Let's see. If I were to make a vase out of paper, could that be said to be perfect?
If it was made perfect, yes.
In artistic terms some might say yes it could be perfect if it was beautifully made.
Perfection is not based on beauty, though things that are perfect are almost if not always beautiful.
If I were to put water in it though we would soon discover that the vase is very imperfect and that paper is a very poor substance to make a vase from.
Indeed, paper is a poor substance with which to make a vase from, but putting water in it doesn't change the fact that it was a perfect vase for what it was, a perfect paper vase.
So perfection has to do with the intended role or purpose of a thing.
Rather, let's just use the actual definition of perfection, that being, "the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects."
Kinda defeats your reasoning, doesn't it?
If a vase made out of paper is perfectly made, it is as free as possible from all flaws or defects.
Just because you put water in that paper vase doesn't change the fact that it was made so.
It also has to do with longevity imho. For example, is the Mona Lisa or Da Vinci's Last Supper a "perfect" painting? They might appear to be masterpieces, but they've been made with fickle and corruptible mediums which guarantee that they will age and decay and decompose over time. So they can't be perfect can they?
Again, perfection is about being free from flaws/defects, or as close to being free of them as possible. It has very little to do with longevity or being beautiful.
Let's underpin this further.
Let's imagine there is a sphere made of platinum or some other precious metal. It appears perfect. But we know that such a thing will tarnish and decay and is susceptible to external influences and forces. It could be squashed, it could be melted, it could be scratched and so on. Thus it can not be perfect.
You seem to be confused on something.
Perfection is not a matter of something being perfect or not perfect forever.
Perfection can be lost.
In other words, something that was made perfect, can lose it's perfect status.
A perfect paper vase will stop being perfect if you put water in it, because doing so destroys that paper vase.
Tarnish and decay, external influences and forces, squashing or melting, conditions such as those can affect that which is made perfect. It's why I asked you about taking a bat to a perfect glass vase.
Your perfect metal sphere stops being perfect once it is acted upon by external influences in a way that causes it to cease being perfect.
Now imagine a sphere that is made of a metal you don't know about. One that can not be melted, is impervious to heat and fire, equally impervious to sub zero temperatures and to pressure. It can't be scratched for there is no known substance in the entire universe that is harder than this metal. This then would be a perfect example of a metal sphere.
Perhaps, but it's not a real material. Such a thing does not exist.
In JR's cited example we can see that a glass vase is imperfect.
Well, no, there's a reason I worded my example the way I did.
I deliberately stated, in no uncertain terms, that the glass vase was perfect.
You can't just change my example.
So let me ask again:
If you take a bat to a perfect glass vase, do you not expect it to break?
It's made of a material that is fickle, vulnerable, unlikely to be able to last. It is an item that can serve a purpose for a limited time but it is inherently vulnerable to all manner of external influences. Heat, cold, pressure, external force (knocks) and so on.
None of which have anything to do with whether something is perfect, or whether something can become "not perfect."
Humans as we know are very far from being perfect designs.
Oh?
You have a better design in mind?
Or, maybe instead of viewing humanity as supposing to be perfect currently, you should view humanity as being perfect at one point in the past, and having fallen out of perfection?
There's no question that our designs
Funny you should use the word "design"...
Things that are designed have a designer.
are remarkable and that we are a feat of incredible engineering, but we are certainly not perfect,
Indeed.
But just because we are not perfect currently, doesn't mean that man was not originally designed to be and created perfect. No?
To argue so would be fallacious.
and that lack of perfection has nothing to do with how we think or what we choose to do.
How we think or what we choose to do has nothing to do with being perfect to begin with.
There were no flaws in the original design.
The flaws that exist now, such as susceptibility to disease and genetic defects, did not exist within the original design. However, the fact remains that, while man is no longer perfect, for the most part the human body can still, at least to a certain extent, function even with such defects, which is a testament to how well the human body was designed.
Physically we are imperfect.
Indeed. We live in a fallen world.
Our births are a lottery resulting in all manner of genetic problems.
A consequence of the Fall.
Our bodies decay and suffer decrepitude.
Again, a result of the Fall.
We have eyes only in the front of our head whilst other creatures have eyes all around for 360 degree vision.
So what?
We can only run at low speed whilst other creations can run massively faster and so on.
So what?
Indeed.
but we are not a perfect creation by any stretch of the imagination.
Correction, "we are no longer a perfect creation," by any stretch of the imagination.
To answer Clete's question when I said:
The "he" refers to man not God.
Thank you for the clarification.
I.e. man could only act and behave as per his design and programming.
Could God design and program a human being to be able to act freely?
Just as a cat can only behave according to the way it was made. Let loose a mouse near a cat and the cat will unquestionably strike its paw out as the mouse flits by. That's how a cat is programmed, it can't behave otherwise unless it is doctored in some way.
Cats are not humans, so the analogy doesn't quite work the way you think it does. That said...
Cats (and I speak somewhat according to experience, I own a cat) behave mostly according to instinct, but they do have, to some extent, a will of their own, one that can be influenced to some extent by external influences (such as one's owner).
The same can be said of humans, to some extent, however, humans have a much greater ability to "go against their programming."
In fact, if the Bible is any indication, and I submit to you that it is, going against the programming seems to be the default behavior of all humans.
The "programming" in question, being simply, "to love God."
I also stated:
To which Clete said
This response is quite revealing TBH. God is not Omniscient?!!
Not in the classical (read: Greek) sense of the word, no.
Good.
but in Christian terms this is blasphemy.
You seem to think that Christianity is this monolithic group where everyone believes that same thing.
If so, you are sorely mistaken.
As I stated previously, you're arguing against "the settled view," particularly Calvinism.
I, as well as Clete and RD, are most certainly NOT Calvinists. We don't believe what you are arguing against.
So maybe you could acknowledge this, and seek to understand our position a little?
Because as of right now, you aren't hitting any point of contention with your arguments against omniscience.
Which one?
would have us believe that Gods knows all. That he knows every thing, past, present and future. For otherwise he could not be God.
As I requested in my previous post, I recommend you go study up on the concept of Open Theism.
Here's a great place to start:
https://opentheism.org (add /verses if you want to see all of the biblical evidence for this belief)
But this of course presents the glaring dilemmas such as that I pointed put about Adam and Eve. If God knows the future then he knew Adam and Eve would eat from the tree and thus placing the tree where they could get at it was an act of self-delusion and stupidity, especially if the whole of Earthly creation were hanging on that act, i.e. the fall of man and all that followed. If God knows the future then it means he allowed all of that suffering and misery to happen, indeed he facilitated it by placing the tree there in the garden.
And the Open Theist (and specifically, the "presentism" view's (ie, that things only exist in the present, and that neither the past nor the future exist)) response to this argument is simply, "God does not know the future, because the future doesn't exist yet."
As I've already said, the Genesis story makes absolutely no sense when taken literally, even to the point of being utterly absurd.
I've been over this already.
The problem is not taking the text literally.
The problem is viewing the text through "settled view" (such as Calvinism or Arminianism) lenses.
Get rid of those lenses, the
a priori assumptions, and the problem goes away, and you are able to read Genesis (and the rest of the Bible for that matter) literally (not woodenly-literally, mind you), without it seeming absurd.
A free and clear mind must see that and thus seek to interpret the story in a different way.
Indeed.
A different way than you are trying to paint us as reading it.
Another of Clete's points:
I minded here of the appalling and corrupt way the UK was taken into the clutches of the EU back in the 70s. We were forcibly taken in without any consent or consultation, which was both illegal and unconstitutional at the time. Because of that, a year later Ted Heath was forced to hold a retrospective referendum which instead of asking the electorate "Do you want the UK to become part of the EU?" instead said "We've forced you into the EU already, now, do you want to stay there?" The difference is palpable.
Your scenario however is somewhat moot. God at no point offered Adam and Eve an exit from the garden.
Uh... yes, He did.
The Tree was the way out.
He put the door right smack dab in the middle of the garden, and told them that what lies beyond that door is death.
He had PUT them there (without any consultation or other choice)
Does not the Creator have the right over His creation?
If you, SoT, make something using your hands, do you not, as its creator, have the right to pick it up and move it from one place to another?
Serious question.
and then said to them "you must not eat of the forbidden tree and by the way if you do eat from it you will die immediately."
Two points to be made:
1) "Immediately"? No. "In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die." That's the English translation. The Hebrew reads more along the lines of "for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die." A [certainty of death], "dying" (an infinitive absolute verb), followed by a [future incomplete death], "you shall die" (an imperfect verb).
2) When God told Adam and Eve, "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die," He was warning them of the consequences of rejecting Him.
So the only "exits" being discussed were those of Life and Death, not choices of "Live here in Eden" or "Live somewhere else."
You have failed to recognize the greater context.
God is life.
Choosing to reject Him is the same as choosing to reject life, also known as choosing death.
So yes, the choice God gave Adam and Eve in the Garden was, in fact, a choice between life and death.
Live with God, or live without God.
Live here in Eden, or live somewhere else.
Live with God in Heaven, or live apart from Him in the Lake of Fire.
You have been presented with the choice between life and death. Therefore, SoT, choose LIFE, that you may live.
Let's look at the text in Genesis:
"And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
No choices given to Adam here. He was "taken" and he was "put"
Supra.
"16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat"
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Let's gloss over the absurdity of the notion that an Omnipotent God somehow needs a "man" to tend and keep a garden!! That's plainly ridiculous.
No, sorry, that's an appeal to the stone.
Don't use logical fallacies to support your position.
First of all, what is absurd about God telling His creation to tend to the garden He made?
Second, your
a priori assumption that God is "omnipotent" seems to be based on the classical (read: Greek) definition of the word. God, in that very verse, delegated some of His power to man, for him to tend to the garden He had made.
Let's look at the clear statement that "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"
Adam DID eat from the tree. But he didn't die!!!
What's going on here?
Simple.
Adam ate from the Tree, and in the day that he ate of the Tree, dying, he died.
Now when I've discussed this with other people of various degrees of religious fundamentalism the responses are wide and varied and all manner of excuses are offered to account for this glaring contradiction in the Bible.
Some say "well he didn't physically die did he but he figuratively died, God wasn't being serious"
God does not make empty threats.
Others say "actually Yes he DID die, he died instantly and then God quickly whipped up a brand new Adam, so there were in fact 2 Adams"
Not our belief, and not what the text says anyways.
So you were only able to come up with two examples?
But nothing gets us away from the fact that the Bible says that God said Adam would die if he ate the fruit of the tree and in fact Adam did not die,
No, Adam did, in fact, die.
It says "in the day that you eat of the Tree, you shall surely die."
He was dying.
and he knew things he didn't know before and knew he was naked and went off to cover himself with fig leaves and so on and then wandered around the garden where later on God spoke with him again. If we read Genesis literally, we have to see that it doesn't hold water.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Because you say so?
And how can he do that? The same Bible says that God does not lie! Something doesn't sit right here.
I recommend watching this playlist:
What does the Bible say about lying and deception? Are they always wrong? The answers may surprise you as we take a deep dive into scripture to look at this ...
youtube.com
The serpent in fact was the one telling the truth. The serpent told Adam and Eve that if they ate from the tree that they would not die and would gain knowledge and THAT IS what happened. Snake ==> Truth, God ==> Lied. That is IF you take Genesis literally.
1) The serpent twisted the truth to deceive Eve.
2) The serpent never spoke to Adam, as far as Scripture is concerned.
3) If you pay attention to the text of Genesis 3, you'll notice that Eve's answer was not what God originally said. The serpent asked Eve if God said "you shall not eat of every tree of the garden." Her response was, "We may eat . . . but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'you shall not eat it,
nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'" The response of the serpent was not regarding eating it. The response of the serpent was in regards to touching it. It was true, merely touching the fruit of the Tree was not forbidden, and thus, touching the fruit of the Tree would not result in death. "You will not surely die" [if you touch it]. For God knows..."
4) The Tree is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." "The knowledge of good and evil" is another way of saying "the law." God told Adam and Eve not to partake of the law, why? Because "the law kills" (Cf. 2 Corinthians 3:6) and "in the day you eat of it, dying you shall die."
5) Eating of the tree did in fact give one knowledge, the same way that partaking of the law gives one knowledge... It gives knowledge of the law, where before there was only innocence.
6) The serpent twisted the truth.
7) God did not lie.
That is if you take Genesis literally, and let God be true, and every man a liar, yes, including yourself.
Again we have to consider that IF God is Omniscient then he knows all things, past, present and future.
He isn't omniscient, not according to that definition.
The Bible underpins this all over:
No, it doesn't.
Psalm 139:4
"Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O Lord, You know it all."
So God can't know someone's thoughts before he puts it into speech? (present knowledge, not future knowledge)
Hebrews 4:13
"And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do."
So God isn't capable of finding things out on His own? Of seeking out information that currently exists? (present knowledge, not future knowledge)
Job 28:24
"For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens."
Supra.
Psalm 139:1-24
"To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. O Lord, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. ... "
Supra.
So I'm afraid I can't accept your "excuse" that God's Omniscience isn't really omniscience, and that he just knows a lot of stuff but not everything.
Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant.
The fact of the matter is that God is not omniscient in the way you define it.
No that's absolutely not what the Bible says
opentheism.org
See categories: 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 26, 29, 30 (bonus categories that indicate that the future is not settled and thus cannot be known: 8, 13, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 31, 32, 33)
nor what the Churches preach to the subdued flocks.
Thankfully, the church is not the authority of what Scripture teaches.
The Scripture is the authority. What the "church" thinks is irrelevant.
God is allegedly all-knowing,
So are men, according to 1 John 2:20.
past, present and future.
Supra.
That being so, he knew in advance that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree. He knew what was hanging on that action, that man would fall, and all that would ensue and so even knowing all this would happen, he still put the tree and danger there in front of Adam and Eve. One can only question such mentality.
Of course, when you beg the question that God is "Omniscient" as you define it, then the only possible conclusion is such as you have described, and one would be right in questioning it.
But it is not so. Therefore your claims are moot.
I don't for one second adhere to the literal story of Genesis
In the words of Adam Savage, "Well there's your problem!"
for reasons such as this. I know that Genesis holds incredibly important (life and death) secrets which are veiled in allegory and cryptic devices.
(Hint: they're not.)
Secrets that are for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, but not for anyone else.
And you somehow have access to the correct explanation?
HA!
Everyone else will just see a quaint story of the creation of the universe and Eden and Adam and Eve and so on
A quaint story?
No, it's a record of what literally happened 7500 years ago in the Garden of Eden.
and even though it has glaring contradictions and problems,
Except it doesn't.
the religious conditioning of believers will ensure they compartmentalise and ignore those problems or otherwise make up all manner of excuses for the inconsistencies.
So far, you haven't even touched our position on the matter.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say you've only been beating up straw men, as far as Clete's, RD's, and my position is concerned.
The same secrets are recorded in the same way using the same allegorical terms and devices in other religious works including the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, Taoism and so on.
No, they're not.
One consistent secret, spanning all major religions.
And that secret is....?
The truth is that these religions are in fact not in opposition to each other, they carry the same message.
This is simply false.
The message preached by all other religions besides Christianity is a message of works to achieve a salvation of some sort.
ONLY CHRISTIANITY teaches that it doesn't matter what one does, no matter what works one has on their record, he is not capable of achieving salvation on his own. It teaches that one must rely on an external means for salvation, that being the very Creator who made man, Who came to this earth 2000 years ago, born in a manger, and Who died on a cross, then on the third day raised Himself from the dead. No other religion lays claim to such an event.
What we have is a corrupt society and utterly corrupt forms of religion who have peddled a false literal interpretation of these texts and thereby pitted man against fellow man for eons.
Eons?
Sir, I don't think you realize, Christianity did not exist prior to around 2000 years ago. And the earliest books of the Bible were only written around 3600 years ago.
That's not "eons" by any stretch of the imagination.
Also, the texts themselves (written over the course of around 1600 years) have hardly changed over the course of those 3600 years. We know this because of documents such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are virtually identical to our modern Hebrew Old Testament texts.
The texts tell us how to avoid death. Period.
Indeed.
Not some made-up wishy washy 1st, 2nd or 3rd death, but plain old death, pure and simple.
The difference is how.
Only one of them teaches that it's through grace, and not works.
Nobody needs to die. Nobody should die. The greatest lie the devil ever told is that death is normal and we should all just expect it and accept it.
The greatest lie the devil ever told was a twisting of the truth.
It's not normal. We are supposed to live. Indefinitely.
God is life.
Death is the wages of sin.
Sin is rebellion against God.
Rebelling against God therefore results in death, because it is the rebelling against Life.
We die because we've been lied to,
No. We die because we have sinned.
We die because Adam's sin brought death to all mankind.
But physical death is merely the separation of body and soul.
Spiritual death is the separation of soul/spirit and God.
Do not die in your sins, repent and ask God for forgiveness, for He is gracious and just to forgive.
because the true secret hidden in all these works is kept from us all, because a wicked greedy corrupt few want to have that secret for themselves instead of giving it to all mankind. Evil personified.
Last I checked, the Bible is the world's bestseller.
And that's not including the free copies.
The message of the Bible is that there is hope in Christ.
If it were true that "a wicked greedy corrupt few" wanted to "have that secret" (which isn't really a secret now, is it?) for themselves, instead of giving it to all mankind, I daresay they haven't done a very good job of preventing it's spread.
