ARCHIVE:God is NOT an OV'er (He said so)

[geoff]

AJ:

Right, you’ve already stated that you think there is a difference, the question is whether there is any reason to take you seriously, or are you just blowing smoke.

*sigh*

This would be an excellent example of why I stated earlier that all correct moral decisions are perfect.

No, its an example of a 'good' moral decision. A 'perfect' moral decision would entail you knowing all the ramifications past present and future of your actions.

If this is what you mean by perfect (and I have serious doubts that you actually know what you mean), then I would say that men make correct moral decisions all the time, and they do not need foreknowledge to do so. Therefore it stands to reason that God could make perfect moral decisions without foreknowledge either, since the only difference between the two is consistency.

What on earth has consistancy got to do with it? Consistancy doesnt make the difference between 'good' and 'perfect'. Anyone can make constantly good moral choices, however only God can make perfect moral choices.

I think I’ve already covered why this is wrong, but I’d like to point out the inconsistency of your argument. In one sentence you say you agree with me, and that “perfect” means consistently making the right choice, and in the next you use the singular “a perfect moral decision” as if you misled earlier when stating the reason for your distinction.

No, I havent said that consistant means perfect, I have argued all the time that perfect moral choice requires perfect/complete knowledge.

I know that most dictionarys would only describe it as universal knowledge, and I am doubtful that any dictionary would define the word that it must include foreknowledge.

I am doubtful that a dictionary would be sufficient to describe a philosophical term.

You are the one claiming distinctions that do not seem to exist without any proof. Then, as if you are totally clueless of any rules of logic, make the absurd claim that people must prove your wild assertion wrong BEFORE you've offered any proof for it.

Ah right. But the same criticism doesnt apply to you?

Here endeth the discussion. I dont have time for this stuff anymore.

 

[jobeth]

1013:

If "God so sovereignly controls all events, both mental and physical," then the creation is totally under his control including everything that leads up to the creation and I see no plausible way of denying that He created it (evil).

God does not deny it.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Lam 3:37 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?
38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?


I make a distinction between "Evil" as something completely meaningless and unnecessary and from which no good could ever come, and "evil" as something unpleasant but essential or expedient in order to accomplish or facilitate some good purpose.

I believe the verses I quoted refer to "evil" of the 2nd type. Do you agree that God causes or commands "evil" in order to accomplish or facilitate His good purpose?

I put it this way.
God does not create or command "Evil" (of the 1st type) that is completely unnecessary and meaningless, from which no good could ever come.
God does create or command "evil" (of the 2nd type) which is essential or expedient in order to accomplish or facilitate His good purpose.

So I can say:
God does not create "Evil" (of the 1st type), but God does create "evil" (of the 2nd type).
And not contradict myself.

Futhermore, (as if that weren't complicated enough) while I affirm that "evil" (of the 2nd type) exists and actually occurs with God's knowledge and consent, I deny that "Evil" (of the 1st type) exists or ever actually occurs.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Geoff said: No, its an example of a 'good' moral decision. A 'perfect' moral decision would entail you knowing all the ramifications past present and future of your actions.

It is a perfect moral decision. Knowledge of future ramifications is irrelevant. The concept of past ramifications is inane, and poorly thought out.

If it is not a perfect moral decision (such as my example of not stealing my neighbor's car when tempted) then please point out the imperfection or immorality in it.

Like many liberals you want to believe that morality has different shades of grey, however I do no think that can be defended from a Christian point of view. Correct moral decisions are black-and-white issues in that you are either making a decisions that is completely correct, or you are not making a "correct" decision at all.

Geoff said: What on earth has consistancy got to do with it? Consistancy doesnt make the difference between 'good' and 'perfect'. Anyone can make constantly good moral choices, however only God can make perfect moral choices.

Earlier I asked if your distinction between “perfect” and “correct” moral choices was that God never ceases to make the right decision, whereas men make the right decision often, but more often their sinful nature keeps them from doing so with consistency. You indicated that you agreed with this distinction between “perfect” and “correct”. Perhaps you misspoke.

My original assertion, that all “correct” moral decisions are perfect stands. There is no distinction between the two. Your argument is based on a distinction that even you cannot seem to explain. I have no choice but to believe it is “poppy cot” since no evidence can be found to back that distinction.

Geoff said: I am doubtful that a dictionary would be sufficient to describe a philosophical term.

<chuckle>
I couldn’t have quantified your argument more brilliantly.

I said: You are the one claiming distinctions that do not seem to exist without any proof. Then, as if you are totally clueless of any rules of logic, make the absurd claim that people must prove your wild assertion wrong BEFORE you've offered any proof for it.

Geoff said: Ah right. But the same criticism doesnt apply to you? Here endeth the discussion. I dont have time for this stuff anymore.

If I had to defend your position, I’d also probably want to end the discussion before having back anything I said.

As for the same being applied to me I have offered several proofs and explanations. I pointed out that “correct” and “perfect” do not have any distinctions and that “foreknowledge” has no weight on the degree of decision by the example of the stolen car which later runs over a child. I defended my position on God’s degree of knowledge by pointing out that salvation comes to men who justly should be in hell. I have defended my position of the meaning of “omniscience” with dictionaries, which you will not accept as authorities.

 

[geoff]

I'm not continuing because I dont have time to waste on your insults.. and I dont have time to be told my argument fails, only have to have a defense that fails on the same criteria that my argument fails... its a pointless waste of time...

All you have offered is assertions, no proof... regardless of what I have done, you should know better, considering your rebuttal of me is based on those criteria...

so, end of argument... I wont waste my time with your hypocrytical ravings.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Geoff said: I'm not continuing because I dont have time to waste on your insults..

Do you refer to my comment that you don't understand logic. That was a point of fact, not neccessarily an insult. It is obvious that you don't for you expect me to to prove you wrong (that there is no distinction between "correct" and "perfect" moral decisions) when you have yet to define a difference.

One cannot be expected defend or attack a position that is undefined. Yet you don't see why this is so and claim that it is hypocritical of me not to give evidence against your undefined position, and ask that you define it at the same time.

That tells me that you haven't grasped logic.

You said that God doesn't just mke "corect" moral decisions, but "perfect" ones. yet no one, including yourself, seeems to know what the difference is.

Geoff said: All you have offered is assertions, no proof... regardless of what I have done, you should know better, considering your rebuttal of me is based on those criteria...

I have given several proofs for my position despite the fact that no burden of proof exists on me until you define the dinstinction between "perfect" and "correct" moral truths, give an example, or state plainly the difference.

While it is true that all you have offered is assertions, I have rebutted you on far more than just that. I hve met you half-way trying to help you put a definition on the word "perfect" so that your arguement is half-way coherant - but you couldn't even follow that line of thinking.

And now, you seem to be throwing a temper-tantrum similar to what my four-year-old might do.

 

[geoff]

no temper tantrum..

just... cant be be bothered ...

pity, because you started off so well.

 

[Yxboom]

geoff,

geoff,

just... cant be be bothered ...

Never thought i'd see the day. Well you still gonna be my buddy even though AJedi struck a nerve? I promise I never sent him. Do you agree that I played nice?

 

[geoff]

yxboom..

well.. you werent 'bad'

 

[Yxboom]

he he

 

[1013]

If any "evil" actually occurs, it is only because God neglected to Prevent it, and that for a good reason. Since we realiize that the "evil" God is using to fulfill His purpose, could easily have been prevented from occurring by Him, had He so desired, then the analogy fails when we are talking about God.

the analogy does not fail because the goal of the analogy is to show that God is not evil to use evil men who are evil apart form his predestining.

Yes, evil is unnecessary, except as God uses it to accomplish His purpose. God uses evil, but only in a independent sense.
For instance, if I want to have steak, I must kill or cow (or have one killed). But killing the cow is unnecessary for a meal, unless I want to make a meal out of a steak.

there is nothing to suggest that God's goals require evil. God did not create a wordl with the purpose of having to redeem it. that was only necessary after it had fallen.

To pretend that evil exists apart from God's knowledge and consent is a litte bit childish, don't you think?

1. I don't believe anything happens without God's knowledge as I have explained. whether something is possible or certain, God knows it as certain or as possible with all the other possibilities.

2.consent in what way? God does not give his consent for the existence of evil. evil is rebellion to a righteous God. but he allows its possibility to exist because it is a necessary possibility given the kind of world he wants.

and is either of these things childish. that's a strange thing to say.

Either that, or we are lying when we say that God is more powerful than evil.

even though I didn't concur to the disjunct of this, I don't see why.

Well, I don't mean it is existentially necessary. Only that it is practical-ly necessary.

that God can use evil to bring out good does not make it practically necessary.

I mean that God causes things that seem evil to us, for practical purposes; to instruct in what is right, to correct what is wrong, as a demonstration of right doctrine, reproof of wrong doctrine, righteous judgement, fair retribution, forcing a change of direction, encouraging affirmative action, etc. etc

and if God behaves the way you say he does, he certainly show us what is wrong by his actions.

 

[jobeth]

1013:

the analogy does not fail because the goal of the analogy is to show that God is not evil to use evil men who are evil apart form his predestining.

Please demonstrate for me why you feel it more evil for God to prevent evil men from doing evil than it is for God to use evil men to perform evil?
My preference would be for God to PREVENT evil whenever He could, rather than simply to allow and use their evil to bring about something else. Aren't God's purposes better served by our doing good, than by our doing evil?

there is nothing to suggest that God's goals require evil. God did not create a wordl with the purpose of having to redeem it. that was only necessary after it had fallen.

Redeem the world? I thought the world and everything in it will be burned up? 2 Pet 3:10-12 I thought that the world was made subject to decay and corruption not of its own will, but by Him who subjects all things to Himself. I do not believe that God intends to redeem this fallen earth. Rather, I believe God intends to create a new heaven and a new earth - the World to Come of which I've been speaking - where righteousness is at home. Don't you believe in the World to Come?

2.consent in what way? God does not give his consent for the existence of evil. evil is rebellion to a righteous God. but he allows its possibility to exist because it is a necessary possibility given the kind of world he wants.

The kind of world I imagine God wants is one where His will is perfectly done. What kind of world do you imagine God wants?

 

[Yxboom]

Jobeth,

Jobeth,

The kind of world I imagine God wants is one where His will is perfectly done. What kind of world do you imagine God wants?

1 Timothy 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Do you contend that all men are saved as His perfect will dictates?

 

[jobeth]

Yxboom:
I contend that all men who come unto the knowledge of the truth are saved according to God's will for them.
And I contend that all men who will not repent and acknowledge the truth are condemned already according to God's will for them.

Don't you?

 

[Arminian]

Jobeth,

I contend that all men who come unto the knowledge of the truth are saved according to God's will for them.

He didn't ask you if all men who come unto the knowledge of the truth are saved. He asked if you agreed that it is God's will that all men come to a knowledge of the truth and are saved.

 

[1013]

Please demonstrate for me why you feel it more evil for God to prevent evil men from doing evil than it is for God to use evil men to perform evil?

I don't think one is more evil. God does both for reasons. He prevents evil if it jepordizes his plans and he uses evil if it works with his plans. Because he takes seriously the design of his creation, he will not always prevent it.

Aren't God's purposes better served by our doing good, than by our doing evil?

yup. It's better that WE do good. but WE don't always obey God and that is our fault, not his because it is WE who do it of our own volition.

Redeem the world? I thought the world and everything in it will be burned up? 2 Pet 3:10-12

in a sense yes. (and that is what ever sense peter ment it in, what ever that is. I'm not an expert there). In a sense, no. For God so loved the world. He is redeeming that world that he so loved. He is restoring it.

I do not believe that God intends to redeem this fallen earth.

new planet or old planet, it makes no difference to me. what ever you want to insist as far as this is concerned, I won't argue or agree. I don't know that the scriptures are so clear and if they are, then that 's the view I'll agree to.

the World to Come of which I've been speaking - where righteousness is at home. Don't you believe in the World to Come?

sure

The kind of world I imagine God wants is one where His will is perfectly done. What kind of world do you imagine God wants?

we've discussed this already jobeth.

 

[Yxboom]

Jobeth,

Jobeth,

Jobeth: Don't you?

I feel I have exhaustively shown you how I disagree with you on that. So to ask that seems rhetorical but I would hope that maybe someone else would acknowledge this that I was rather clear in my disagreeing with you that God wills men to Hell. I will clarify this as precise as I can. Not all are saved although it is God's will that all would be. Peace.

 

[geoff]

This is gravy... this is an Ox.. This is gravy... This is an Ox.. Gravy - Ox, Ox ->gravy.

wall<--head = BANG!

 

[Yxboom]

geoff

geoff

This is gravy... this is an Ox.. This is gravy... This is an Ox.. Gravy - Ox, Ox ->gravy.

Man this is the 2nd time I sit here wondering what are you talking about? I'm not getting the gravy ox bit although I know it somehow relates to some dripping sarcastic comment which I am sure will amuse me.

 

[jobeth]

Arminian:

He didn't ask you if all men who come unto the knowledge of the truth are saved. He asked if you agreed that it is God's will that all men come to a knowledge of the truth and are saved.

I believe that God has a specific will and destiny for each individual.
So when He says "I go to prepare a place for you", I take that to mean "specifically prepared for me."
He says "to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father."
"And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left."
"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:"
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels (agents)"
I believe there are two destinies and two destinies only.
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
I believe that God created not only all people, but their respective destinies as well.
Prov 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.


Yxboom:
If not all are saved, even though it is God's will that all should be saved, then those who are not saved will have succeeded in thwarting God's will and ruining His plan. Is it good for God or evil for Him to have His will thwarted and His plans ruined?
If having His will thwarted and His plans ruined is good for God, then they should be rewarded by God for doing what is good for God, not punished. God would be unjust to punish someone who does good to Him.
If it is evil for God to have His will thwarted and His plans ruined, then God is not more powerful than evil. Rather, God would be weak indeed if God's will is forever overcome by Evil.

I believe that God is neither unjust nor weak. That is why I deny that God wants all men to be saved without exception.

I believe that God wants all men to be saved who repent and acknowledge the truth.

 

[jobeth]

1013:

I don't know that the scriptures are so clear and if they are, then that 's the view I'll agree to.

1 Pet 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;