice to sin, do you still have free will?[/quote]

Do you believe yourself to be of sound mind and body? In other words, healthy and rational?
[/quote]

What an odd question.

Yes, generally, I think so. Why do you ask?[/quote]

Barring any rational reason for doing so (if there is one) would you intentionally put your hand on a red hot stove?
[/quote]

Hm. See, my initial response would be “No, I wouldnt, because it would just hurt and I had no rational reason for doing it”

But then, what comes to mind is: Is there ANYTHING I would do without a rational reason for doing so? The way you qualify with “Barring any rational reason for doing so” means I would be doing it for an irrational reason or no reason… and there isn’t anything I do for an irrational reason or no reason (or at least I’d like to think so).

And then we can get into “rational”. If I decide I want to burn my hand, because I want a burnt hand, is that rational?

Basically, I think your qualifier kills the question.[/quote]

Actually, you answered the question excellently. You are getting hung up on the qualifier. Don’t worry, the objections you raised actually confirm my point.

It’s not any kind of trick question. It’s pretty black and white, actually. You would NOT put your hand to a red hot stove. Nor would I. And I think that both of us would agree that anyone who WOULD put their hand to a red-hot stove could be pretty simply classified as either crazy or at least is someone with some real “issues.”

But normal, rational people, sound of mind and body, will not intentionally put their hands to hot stoves. Why? Because…well, why on earth would they? They fully understand the consequences of such an action and would never do such a thing because of that fact. Now, could they, if they wanted to? Of course they could.

Please let me know if there’s anything you disagree with here, before I continue. Or do I still need to continue?

503

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
<<<. If we’re addressing the pre fall garden that’s a mystery (in it’s details) that will not be solved in this lifetime. [/quote]
Doesnt this mean that, to have sinned in the first place, the desire or reason to sin must have existed in Adam/Eve, despite Eden being perfect?[/quote]
You could have just asked me this standard question which is the “problem of evil”. I know 2 things, again in short (very very short). #1- Sin and redemption, indeed sin so as to make possible redemption was rendered a certainly by God. ’ 8-Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, 9-who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Timothy 1:8-9)

#2- God, though having rendered evil certain is nonetheless in no way whatsoever responsible for it’s presence or commission. “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” (James 1:13)

I have no idea how that works, but even so, this is a pitiful treatment of the subject. I need sleep. Walking in the Spirit still requires for the time being sleep in the flesh =][/quote]

Its not so much the problem if evil. Its the paradox of free will.

Christians say we can choose to sin because we have free will. God gave us free will as a gift.

So this “gift” is what has caused all our problems. Hardly a gift.

Also, once in heaven, that choice no longer exists… so the “gift” is taken away.

I suppose it makes sense that in heaven the desire to sin doesnt exist… which leads me to wonder why god would have made that desire exist on earth in the first place.

504

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< So, you die. You go up to heaven. Once there, can you make the choice to sin? Just yes or no, please.[/quote]No

Great stuff from Blacksheep again.
[/quote]

If you don’t have the choice to sin, do you still have free will?[/quote]

Do you believe yourself to be of sound mind and body? In other words, healthy and rational?
[/quote]

What an odd question.

Yes, generally, I think so. Why do you ask?[/quote]

Barring any rational reason for doing so (if there is one) would you intentionally put your hand on a red hot stove?
[/quote]

Hm. See, my initial response would be “No, I wouldnt, because it would just hurt and I had no rational reason for doing it”

But then, what comes to mind is: Is there ANYTHING I would do without a rational reason for doing so? The way you qualify with “Barring any rational reason for doing so” means I would be doing it for an irrational reason or no reason… and there isn’t anything I do for an irrational reason or no reason (or at least I’d like to think so).

And then we can get into “rational”. If I decide I want to burn my hand, because I want a burnt hand, is that rational?

Basically, I think your qualifier kills the question.[/quote]

Actually, you answered the question excellently. You are getting hung up on the qualifier. Don’t worry, the objections you raised actually confirm my point.

It’s not any kind of trick question. It’s pretty black and white, actually. You would NOT put your hand to a red hot stove. Nor would I. And I think that both of us would agree that anyone who WOULD put their hand to a red-hot stove could be pretty simply classified as either crazy or at least is someone with some real “issues.”

But normal, rational people, sound of mind and body, will not intentionally put their hands to hot stoves. Why? Because…well, why on earth would they? They fully understand the consequences of such an action and would never do such a thing because of that fact. Now, could they, if they wanted to? Of course they could.

Please let me know if there’s anything you disagree with here, before I continue. Or do I still need to continue?[/quote]

I…thiiink I’m following, but are we talking about sinning on earth or sinning in heaven?

505

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< So, you die. You go up to heaven. Once there, can you make the choice to sin? Just yes or no, please.[/quote]No

Great stuff from Blacksheep again.
[/quote]

If you don’t have the choice to sin, do you still have free will?[/quote]

Do you believe yourself to be of sound mind and body? In other words, healthy and rational?
[/quote]

What an odd question.

Yes, generally, I think so. Why do you ask?[/quote]

Barring any rational reason for doing so (if there is one) would you intentionally put your hand on a red hot stove?
[/quote]

Hm. See, my initial response would be “No, I wouldnt, because it would just hurt and I had no rational reason for doing it”

But then, what comes to mind is: Is there ANYTHING I would do without a rational reason for doing so? The way you qualify with “Barring any rational reason for doing so” means I would be doing it for an irrational reason or no reason… and there isn’t anything I do for an irrational reason or no reason (or at least I’d like to think so).

And then we can get into “rational”. If I decide I want to burn my hand, because I want a burnt hand, is that rational?

Basically, I think your qualifier kills the question.[/quote]

Actually, you answered the question excellently. You are getting hung up on the qualifier. Don’t worry, the objections you raised actually confirm my point.

It’s not any kind of trick question. It’s pretty black and white, actually. You would NOT put your hand to a red hot stove. Nor would I. And I think that both of us would agree that anyone who WOULD put their hand to a red-hot stove could be pretty simply classified as either crazy or at least is someone with some real “issues.”

But normal, rational people, sound of mind and body, will not intentionally put their hands to hot stoves. Why? Because…well, why on earth would they? They fully understand the consequences of such an action and would never do such a thing because of that fact. Now, could they, if they wanted to? Of course they could.

Please let me know if there’s anything you disagree with here, before I continue. Or do I still need to continue?[/quote]

I…thiiink I’m following, but are we talking about sinning on earth or sinning in heaven?[/quote]
I think what he is saying is that as a little kid who doesn’t know what a hot stove feels like even with warnings from their parents neither did Adam and Eve know the pain of sin, only after the child knows the pain of the hot stove like all beings in heaven know the pain of sin there is no reason to put your hand on the hot stove again. Sorry for the terrible analogy.

506

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< So, you die. You go up to heaven. Once there, can you make the choice to sin? Just yes or no, please.[/quote]No

Great stuff from Blacksheep again.
[/quote]

If you don’t have the choice to sin, do you still have free will?[/quote]

Do you believe yourself to be of sound mind and body? In other words, healthy and rational?
[/quote]

What an odd question.

Yes, generally, I think so. Why do you ask?[/quote]

Barring any rational reason for doing so (if there is one) would you intentionally put your hand on a red hot stove?
[/quote]

Hm. See, my initial response would be “No, I wouldnt, because it would just hurt and I had no rational reason for doing it”

But then, what comes to mind is: Is there ANYTHING I would do without a rational reason for doing so? The way you qualify with “Barring any rational reason for doing so” means I would be doing it for an irrational reason or no reason… and there isn’t anything I do for an irrational reason or no reason (or at least I’d like to think so).

And then we can get into “rational”. If I decide I want to burn my hand, because I want a burnt hand, is that rational?

Basically, I think your qualifier kills the question.[/quote]

Actually, you answered the question excellently. You are getting hung up on the qualifier. Don’t worry, the objections you raised actually confirm my point.

It’s not any kind of trick question. It’s pretty black and white, actually. You would NOT put your hand to a red hot stove. Nor would I. And I think that both of us would agree that anyone who WOULD put their hand to a red-hot stove could be pretty simply classified as either crazy or at least is someone with some real “issues.”

But normal, rational people, sound of mind and body, will not intentionally put their hands to hot stoves. Why? Because…well, why on earth would they? They fully understand the consequences of such an action and would never do such a thing because of that fact. Now, could they, if they wanted to? Of course they could.

Please let me know if there’s anything you disagree with here, before I continue. Or do I still need to continue?[/quote]

I…thiiink I’m following, but are we talking about sinning on earth or sinning in heaven?[/quote]

The original question was, regarding Heaven, “…can you make the choice to sin?”

Sinning on Earth is a whole different animal. Yet, interestingly enough, each situation is wholly dependent upon the other.

So, you were astute enough to deduce I didn’t drop by to simply prattle on about kitchen safety, but had a metaphor in mind. What are your thoughts?

507

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< So, you die. You go up to heaven. Once there, can you make the choice to sin? Just yes or no, please.[/quote]No

Great stuff from Blacksheep again.
[/quote]

If you don’t have the choice to sin, do you still have free will?[/quote]

Do you believe yourself to be of sound mind and body? In other words, healthy and rational?
[/quote]

What an odd question.

Yes, generally, I think so. Why do you ask?[/quote]

Barring any rational reason for doing so (if there is one) would you intentionally put your hand on a red hot stove?
[/quote]

Hm. See, my initial response would be “No, I wouldnt, because it would just hurt and I had no rational reason for doing it”

But then, what comes to mind is: Is there ANYTHING I would do without a rational reason for doing so? The way you qualify with “Barring any rational reason for doing so” means I would be doing it for an irrational reason or no reason… and there isn’t anything I do for an irrational reason or no reason (or at least I’d like to think so).

And then we can get into “rational”. If I decide I want to burn my hand, because I want a burnt hand, is that rational?

Basically, I think your qualifier kills the question.[/quote]

Actually, you answered the question excellently. You are getting hung up on the qualifier. Don’t worry, the objections you raised actually confirm my point.

It’s not any kind of trick question. It’s pretty black and white, actually. You would NOT put your hand to a red hot stove. Nor would I. And I think that both of us would agree that anyone who WOULD put their hand to a red-hot stove could be pretty simply classified as either crazy or at least is someone with some real “issues.”

But normal, rational people, sound of mind and body, will not intentionally put their hands to hot stoves. Why? Because…well, why on earth would they? They fully understand the consequences of such an action and would never do such a thing because of that fact. Now, could they, if they wanted to? Of course they could.

Please let me know if there’s anything you disagree with here, before I continue. Or do I still need to continue?[/quote]

I…thiiink I’m following, but are we talking about sinning on earth or sinning in heaven?[/quote]
I think what he is saying is that as a little kid who doesn’t know what a hot stove feels like even with warnings from their parents neither did Adam and Eve know the pain of sin, only after the child knows the pain of the hot stove like all beings in heaven know the pain of sin there is no reason to put your hand on the hot stove again. Sorry for the terrible analogy.[/quote]

That’s not 100% exactly where I was going with this, but it’s not very far off, either. I appreciate the post, too, because it actually allowed me to look at my own metaphor in a slightly different light.

508

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< So, you die. You go up to heaven. Once there, can you make the choice to sin? Just yes or no, please.[/quote]No

Great stuff from Blacksheep again.
[/quote]

If you don’t have the choice to sin, do you still have free will?[/quote]

Do you believe yourself to be of sound mind and body? In other words, healthy and rational?
[/quote]

What an odd question.

Yes, generally, I think so. Why do you ask?[/quote]

Barring any rational reason for doing so (if there is one) would you intentionally put your hand on a red hot stove?
[/quote]

Hm. See, my initial response would be “No, I wouldnt, because it would just hurt and I had no rational reason for doing it”

But then, what comes to mind is: Is there ANYTHING I would do without a rational reason for doing so? The way you qualify with “Barring any rational reason for doing so” means I would be doing it for an irrational reason or no reason… and there isn’t anything I do for an irrational reason or no reason (or at least I’d like to think so).

And then we can get into “rational”. If I decide I want to burn my hand, because I want a burnt hand, is that rational?

Basically, I think your qualifier kills the question.[/quote]

Actually, you answered the question excellently. You are getting hung up on the qualifier. Don’t worry, the objections you raised actually confirm my point.

It’s not any kind of trick question. It’s pretty black and white, actually. You would NOT put your hand to a red hot stove. Nor would I. And I think that both of us would agree that anyone who WOULD put their hand to a red-hot stove could be pretty simply classified as either crazy or at least is someone with some real “issues.”

But normal, rational people, sound of mind and body, will not intentionally put their hands to hot stoves. Why? Because…well, why on earth would they? They fully understand the consequences of such an action and would never do such a thing because of that fact. Now, could they, if they wanted to? Of course they could.

Please let me know if there’s anything you disagree with here, before I continue. Or do I still need to continue?[/quote]

I…thiiink I’m following, but are we talking about sinning on earth or sinning in heaven?[/quote]

The original question was, regarding Heaven, “…can you make the choice to sin?”

Sinning on Earth is a whole different animal. Yet, interestingly enough, each situation is wholly dependent upon the other.

So, you were astute enough to deduce I didn’t drop by to simply prattle on about kitchen safety, but had a metaphor in mind. What are your thoughts?
[/quote]

Same question: If, in heaven, one does not have the choice to sin, does one still have “free will”? Not to ask if they would sin, specifically if they have the choice to, or not.

509

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< So, you die. You go up to heaven. Once there, can you make the choice to sin? Just yes or no, please.[/quote]No

Great stuff from Blacksheep again.
[/quote]

If you don’t have the choice to sin, do you still have free will?[/quote]

Do you believe yourself to be of sound mind and body? In other words, healthy and rational?
[/quote]

What an odd question.

Yes, generally, I think so. Why do you ask?[/quote]

Barring any rational reason for doing so (if there is one) would you intentionally put your hand on a red hot stove?
[/quote]

Hm. See, my initial response would be “No, I wouldnt, because it would just hurt and I had no rational reason for doing it”

But then, what comes to mind is: Is there ANYTHING I would do without a rational reason for doing so? The way you qualify with “Barring any rational reason for doing so” means I would be doing it for an irrational reason or no reason… and there isn’t anything I do for an irrational reason or no reason (or at least I’d like to think so).

And then we can get into “rational”. If I decide I want to burn my hand, because I want a burnt hand, is that rational?

Basically, I think your qualifier kills the question.[/quote]

Actually, you answered the question excellently. You are getting hung up on the qualifier. Don’t worry, the objections you raised actually confirm my point.

It’s not any kind of trick question. It’s pretty black and white, actually. You would NOT put your hand to a red hot stove. Nor would I. And I think that both of us would agree that anyone who WOULD put their hand to a red-hot stove could be pretty simply classified as either crazy or at least is someone with some real “issues.”

But normal, rational people, sound of mind and body, will not intentionally put their hands to hot stoves. Why? Because…well, why on earth would they? They fully understand the consequences of such an action and would never do such a thing because of that fact. Now, could they, if they wanted to? Of course they could.

Please let me know if there’s anything you disagree with here, before I continue. Or do I still need to continue?[/quote]

I…thiiink I’m following, but are we talking about sinning on earth or sinning in heaven?[/quote]

The original question was, regarding Heaven, “…can you make the choice to sin?”

Sinning on Earth is a whole different animal. Yet, interestingly enough, each situation is wholly dependent upon the other.

So, you were astute enough to deduce I didn’t drop by to simply prattle on about kitchen safety, but had a metaphor in mind. What are your thoughts?
[/quote]

Same question: If, in heaven, one does not have the choice to sin, does one still have “free will”? Not to ask if they would sin, specifically if they have the choice to, or not.[/quote]

One absolutely has free will in heaven. Now I don’t know if I agree that one does not have the choice to sin, hence my metaphor. I cannot speak for Tirib, but I think you may be taking his simple “no,” the wrong way.

Remember, if you assume there is a Heaven in the first place, you need to adjust the rest of your assumptions to fit your thought problem.*** Living folks like you and I, we can never be satisfied. Think about your own tendencies and desires, is there ever a satisfaction no matter how great that can be sustained? In your Earthly body, you may have free will, but that will is always at odds with your natural tendency to seek the satisfaction of desires.

Those who go to Heaven are going to be transformed, no longer subject to these carnal, selfish desires that are the root of sin. Those in Heaven are going to be perfectly fulfilled and able to see God (beatific vision), to understand all that has been hidden from them up to then. That inability to ever truly be satisfied will no longer exist in any form whatsoever. So then we move back to the part of the statement you dismissed, that turns out to be the most important part. Our free will never went anywhere, but our tendency to sin is forever eradicated. So, we could stick our hand on that red-hot stove, but why ever would we?

You could turn the question on its head, almost: If a being has free will but would never, ever, under any circumstance choose sin, then does that being actually have a choice. In this case, well, the answer might appear to be no.

***The “well if God is that kind of God then you could send me to Hell” crowd might do well to remember this, too. If you are going to assume God in the first place, you have to also assume that you are a tiny, miniscule little subatomic particle of ignorance. To think you could possibly understand the structure of God’s universe, His laws, Himself or even the being you will become when you are united with Him is the absolute pinnacle of hubris and arrogance.

510

…hey you guys, what’s up? Can’t I play anymore?

No fair!

/:

511

[quote]Cortes wrote:
One absolutely has free will in heaven. Now I don’t know if I agree that one does not have the choice to sin, hence my metaphor. I cannot speak for Tirib, but I think you may be taking his simple “no,” the wrong way.
[/quote]

But Heaven is defined as a place without sin. It is a contradiction to say that one can sin in a place that has no sin.

Ok, so the possibility is there, but it would never be exercised because there would be no need or desire to.

Makes sense, but the choice being there still means it could happen, and defining heaven as a place without sin means that it cannot, and the choice is not there.

Also, brings me again to my next point: Why then create the conditions for sin on earth?

Ah, I’m sorry, I responded too soon. lol Reading and responding as I go.

So, again, if the choice is not there, then there is not free will (at least, not in the sense as it is on earth).

But Christians think they understand God. They label god to be benevolent, omnipotent, etc, etc. To attach any attribute to something is to say you understand that thing enough to correctly attach that attribute.

So wouldnt, by your reasoning, calling God benevolent be an act of hubris and arrogance?

512

By the way, I would like to sincerely apologize for the “christ****” comment earlier. That was out of line on my part. High emotions are no excuse for rudeness like that.

513

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Also, brings me again to my next point: Why then create the conditions for sin on earth? >>>[/quote]Please read this whole passage if you are really interested. This passage has few competitors for numbers of even Christians trying to find a way around it. Uppercase means it’s a quote from the OT. All other emphases mine.
Romans 9:1-24:

[quote]" 1-I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2-that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3-For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4-who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5-whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

  6-But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7-nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8-That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9-For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON." 10-And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11-for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12-it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." 13-Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

  14-What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15-For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." 16-So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17-For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." 18-So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

  19-You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20-On the contrary, [u]who are you, O man, who answers back to God?[/u] The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21-Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the [b]same lump[/b] one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22-[u]What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23-And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24-even us, whom He also called,[/u] not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.[/quote]Please tell me what you see if you would and we'll talk. In my school of biblical hermeneutics, passages displaying the immutable mighty providence of the most high God in a concrete manner such as this one govern and define all others dealing with matters of finitude such as sin and the will of man. Nothing else that can be found anywhere in the bible can define down absolute statements of God's nature such as this one. (there are plenty of others too)

EDIT: Actually I just realized that I rudely interjected myself in the exchange between yourself and Cortes. I apologize. Let him answer first.

514

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…hey you guys, what’s up? Can’t I play anymore?

No fair!

/:[/quote]
Good heavens man, I was beginning to worry. I read that whole thread you linked to. Please do not take me as being insulting, seriously, but I am still not clear on your view. I’ll have to go back and grab one quote I saw from you there that seemed to sum it up.

515

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Cortes wrote:
One absolutely has free will in heaven. Now I don’t know if I agree that one does not have the choice to sin, hence my metaphor. I cannot speak for Tirib, but I think you may be taking his simple “no,” the wrong way.

But Heaven is defined as a place without sin. It is a contradiction to say that one can sin in a place that has no sin.
[/quote]

If one did sin, Heaven would no longer be called so. However, one would not. So, it is a bit of a paradox, sure, but, state it this way: Humans who go to Heaven have free will. Hence, they can sin. However, because of their transformed state, they WILL NOT sin. Therefore, Heaven is without sin (literally, there is no sin in Heaven).

First part answered above.

As to the second part, you seem to be grasping where all of these things connect, because your next question is absolutely connected to the first. Again, this is an issue of free will.

Another metaphor. Which relationship would you prefer? (legally and even socially, both are 100% consequence free)

A.) You possess an android, absolutely identical to a human in all aspects. Only, this android will never, ever do anything but what you program it to do. You can program it to love you, cook you breakfast, polish your shoes, massage your feet. It will be absolutely submissive to you emotionally and sexually. In short, you have your perfect, fantasy partner.

B.) Your partner is another human, the same in all physical aspects to the previously mentioned android, only, well, human. You can have all of the same benefits I mentioned earlier, but your human partner is going to have to agree to do those things, and may sometimes not.

It’s the difference between having a relationship with a Real Doll and with a real human. Sure, the Real Doll might be fun for a while, but, in the end, both of you are going to be rather empty.

The reality of free will and sin is that same reality that makes good movies, good stories, and good relationships: struggle, conflict, overcoming difficulty and battling with the will to become a stronger, more real person.

I’m going to stop here because I am very close to rambling. Please let me know if my point is clear.

Correct. Except the choice is there. It just will never be acted upon.

[quote]

***The “well if God is that kind of God then you could send me to Hell” crowd might do well to remember this, too. If you are going to assume God in the first place, you have to also assume that you are a tiny, miniscule little subatomic particle of ignorance. To think you could possibly understand the structure of God’s universe, His laws, Himself or even the being you will become when you are united with Him is the absolute pinnacle of hubris and arrogance.

But Christians think they understand God. They label god to be benevolent, omnipotent, etc, etc. To attach any attribute to something is to say you understand that thing enough to correctly attach that attribute.

So wouldnt, by your reasoning, calling God benevolent be an act of hubris and arrogance?[/quote]

Christians are basing their beliefs upon authority. Now, you can argue whether or not that authority is valid or not, but regular Christians should be keeping their assertions of their beliefs within the ken of the Bible or, in the case of Catholics, the Bible as well as Church tradition and authority (and the latter was what a lot of this thread was about up to this point and I don’t think needs to be rehashed). All authoritative systems have had their evils, as they are composed of humans. However, the doctrines upon which the Church is established were forged by anything but hubris.

EDIT sorry, made a mess of the quotes. Did the best I could fixing it.

516

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

…do i think the government was right to lie? It’s not a question of right or wrong: it was necessaty. It’s certainly not something i would do, or be a part of, so for me it wouldn’t be the right thing to do…

It IS a question of right and wrong. Necessity DOES NOT determine what is right or wrong. Nor does it make a wrong act acceptable. It is still wrong. While it might be “right” for the pocket book, stockpile, or world position, that doesn’t make it morally right.

By the way, I can’t believe you said that: “the oil, the minerals, acces to pipelines and shipping lanes and we need a foothold in the area”…was actually a necessity.

[/quote]

…do i really have to spell it out for you? The lie was necessary to get public support for the wars. If you feel it was morally wrong, fight to endict Bush and his cronies. I’m a little surprised actually that you seem to agree with me that is was all a lie. Do you agree that you were lied to?
[/quote]

Haha. No, I fully understand your point it was necessary for support. I think I can handle that one. What’s puzzling me is that you seem to keep dancing around the simple question I asked. Do YOU think it was wrong. As i said, necessity does not determine right or wrong.

I’m not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing. Just discussing within the scenario you presented.

517

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…in a way, yes. You [the general you] enabled them to do what they did…
[/quote]

How so? I don’t remember a popular vote taking place in this country for or against going to war. And again, the public didn’t have access to enough information to determine at the time wether we were being deceived or not. So how exactly were we enabling the administration?[/quote]

…true, nobody declared war, and there were massive protests against the war in the USA aswell. So the whole story is far more complex than i make it out to be, and it’s too easy to just shift the blame onto the people like i did here. That’s unfair and shortsighted of me, and i apologize; mea culpa…
[/quote]

Cool.

518

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
By the way, I would like to sincerely apologize for the “christ****” comment earlier. That was out of line on my part. High emotions are no excuse for rudeness like that.[/quote]

Apology accepted.

519

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

…do i think the government was right to lie? It’s not a question of right or wrong: it was necessaty. It’s certainly not something i would do, or be a part of, so for me it wouldn’t be the right thing to do…

It IS a question of right and wrong. Necessity DOES NOT determine what is right or wrong. Nor does it make a wrong act acceptable. It is still wrong. While it might be “right” for the pocket book, stockpile, or world position, that doesn’t make it morally right.

By the way, I can’t believe you said that: “the oil, the minerals, acces to pipelines and shipping lanes and we need a foothold in the area”…was actually a necessity.

[/quote]

…do i really have to spell it out for you? The lie was necessary to get public support for the wars. If you feel it was morally wrong, fight to endict Bush and his cronies. I’m a little surprised actually that you seem to agree with me that is was all a lie. Do you agree that you were lied to?
[/quote]

Haha. No, I fully understand your point it was necessary for support. I think I can handle that one. What’s puzzling me is that you seem to keep dancing around the simple question I asked. Do YOU think it was wrong. As i said, necessity does not determine right or wrong.

I’m not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing. Just discussing within the scenario you presented.[/quote]

…i find it difficult to say they were wrong since i think i understand the reasons for doing what they did. I know i’d never stoop so low; for me it’s a wrong thing to do. So yeah, based on what i’d do, i’d say they were wrong…

520

[quote]Cortes wrote:
If one did sin, Heaven would no longer be called so. However, one would not. So, it is a bit of a paradox, sure, but, state it this way: Humans who go to Heaven have free will. Hence, they can sin. However, because of their transformed state, they WILL NOT sin. Therefore, Heaven is without sin (literally, there is no sin in Heaven).

[/quote]

If this is true, why wouldnt God just skip the first state, have people be born into the “transformed” state, and not put in them the original state which leads to sin?