The Necessity of Sin for God's Glory
Offline Just some thoughts here:
If the Christian god didn't want sin to exist-- if it is such an infinite offense against him, you would think he would have simply designed humans that do not sin. The argument then arises that we cannot have free will without the option to sin against this god. However, this is a poor argument because having the option to do a thing does not make it necessary to do it; I have the option to jump off of a tall building or into the path of on an oncoming train, but my ability to reason makes it clear that doing so is not in the interest of my well being.
Therefore, we must conclude that God could have created humans with free will, the choice to sin, and the ability to reason well enough to never choose to sin. In the case of Adam and Eve, for example, God tells them not to eat the apple, but they still eat it. Who is at fault here? God is. Either God did not create Adam and Eve with the proper observation and reasoning faculties to properly utilize the information provided by God (don't eat the apple) or God provided inadequate information.
Now, let's say that God did create humans who had free will and would never disobey him. Humans would be self sustaining, and therefore, God would no longer be necessary.
But this is a god that demands to be worshipped and glorified. And it's hard to be worthy of worship when your creations are as perfect as you are.
It then follows that if God wants to be worshipped, he must intentionally create imperfect beings. He must create humans in such a way that they will need him. And this is why we are constantly told that we are born sinners; we are imperfect, deserving of punishment and we need God to save us.
What we have is exactly like the villain in "The Incredibles". He longs so badly to be considered a hero that he creates a catastrophe so that he can pretend to save the world from it.
Just think: If we were made perfect, we wouldn't need a god. We must conclude that we've got sin all wrong. God doesn't hate sin. He loves sin because without it, he would be unnecessary.
One must wonder why God didn't just create other gods to commune with. He can create a universe from nothing, so why not just create beings that don't need air, food, water, etc?
Of course, God must create these things, because man created God. What is written in the Bible is exactly what you would expect from primitive men trying to explain their origins using only the information available to them.
- Login to post comments
Offline Perhaps it is a contradiction, But tell me this. Will those who go to heaven have free will in there?
the bible does not give a direct answer to you question. But she says there will not exist sin, but only perfection, happiness, joy, love. So even if there will be free will, no one will want to sin. that might be why there will not exist sin, too.
- Login to post comments
Offline answer from this site :
http://www.katapi.org.uk/ChristianFaith/XXIV.htm
3. What we mean by Good and Evil
Therefore "good" is not what profits man, and "evil" is not what injures him.
GOOD is what is in accordance with the will and character of God.
EVIL is what is contrary to His will.
4. Nothing is Evil but the Evil Will
Nothing is evil, or can be evil, but a personal will disobeying God.
The will is not material.
No material thing can be evil.
There is therefore no such thing as evil in the flesh.
Our bodies, like other material things, can be misused by an evil will.
But in themselves they are good and cannot be anything but good.
5. The Origin of Evil is a Mystery
How did evil come into the world which God had created good?
Nobody knows.
The origin of evil is one of the greatest of mysteries.
According to the story of Gen.3, the first serpent tempted the first man and woman.
It does not explain how the serpent became evil.
[We do not, of course, believe that serpents are evil.
Even the devil was not created evil but became evil.]
We can only guess at the reasons that God had for allowing evil to exist.
But two reasons may be suggested.
1. No Virtue without Free Will, no Free Will unless Evil is Possible
All virtue depends on choice between good and evil.
Heroic courage could not exist if it were not possible to be cowardly.
Heroic purity could not exist if it were not possible to be impure.
If evil were not possible, there would be no heroic goodness.
2. Necessity of Temptation to Development of Character
Besides, the development of human character requires that it should resist evil.
No man can become what man ought to be if he is protected from all temptation.
6. Evil is Negative
St. Augustine taught that evil is not a substance, not a positive thing, but the perversion of a substance, a kind of disease.
This theory is not part of the Christian faith,
and many Christian theologians have denied it.
But it is a most attractive theory.
God created all things.
He did not create evil, for evil is not a thing.
But He made man capable of disobeying Him,
that he might be also capable of heroic obedience.
The meaning of Isa.45.7,
is that God sends sorrow as well as joy.I form good and create evil,
It does not mean moral evil.
- Login to post comments
Offline 1. Was this necessary to exhibit god's glory?
of course not, the story has nothing to do with glory of God.
2. How is god's glory displayed here?
it is not.
3. Both Jane and Janet had abortions. Did they commit murder? Were their abortions justified? Was the abortion for the high school relation justified or should that baby been given a chance to live too?
this sort of things does happen all over the world, unfortunately. recently i hear a similar story, here where i live, in brazil.
. Live belongs God, and only he has the right, to decide, when the time is for someone to go, even if it is unborn, and result of rape.
4. After all of the prayers from the mother, the church, the prayer group, the daughters and everyone else, why did god not intervene?
because he respects the free will he gave us, even to do evil things.
5. If there is an all-loving, benevolent god (I'm not talking strictly Jesus), why would not a god deity intervene and rescue these poor girls?
good question. i can answer more generally, citing following website:
http://www.carm.org/questions/suffering.htm
The curious as well as the critics of Christianity ask this question. If God is all-powerful and all loving, then why does He permit evil and suffering in the world? Various answers have been given but permanently settling the issue is impossible because so many of our answers raise further questions. Nevertheless, our lack of ability to answer the question perfectly does not mean that we cannot offer solutions. Of course, I do not assume to be able to answer these questions definitively, but I can offer some solutions.
First of all, it is possible that God has reasons for allowing evil to exist that we simply cannot understand. In this the Christian can have confidence in God knowing that His ways are above our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). As the Bible says, the just shall live by faith (Hab. 2:4).
Second, God may be letting evil run its course in order to prove that evil is evil and that suffering, which is the unfortunate product of evil, is further proof that anything contrary to God’s will is bad, harmful, painful, and leads to death.
God gave Adam dominion over the world (Gen. 1:28). When he rebelled against God, he set in motion an entire series of events and changed the very nature of man and creation. Both were affected by sin. Creation was no longer a paradise, but bore thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17-18; Rom. 8:22). People became sinful (Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:3), who were haters of God (Rom. 3:19-12), etc. The only conclusion to such a situation is death. Jesus said, "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened" (Matt. 24:22).
Sin is rebellion against God and His created order. But God has not left us alone in this fallen world. He continued to enter this world, pointing us to Himself, to truth, to morality, purity, and love. He used the evil of the world (liars, perjurers, the envious, etc), to bring His Son to the cross so that we might have the opportunity of eternal life. In this, God has not stepped away from fallen creation, but has stepped into it by becoming Jesus. God works within the fallen world to affect change and He uses fallen people to accomplish His will. In this, He is proving His sovereignty over evil, suffering, and rebellious people, proving that sin and evil are utterly futile, and that He is worthy of honor and glory.
A third possible reason that God is letting evil occur is so that on the day of judgment, the condemned will have no right to say that their sentence is unjust. God is not stopping people from exercising their free will. Think about this: If someone said that God should stop evil and suffering, then should God then stop all evil and suffering? If God only stopped some of it, then we would still be asking the same question of why it exists. So, if we want God to stop evil and suffering, then He must stop all of it. We have no problem with this when it means stopping a catastrophe, or a murder, or a rape. But what about when someone thinks of something evil? Evil is evil whether it is acted out or not. Hatred and bigotry in someone’s heart is wrong. If it is wrong, and if God is to stop all evil, then He must stop that person from thinking his own thoughts. To do that, God must remove his freedom of thought. Furthermore, which person on the earth has not thought something evil? God would be required, then, to stop all people from exercising their free will. This is something God has chosen not to do. Therefore, we could say that one of the reasons that God permits evil and suffering is because of man’s free will.
Fourth, it is quite possible that God uses the suffering to do good. In other words, He produces patience through tribulation (Rom. 5:3). Or He may desire to save someone through it. Take for example, the account of Joseph who was sold into slavery by His brothers. What they did was wrong and Joseph suffered greatly for it. But, later, God raised up Joseph in Egypt to make provisions for the people of that land during the coming drought of seven years. But not only was Egypt saved, but also so was his family and brothers who originally sold him into slavery. Joseph finally says to them, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen. 50:15-21). Of course, the greatest example of God using evil for good is the death of Christ. Evil people brought him to the cross, but God used that cross as the means to save the world.
But then we must ask, if this is true, are we working against God by working against evil and suffering? No, we are not. God says he does not want us to sin and suffer. But it is simply true that God can use evil despite of its apparent despicable nature.
God is in the world using the world and its failures for His glory and the benefit of those who listen to Him.
But then, what about those who seem to innocently suffer with no benefit resulting? What about the woman who is raped, or the innocent by stander who is killed by a stray bullet. In both cases, the victims and families suffer nothing but pain and loss. What good can this possibly be?
I think that the answer is two-fold. One, ultimately, no one is innocent. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). There is none innocent. Though this is biblically accurate, it does not satisfy the question emotionally. Why do little babies suffer for things they have not done? I must acknowledge that I do not know. Ultimately, we must trust God who knows the beginning from the end and sees the grand picture. He will have the final word and He will be vindicated.
Conclusion
Suffering is the result of human sin. The world is not the way that God created it and because of that, all are vulnerable to the affects of sin in the world. Why does one person suffer and another does not? Why do catastrophes happen to some and no others? It is because sin is in the world. But there will come a day when the Lord will return and cleanse this world of all sin and all suffering.
- Login to post comments
Offline Perhaps it is a contradiction, But tell me this. Will those who go to heaven have free will in there?
the bible does not give a direct answer to you question. But she says there will not exist sin, but only perfection, happiness, joy, love. So even if there will be free will, no one will want to sin. that might be why there will not exist sin, too.
So free will and no sin can co-exist.
Tada!
-Triften
- Login to post comments
Offline that the sun rises, is evident.... but you cannot predict specific facts, that will happen in the future
The sun will rise tomorrow. That's a specific fact and it will happen in the future.
So even if there will be free will, no one will want to sin. that might be why there will not exist sin, too.
You totally ripped that off from me, and at the same time you've refused to confess that my explanation is exactly how God could have made humans who both have free will and never choose to do evil.
Talk about dishonesty.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Therefore "good" is not what profits man, and "evil" is not what injures him.
GOOD is what is in accordance with the will and character of God.
EVIL is what is contrary to His will.
I'm not to sure if (on topic part of) this thread is about the definition of good and evil. Most of the arguing is being done within Christian terminology.
Nothing is evil, or can be evil, but a personal will disobeying God.
Let's accept this definition of evil for the sake of the argument. Adam & Eve's disobedience of God is evil then. But, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good, and no knowledge of evil. Why should their mistake be counted against them and all their descendants when they were unable to know it was evil to disobey God? We're not talking some simple discipline. We're talking infinite punishment for much of humanity.
Consider an infant just learning to walk. The infant's parent will tell the child not to run out into the street, even thought the child doesn't know why. If the child then runs out into the street, the parent will discipline the child (with a finite punishment). But to think the child ran into the street fully knowing the dangers, and was somehow making a choice to do evil, is silly. The child doesn't really know what it's doing. Adam & Eve were are like this infant.
No Virtue without Free Will, no Free Will unless Evil is Possible
This leads us to two possibilities:
1.Persons in heaven have free will, and therefore evil is possible in heaven. Some jerk could ruin it for you all.
2.Evil is not possible in heaven, so free will can not exist. You Christians are going to be robots for all eternity. Sounds fun, right?
Which one is it?
All virtue depends on choice between good and evil.
And by that standard, Adam & Eve's choice wasn't virtuous, nor was it un-virtuous. How could it be when they couldn't choose between good and evil? They didn't even know what good and evil was!
- Login to post comments
Offline angelobrazil wrote:Perhaps it is a contradiction, But tell me this. Will those who go to heaven have free will in there?
the bible does not give a direct answer to you question. But she says there will not exist sin, but only perfection, happiness, joy, love. So even if there will be free will, no one will want to sin. that might be why there will not exist sin, too.
So free will and no sin can co-exist.
Tada!
-Triften
Heh.
Thanks, angelobrazil, for conceding a point to us. Not many Christians do that (unless they're of the more "liberal" kind).
So, in light of this admission, how do you now explain the problem of evil? You can't use the old free will card any longer.
- Login to post comments
Offline Not having the brain power to get into the whole thing given how late it is here, I want to point out some sentences from that post Angelo...
However, it has been known from before that sometimes after the person's death, medical instruments could register some brain activities again; it looks like the person is ''alive''.
Yes... the brain was still functioning. If the brain is functioning, it can generate all sorts of information. The brain is designed to simulate the environment to us. Cut it off from its sensory systems and it has a hard time generating an accurate picture.
If there were the lack of oxygen, would not it all be dark and black there?
I don't see why it would have to be, I've whited out from lack of air before, when my vision went white until I could breath again.
I still want a medical journal for this though, as I've said, the plethora of confirmed cases of fully dead people coming back with stories of the other side must have shown up somewhere besides an MSNBC article in the Society/Beliefs section writen by a Rabbi, an encyclopedic entry from a gee-centered FAQ site, and a half formed argument from a site that lists amongst its articles "Space-ship miracles".
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
- Login to post comments
Offline Regarding angelobrazils response to my post explaining how OBE's work, he is not proving anything. The conclusions he draws are non sequitor. The brain states that the researchers were creating hence stimulating OBE are the same electrophysiological changes which the brain undergoes near death. Now, if the patient could describe experiences while there was no electrical activity in the brain, that would be something else. But there has never been any account of this. If no electrical activity occurs in the brain, the person is dead. The brain cells die quickly without ions flowing through them.
Medical journals describe that OBE occur in patients. However, neuroscientists (that) describe how it works. So I have established this, he can provide is anecdotal evidence while I can provide formal evidence. This means his argument is highly fallacious. The physiology changes of a brain in a near-dying body allow for the electrophysiological events which allow an Out-of-body experience to occur. I have already explained how this occurs.
Also, could you (switching to 2nd person) please draft your own posts instead of demonstrating your adequate understanding of how to use the control-C-V by going to apologetics sites? There is nothing wrong with researching your answers, but please do not copy and paste them.
There is no point giving me anecdotal reports of OBE because that is anecdotal. I am explaining the methodology behind it hence undercutting anything you might be able to say on the matter.
Furthermore, he commits the verificationist fallacy, which is attempting to postulate that X cannot be true due to evidence Y while forgetting to adress the problems with position ~X (not X). Regarding this, the conclusion that OBE's are supernatural merely begs the same questions regarding the supernatural, which Tod and I have outlined below. It is also an Appeal to Magic fallacy, I believe that in literary terms we call this deus ex machina.
To truly understand the projection of vision behind the eyes and outside it, and the changes occuring in a brain in an arrested body, you must understnad the following:
-Chemotaxis
-Neurophysiology and cellular transduction
-The Huxley-Hodgkin model
-Neurotransmission
-Electrophysiology and electrochemistry
And read up on our explanations of these phenomenon, which we can test, unlike your conclusions, instead of asserting they we (scientists) are simply at a loss.
Your comment on the universality of these beliefs can actually now be explained by evolutionary biologists, neurolinguisits and cognitive neuroscientists, if you are interested. I suggest you research N-Dimethyltriptamine, the pineal gland, and evolutionary neurotheology (neurotheology is a discipline of neuroscience explaining why we have religion)
Furthermore, even if we could not explain these things, your conclusion would still be a non sequitor. "There is no materialist account for X" is an ad ignoratium, a fallacious proof of the supernatural. I suggest you study Popper and scientific falsification.
Furthermore, your proposition begs the question of the method by which this supposed supernatural generates such experience. To refuse to answer this is to invalidate your argument since your arguments rests on materialism being unable to account for it (which is false, but even if it were not it would be fallacious as an ad ignoratium). Todangst and I formally proved that the conceptual conclusions you are drawing are false. I recommend our articles on the matter to you:
'Supernatural' (and 'immaterial'
are broken concepts
A Clarification Regarding My Position Relative to theological noncognitivism
Also, please do not copy from CARM or christiananswers because people will not take that seriously.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline Sigh... Brace yourself, this is gonna be a long one....
What?
Your sentence begins with the fact that you are given a choice. Having been given a choice as a fact, how do you then conclude that then may not have had the choice to begin with?
Is it a fact that you are given a choice, or not?
If so, the rest of your argument is invalid because it is a fact that we are given a choice.
Go read Brave New world, and come back to me.
By the way, on this point I get what you're saying, however you are talking about free will in the scientific realm, like we're talking about determinism. This thread is more about free will in the religious realm, which focuses on the question of things such as whether a deity's foreknowledge eliminates free will, or if other aspects of a god diminish the free will of its creations.
Well, my point is still valid. The previous argument was about how god couldve made adam and eve choose the good choice, even if they were presented with the two. However, i argued that that was not free will, that being conditioned to choose one over the other can be determinism.
My point still stands.
Of course, we could make things even simpler if we wanted to say free will doesn't exist at all. We could just point out that God's foreknowledge of the future makes it both impossible for God and "his" creations to have free will. Or, I guess you could just go the route of determinism (as you have), which isn't really considered part of the free will debate in the religious realm.
So you don't think that Adam & Eve's supposed choice was between something nice and something really bad?
If they were conditioned in some way to choose the good over the bad, however, that would only be a false sense of freedom.
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil, nor any knowledge of good. They couldn't have understood (because understanding requires knowledge) that their choice was bad, nor could the understand that obeying God was good. If anything is stupid, it's God's overact ion to Adam and Eve's choice. We don't blame a mentally retard person, or an insane person, for any crimes they commit because they don't understand what they're doing is wrong. Why does God behave differently than us?
Exactly my point.
However, Eve was also stupid to disobey. She shouldve known better, than to disobey someone who has unlimited power. Even if she had no knowledge of what it would do, she still couldve stuck to her promise of not eating the apple.
God behaves differently than us, because hes a jackass sonofabitch, who, contrary to popular beliefs, is just as evil as Satan.
Yes, we're instinctively repulsed by feces. But we'd still have a choice. We could overcome our repulsion and eat feces. The problem is we're instinctively attracted to having sex. So, one could argue that sexual "sins" are conditioned choices too.
Again, conditioning. If you were somehow programmed to choose the other, then we wouldnt have freedom, even if we were able to choose feces in the first place.
Think of it like this. Give me a million dollars, or i give you a milllion. choose 10 from a crowd, and how many do you think will go with the former or the latter?
Perfectly valid choices. Giving is never horrible, nor does it feel bad. Taking isnt horrible either, and it feels good too.
Oh, and you still haven't told us whether persons in heaven will have free will.
err sorry. Heres my answer.
People in heaven already decided to obey god. So, there will be no freedom. INfact, i think god would be a dictator more than anything. And Satan, who advocated free will, would be more of a democrat. That or a benign ruler, who really doesnt care what happens.
I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:that the sun rises, is evident.... but you cannot predict specific facts, that will happen in the future
The sun will rise tomorrow. That's a specific fact and it will happen in the future.
Quote:So even if there will be free will, no one will want to sin. that might be why there will not exist sin, too.
You totally ripped that off from me, and at the same time you've refused to confess that my explanation is exactly how God could have made humans who both have free will and never choose to do evil.
Talk about dishonesty.
i am talking about a probability in heaven, where other condition exist than here on earth. but this is all speculation, as we do not know how things work in heaven.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm not to sure if (on topic part of) this thread is about the definition of good and evil. Most of the arguing is being done within Christian terminology. Let's accept this definition of evil for the sake of the argument. Adam & Eve's disobedience of God is evil then. But, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good, and no knowledge of evil.
from :
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/original-sin.html
Although Adam and Eve had no concept of good and evil, they obviously did know about disobedience, since Eve told the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" (Genesis 3:3) From her statement, it is clear that Eve knew that she shouldn't eat the fruit. In fact she even added to God's command with the words "or touch it," which was not in God's original command. So, the original sin was disobedience, mistrust, and disloyalty against God.5
The Bible says that God has created people to be upright, but they have chosen to do evil.12 We are not condemned on the basis of Adam and Eve's original sin, but our own. Our condemnation is rightly deserved due to our rebellion and disobedience of God's laws. God is not responsible for our sin, but we are, because of our own lusts.13 However, God, in His love, has provided a way of escape for
This leads us to two possibilities: 1.Persons in heaven have free will, and therefore evil is possible in heaven. Some jerk could ruin it for you all. 2.Evil is not possible in heaven, so free will can not exist.
You Christians are going to be robots for all eternity. Sounds fun, right? Which one is it? All virtue depends on choice between good and evil. And by that standard, Adam & Eve's choice wasn't virtuous, nor was it un-virtuous. How could it be when they couldn't choose between good and evil?
from :
http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi039.asp
all seem to agree that:
- The saved will be elevated to a better state of being eternally than they are currently (Rom 8:18, 2 Cor. 4:17).
- The saved, once glorified, will no longer sin throughout eternity (Rev. 21:4,27).
Since apologists argue that Adam was created in a perfect state and yet his free choice to disobey God introduced sin into the world, then in what way do we retain that same type of freedom and yet never disobey God in eternity? And if we lose the ability to choose, does this not render humanity to a lower state than before? (The idea of losing the freedom to choose is repugnant to most people. No one wants to become a "Stepford" Christian.) ?
Some in the reformed tradition have basically denied the idea of man having any meaningful freedom to choose at all, rather relying on God's sovereignty. If this is true, man has lost nothing and there is no conflict. However, I'm concerned that while this view answers the eternity question, it destroys the impetus for Adam's original sin - placing it back on God. (For more on this, see our article "Objections to Determinism" at http://www.comereason.org/newsletters/mar02.htm )
If man does have a real choice in following or disobeying God's will, then it seems he either is denied that freedom in eternity or he has the ability to sin even in heaven. Now, either of these positions is untenable given #2 above, so there must be another option.
I believe that man does retain his free will in heaven but loses the capacity to sin. It is our salvation in Christ that allows both to be true. Let's examine the Biblical evidence and see if this makes sense.
- Login to post comments
And if disbelief bothers him so much, why wouldn't he give SOME decent evidence he exists, rather than relying on guessing which, if any, religion is true.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Or the Norsefire party, from V for Vendetta.
Or Captain Amazing in Mystery Men.
Or Emperor Palpatine, in Star Wars.
Seems to be a rather common motif, no?
Hi Matt!
Yes-- why no evidence? Because it's a myth! And it is the very lack of evidence that allows men to use religion as they see fit. Much like God would love sin because it allows him to be glorified, Christians should actually love the lack of evidence because it allows them to run the show-- if there is no evidence, then humans bear the full responsibility of feigning it, which, in turn, allows humans to play god.
We don't need people to represent the Sun and spread the "truth" of the Sun, because the evidence for the Sun's existance is so overwhelming.
So, with all these people scrambling over centuries to continuously adapt their religious practices to keep up with scientific and ethical progress, all the literature written debating what the Bible actually says, all the missionaries required to spread the "truth"-- this is exactly what we would expect to see if there was no evidence for God.
Exactly. It is possible to have free will and not to sin. That's what heaven's supposed to be like, right? Unless Christians are going to be robots for all eternity.
In the creation myth, God creates humans without the knowledge of good an evil. Not only could they not know that eating the fruit was evil, the couldn't even know that leaving the tree alone was good.
Very nice!!!
Some would also say:
Or the Bush Administration.
Unfortunately, however, the Bush Administration is not a work of fiction.
Therefore, we must conclude that God could have created humans with free will, the choice to sin, and the ability to reason well enough to never choose to sin.
reason and will are distinctive elements, you mix it up.
our soul has 3 elements : will, feeling and reason.
Now, let's say that God did create humans who had free will and would never disobey him. Humans would be self sustaining, and therefore, God would no longer be necessary.
as long as we are Gods creatures, we depend always from him.
But this is a god that demands to be worshipped and glorified. And it's hard to be worthy of worship when your creations are as perfect as you are.
One must wonder why God didn't just create other gods to commune with. He can create a universe from nothing, so why not just create beings that don't need air, food, water, etc?
there are inumerous beings that god create, like angels, that do not make part of the visible world.
Of course, God must create these things, because man created God.
false assumption. you do not have proofs to make this statement.
What is written in the Bible is exactly what you would expect from primitive men trying to explain their origins using only the information available to them.
well, i dont think so. profecies that fullfilled exactly, only God can predict the future.
LOL! You are quoting Descartes Metaphysical ontology! Dude, it is the 21st century. That view has long since been crushed by modern neuroscience, we have long since demonstrated that these functions are two sides of the same coin. For further reading on this matter:
"Vitalism"/"Immaterialism" and Christian "dualism" have long since been debunked. Response?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
i will copy a text from this website to answer you :
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Mind/MindMart.htm
The religious formulation of the mind-body problem upholds that the duality is between body and soul, i. e. between what we have in common with the material realities of this world and our soul as immaterial reality alien to this world. I call this version Augustine´s problem.
The philosophical formulation defends that the duality is between the body, which is public, observable by the others and governed by mechanical laws, and the mind, which is private and it is not governed by mechanical laws. Naturally I call this version Descartes´ problem.
Finally, the scientific formulation of the mind-body problem puts forward that the duality in the human beings is or would be between the brain, as studied by neuroscience, and mind, as studied by cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence. I call this new version Penfield´s problem.
Obviously I will not deal with all theses problems, but I will declare my position in the Penfield´s problem. In my paper "Procesos mentales y cognitivismo" ( Revista de Filosofía , vol. V, nº 7, 1992) I have defended a reasonable dualism. Briefly speaking I maintain that there are three general categories of mental processes. Firstly, there are brain-mental (hence physical) processes, that we can find in human beings and in animals (at least in vertebrates). Secondly, there are physical-mental (but non-cerebral) processes, that we can find in certain machines. Thirdly, there are non-physical-mental processes (which can be called spiritual), that we find exclusively in human beings. Therefore the notion of spirit refers to spiritual processes, which must be understood as processes produced by a non-physical causation, that uses neural means but exceeds these neural means.
I love that phrase. I must keep that one in mind. "I will answer you by getting someone else to answer you".
However, this text is worthless. It does not demonstrate that anything at all, and is certainly not a refutation of my article. You know why? Because that is not a full research paper! It is just the abstract of a paper. You need the password to obtain the whole thing. Sheesh! If you are going to copy and paste, at least do it properly! Also, you must realize that this article is obscelent since it was written in 1992, before the invention of FNISR, NMR, femtolaser, neural computing, and when Penfield's problem was unsolved. Penfield's problem was drafted long, long before the invention of the bulk of today's nueroscience techniques, since he lived a very long time ago. If you had read my work, you will have noticed I answered it:
I wrote:
The science of consciousness is all about unity of the lobes of the brain, and can be demonstrated likewise: I am referring to what modern neuroscientists called apraxia, a situation which results in a longitudinal divide along the corpus callosum in epilepsy patients, which causes the dominant hand of the patient to undergo involuntary movement and uncontrollable motor functions. The hand might undo buttons, light cigarettes, even strike objects without the users control. However, combined magnetoencephelogram scanning and neurophenomenology conducted after Penfield died in 1976 have revealed that this very rare form of epillepsy apraxia is caused by the damage caused to the medial lobes by the incision along the major axis of the brain. There are different brain functions associated with voluntary movement, the cerebellum for proprioception, the grid neuron array for mechanoperception, Acetylocholin-based Somatic and visceral motor neurons which run up the body's planar axis through the center of the spinal cord and into the Sensory Somatic Cortex. The incision along the brain's long axis severs the connection between the lobes controlling movement, with the result that different areas of the brain may at different times be able to command the hand in different ways, but since they are not connected, conscious control over it is lost. Actually, apraxia is often used to make the neurophysiological distinction between intention of execution otherwise known as Executive function (Anterior Cingulate Cortex), and actual execution. In other words, we can show that the self loses control of the hand due to apraxia due to a division along the major long axis of the brain, and although the kinesthetic sensation is there, the sensation of conscious control over the hand is not. For this reason, most neurophysiologists consider that at the supramolecular level, there is an electrophysiological event which translates intent into action. The general area which does this has been pinpointed by fMRI as the medial fronal lobe. Recently, neuroimaging has revealed the area of the brain responsible for decisional inhibition to be in the parietaloccipatal system. The damage or destruction of this system results in the loss of executive functional inhibition, with the result that the subject may lose conscious control over many physiological functions. But since the area of the brain responsible for action is located on the other lobe of the brain, the result of an incision along the corpus callosum will be in rare cases the loss of ability for interagency neurological control over such functions, with apraxia, with the result that a conscious self loses control for periods of time over the limb in question unless treated. The very fact that it can be treated in a neurological fashion hence indicates that you are dead wrong. Since the brain is a contralateral control system, which means that damage to the posterior medial lobe results in involuntary movement in the opposite function, the same for the parietal-occipatal system, since the corpus callosum is the link between these two areas and the subcortical synaptogenesis which develops when basic motor skills do, the exertation of control over the movement is partitioned into four areas. In other words, we are seeing exactly what we expect to see with an epillepsy patient experiencing apraxia under IET stimulation.
Reading is great, is it not?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
so how do you explain so many people, that were clinically death, but for one reason ore another, came back to life, and related after death experiences OUTSIDE their body ?
I'm certain that DG has a good set of references to back this up, but NDEs and out of body experiences can and have been simulated in the brain using technology. It's a neural process.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
Ah, OBE. Well, you must understand how introperceptive mechanisms work first:
Then, there are the lesser known, but equally important introperceptive senses, which regulate balance and spatiotemporal relative position and geometric orientation in the world (inner ear and cochlear tubes) called proprioception, the tracking of movement and muscle memory called mechanoperception (this one is quite remarkable, it is controlled by grid neurons which array a lattice-like projection of external reality, dividing it into grid squares, such that grid neurons corresponding to said squares fire when movement is detected in said squares. Obviously, your brain does not project this onto your vision, as that would be extremely annoying. As a matter of fact, your brain, while efficiently organizing reality, tweaks a lot of things so as not to appear unsettling. For example, the eyes never stop moving, they, even when fixed on a point, are making a jerky motion called sacchares. However, this is extremely unsettling in appearance so the brain eliminates it from the visual projection. It can be detected only by watching someone else’s eyes in the mirror.
Now, inside the sensorysomatic cortex is an area of regulation whose function is the introperceptive spatiotemporal projection of field of vision behind the eyes. This was demonstrated quite recently, I believe, by neuroscientists who blocked the transmitter across the synaptic vescicle for this area and hence, the projection of vision which was simulated/stimulated in the patient was outside the field of projected vision by lateral and longitudanal planes which would be impossible under normal circumstances. We can, by means of disrupting introperceptive spatiotemporal positioning, force this affect whereby the field of vision is projected at angles which are external to the projection of vision behind the eyes. The result, the person appears to view their own body as if standing beside or overtop it.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
What I did was define a scenario in which God creates humans perfect and self-sustaining. Do you know what self-sustaining means? It means they don't need a god. Your argument amounts to preaching and is invalid.
What you've done is told me what you think a "soul" is composed of. Once again, your argument is irrelevant.
If man created God, then what is written in the Bible is exactly what we would expect to see. There are plenty of other god-based myths to compare the Bible to, myths that we already acknowledge are fiction, as evidence that the Bible is also a myth. Additionally, the only reason the Bible is prominent over other myths is because Bible believers were eventually supported by their government, killed off those of other beliefs, threatened those with dissenting opinions, and indoctrinated their children in order to essentially force their religion into the spotlight, and it becomes clear that we should approach the Bible as we would Greek mythology-- all irrelevant factors, such as popularity of a religion or goverment favoritism/support of a certain religion, must be discounted in the Bible's evaluation.
The fact that you parrot religious sentiments rather than making valid arguments only suggests that you were brainwashed/indoctrinated as well.
I can predict the future. Watch this: The sun will "come up" tomorrow.
So, I guess that settles it. By sunrise tomorrow, I expect you to call me "God" and do as I say.
The accuracy of the so called fufilled biblical prophecies is about the same as me Predicting that in the City of Atlanta in Crawford Long hospital a boy named Daniel will be born to a young unmarried woman and calling it fufilled despite the fact that his name is Rodney and his mother is only recently married.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
well, there are many questions , ( valid , and not valid ones ) that do not have a answer. The bible as well does not propone us to give answers to all our questions. But she says :
"His creative work was completed—and it was totally effective, absolutely perfect, 'very good.'
God gave Men a free will. And men choose freely to desobey god. This was the origin of the "fallen world", in which we live today.
than, your question is irrelevant, either.
You are plain wrong here.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html
"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
i think you should have a look at this website, and discover how many prophecies made in the bible fullfilled : they are a clear evidence, that the biblie is not simply one more of many religion books out there:
http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html
The Old Testament includes about sixty different prophecies, with more than 300 references, of the coming of the Messiah. It was through the fulfillment of these prophecies that Israel was told she would be able to recognize the true Messiah when He came. The four gospels record several times when Jesus said that He was fulfilling a prophecy of the Old Testament. Luke 24:27 records, for example,
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." And verse 44 notes, "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the prophets and the psalms, concerning me."Whoa, this is getting way off topic.
I wonder if you have any input on the original question. Why God didn't make us unable to do, or at least highly resistant to doing, evil while at the same time giving us free will?
these experiments were done with people, which did not die. How about the people, which were clincally dead, brain as well, some even for several days, and suddenly, came back to life, and were reporting after death experiences ?
You have got to be kidding. Present the medical studies that verifies any of this ever happened.
the question is a contradiction of itself...
a free will is only free, when he is free to do also evil, if he wants to do so. otherwise we would be just programmed humans, doing, what in God's mind was the right thing to do, in accordance with his will. all the time. then our will would not be free anymore.
really ? there are many cases, that people where clincally dead, without doubt at all !!I want to fly among the clouds and squirt nectar from my...well, you know. Do I have the free will to do so?
Do we have free will to do evil in heaven? Or is our reward in paradise to become "programmed" and only act in accordance with god's will?
There are no theists on operating tables.
If god truly made us imperfect, so that we must rely on him, then he does not deserve our worship, nor does he have the right to put us in hell. But then again, hes god. However, if you worship god, for doing such an atrocity, you are playing right into his hand. You are rewarding an evil villain, a con man. And, as we all know, evil deeds should never be rewarded.
This would have to be the main reason why the christian god could not possibly exist. Or, even if he did, why he does not deserve our respect, worship, or general acknowledgement.
I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.
And given these many doubtless cases I'm certain that you can point to one in an online medical journal. Shouldn't be that hard given the volume of them that you claim.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
The only reason we appear to have free will is because the inputs into our decisions are so complex, opaque and multitudinous that we despair of ever being able to calculate them all. God however, should have no problem doing this. So it's all his fault, really.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
What question? I didn't ask a question. I presented a point.
Prove it.
Point out where I use archaeological findings as evidence against Biblical references. Another invalid argument.
I think you should get ready to call me God tomorrow when the sun rises, because I predict that it will happen, and as you said, only God can predict the future.
Perhaps it is a contradiction, But tell me this. Will those who go to heaven have free will in there?
I will demonstrate why this is not a contradiction. Let me break it down:
So, in order to have free will, you say we must be free to do evil... if we want to do so.
However, having free will does not make it necessary for us to want to do evil.
It then follows that God can create a human that is free to do evil, but, for whatever reason, never wants to do so.
So, humans with free will that never do evil could have been created by God.
Likewise, you have the freedom to eat poop if you choose, but because you never want to eat poop, does that make you a robot?
And to follow that, if you have the freedom to do evil, but you never want to do evil, does that make you a robot?
No, they did not. Try this: read Genesis, one verse at a time. After each verse, write out your version of what happened. Now, reading through the short version of what happened, tell me where Eve chooses to disobey God's command.
How well would you do on a test if you had the answers?
How do mystery writers manage to write their stories?
The answer to these questions will tell you how it was possible for the writers of the new testament to ensure Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Conditioned will is not free will. The fact that you are given a choice of jumping infront of a train, but decide not to, doesnt mean you ever had the choice to begin with. Giving a choice between something nice, and something unspeakably stupid, retarded, or downright gay, forces you to choose the nice option.
However, i have to agree that Eve was pretty stupid to fall for the trick of the serpent(retroactively named "satan"
. Didnt take long for these "perfect" copies of god to screw it all up.
Again, if i gave you a choice to jump infront of a train, or have sex with 10 beautiful girls, which would you choose? The choices are completely unfair. However, you are proposing the same.
Again, the choices are unfair. Between sex and eating poop, people will definately choose the better. We are conditioned to. Yet, given the choice to eat chocolate icecream, or vanilla icecream, and conditioned only to choose chocolate over vanilla, well, then that would be proof that we do not infact have any free will, but only an illusion of free will.
I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.
What?
Your sentence begins with the fact that you are given a choice. Having been given a choice as a fact, how do you then conclude that then may not have had the choice to begin with?
Is it a fact that you are given a choice, or not?
If so, the rest of your argument is invalid because it is a fact that we are given a choice.
By the way, on this point I get what you're saying, however you are talking about free will in the scientific realm, like we're talking about determinism. This thread is more about free will in the religious realm, which focuses on the question of things such as whether a deity's foreknowledge eliminates free will, or if other aspects of a god diminish the free will of its creations.
Of course, we could make things even simpler if we wanted to say free will doesn't exist at all. We could just point out that God's foreknowledge of the future makes it both impossible for God and "his" creations to have free will. Or, I guess you could just go the route of determinism (as you have), which isn't really considered part of the free will debate in the religious realm.
And to take things even further, we could just agree to define the characteristics of the Christian god, and demonstrate that the characteristics contradict each other, meaning that God can neither be thing one nor the other at the same, and therefore can be neither things... and is therefore nothing (no thing), meaning God doesn't exist at all.
But, if you think it's that easy to get a Christian thinking about their beliefs, well... it's not! Well, not always. I had a mormon friend who I explained to that his god could not exist. He thought about it, and then he agreed with me. The kicker was that he then said, "You're right, but the whole atheist thing just isn't for me." So he basically opted for a lie because he liked it better. Crazy.
What seems more effective, then, is to delve deeper into the realm of theistic assumptions and provoke questions there. Don't obliterate the Christian God in one quick argument; give the theists some space to work with, start with something small. I grant the assumption that Genesis occured in order to work from within the story and demonstrate why it is suspicious. If God needs sin to exist in order to be glorified, and it can be shown that humans could have been created both to have free will and never do evil, then it becomes obvious that something is wrong.
Anyway, even if a choice is "unfair" or "lop-sided", it is nonetheless an option, and the argument I was refuting defined free will as the option to do evil if one wanted to. In this aspect, I have demonstrated that free will can exist along with the lack of desire to ever do evil.
Or, we could just point out that God hardened Pharoah's heart and forced his actions. I don't know. I'm just having fun.
So you don't think that Adam & Eve's supposed choice was between something nice and something really bad?
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil, nor any knowledge of good. They couldn't have understood (because understanding requires knowledge) that their choice was bad, nor could the understand that obeying God was good. If anything is stupid, it's God's overact ion to Adam and Eve's choice. We don't blame a mentally retard person, or an insane person, for any crimes they commit because they don't understand what they're doing is wrong. Why does God behave differently than us?
Yes, we're instinctively repulsed by feces. But we'd still have a choice. We could overcome our repulsion and eat feces. The problem is we're instinctively attracted to having sex. So, one could argue that sexual "sins" are conditioned choices too.
Oh, and you still haven't told us whether persons in heaven will have free will.
Exactly! Free will in the religious realm mean that our choices weren't determined. The choice is not determined by previous conditions and/or laws of nature. Free will is a-causal. So complaining about conditioning almost admitting that free will doesn't exist.
Great topic! I'd like to redirect my comment to the name of the topic: The Necessity of Sin for God's Glory. I'd like to pose the following scenario to theists and then follow with a few questions.
When I was in junior high and high school, I went to school with a girl (we'll call her Jane Doe) and her older sister (we'll call her Janet Doe). Jane and Janet went to the same church I did; their mom was a pillar in the church, highly respected - a "true" christian in every sense of the word (as defined by christians). Jane and Janet's father never went to church - ever. Their mom was one of the leaders of the prayer group and each week she would offer prayers and supplications to "pray for the salvation" of her husband. Those of us sitting there simply thought he was "unsaved" and we also fervently offer prayers to "save" his soul. Jane and Janet were good students, but their grades started to fall, to the point of being placed on academic probation. Back at the prayer group, their mom would pray for her daughters for "healing". No one really knew what that meant.
This went on for years. Jane and Janet were getting older (now about 15 & 17). Then one day, their mom pulled my mom aside and told her the real story. You see, Jane and Janet had been victims of sexual abuse by their father since they were both 5 years old. It wasn't bad enough that he was having sexual relations with his daughters, but he impregnated both of them, NOT once but multiple times after they hit puberty.
Their mom was so ashamed and afraid to tell anyone - she would offer general prayers for her husband and daughters. Of course, both Jane and Janet could NOT carry their babies to full term - I mean who would want to give birth to your daughter/son, half sister/brother? So they both had abortions, each time.
Finally, at about 17 years of age, the sexual abuse stopped for each of them. But the damage was done and how great it was. In an effort to survive in school, both Jane and Janet turned to drugs, promiscuous sex, alcohol and attempted suicide. My christian friends were very much against either of them having an abortion when the father was from another high school boy - but my christian friends had no idea that they've had abortions before. They were the object of ridicule and discrimination - and I believe that exacerbated their shame causing them to act out even more.
Their dad became ill. He died after graduation. No one came to his funeral. Their mom left the church. She started attending another church to "get a fresh start". But that ended soon, too. The church I went to did not condone abortion under any circumstance, yet, was silent when they found out that both Jane and Janet had received abortions for carrying their father's children. It was a tragic situation all around. I don't know what finally happened to either Jane or Janet; I often wonder. This leaves many unanswered questions.
So, I ask theists, how they would answer the following questions:
1. Was this necessary to exhibit god's glory?
2. How is god's glory displayed here?
3. Both Jane and Janet had abortions. Did they commit murder? Were their abortions justified? Was the abortion for the high school relation justified or should that baby been given a chance to live too?
4. After all of the prayers from the mother, the church, the prayer group, the daughters and everyone else, why did god not intervene?
5. If there is an all-loving, benevolent god (I'm not talking strictly Jesus), why would not a god deity intervene and rescue these poor girls?
6. Why did Jesus do nothing? Why did Allah do nothing? Why did Yahweh do nothing? Why did Zeus do nothing? Why did Odin do nothing? Why did Satan do nothing? Why did the Flying Spaghetti Monster do nothing?
Crocoduck - A missing transitional link that theists have been hoping does not exist...
there is no need to give you a medical site to validate my affirmation.
here some sites :
this one is quit imparcial :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19811291/site/newsweek/http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-near-death-experience.htm
http://www.science-spirit.net/english/0001.asp
Clinical death is a state of mind and body where medical instruments had deter-mined person’s death; it means his organs are not functioning anymore. However, it has been known from before that sometimes after the person's death, medical instruments could register some brain activities again; it looks like the person is ''alive''. Some of those people talk about their experiences if they find enough courage. They need a lot of courage because their stories ''are not fitting'' in official scientific explanations. Are those after death experiences just their hallucinations or dreams? Where is the truth? Usually, truth is what we can see, hear, feel, and prove, which means that our idea of truth is in a relation with material. Nonetheless, millions of people had met with after death experi-ence, some of them even twice. Today, their experiences are not being provable with standard methods. Sometimes in rare situations, scientists can consider their stories, but they are explaining it as hallucinations caused by some chemical matters developed in brain, caused by the lack of oxygen, and for them those experiences could not be real. If there were the lack of oxygen, would not it all be dark and black there? Where does the bright light come from? However, the fact is that some of the people had experienced paranormal phenomenon even when they had enough oxygen in their brain, when they were not in any lethal danger, and when they were completely healthy. Some of the sci-entists explain it as a memory of going through the birth canal – but how do we explain the fact that some of the experienced people were born through the Caesarean sections (therefore there are no birth canal memories), but still they had experienced after death tunnel. None of the experienced people said that they felt hallucinations, dreams or simi-lar, they said that it was an adventure, but compared to our Earth adventures that are fading out in our memory in a time, after death experience never fades out, it stays for-ever with the same details and same freshness. These-days scientists cannot prove after death life in different ''nonmaterial'' form, but it is impossible to ignore all of the stories from many people all around the world, with different education, mutually unknown, who had never heard for that phenomenon until then, and yet their experiences are described almost in the same way. Scientists must find right methods to research it, and not to ig-nore it.
If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.
Martin Luther
"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined.
John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70
on this site more about this matter :
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freewill_chantry.htmlProve it.
i will cite :
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.die-bibel-lebt.de%2Fkritisch3.htm&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8The Bible proves even its authenticity
The Bible carries the evidence in itself that that is impossible. Above all, because in it humans with its planning and Gelüsten are brushed against the line. Israel is requested again and again to do straight that what would like to avoid it. Only the way of the obedience and the confidence in relation to God and its requirements, then reminds the writing, is the way to development, peace and security.
If other religions talk about dying and purchasing Gods, then has nevertheless no one with cruelty and Verhöhnung gekreuzigten God, which besides certain humans was. The believing young had even trouble enough to become finished with cross and Auferstehung Jesu. Who would have from own consideration on such, which human spirit so lying thoughts can come? “The Jews demand indications, the Greeks look for wisdom. We against it verkündigen Christ as the Gekreuzigten: for Jew an infuriating annoyance, for heaths a foolishness…” (1 Kor 1,22f).
Which humans would have had the “dichterische inspiration” invent Jesu mountain lecture or the words of its Eucharistie installation describe the Bekehrung Pauli and make themselves the fates and letters of the man resulting in from it convincing? The writing has an evidence of its truth in itself, which one can escape only by the fact that one ignores her and turns it the backs.
The challenge remains
But also then it does not lose its Eindringlichkeit, their character as “Sauerteig” in mankind. Can't Marx be interpreted as a typical Jew, that, since the Messiah comes not finally, which wants to develop messianische realm? Did Gandhi learn its forceless resistance - with all Indian preliminary stages - not also from the mountain lecture? “Heaven is equal to a Sauerteig, which a woman took and mixed under three measure flour, until the whole was through-acidified” (Mt 13.33), whether it wants or not.
Since Jesus there is nothing else in the reason more than or a no to it.
I think you should get ready to call me God tomorrow when the sun rises, because I predict that it will happen, and as you said, only God can predict the future.
that the sun rises, is evident.... but you cannot predict specific facts, that will happen in the future.