Son Of GOD

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Lewis21
God Is only one, He is not the Father of any one but The creator of Every one. According some religion Book(Bible) son of God means The person who accept the onness of Allah and lead his life according to the teachings of God Almighty, so every person who believes in GOD is the Son of God, it does mean that he is Born to God but he is Created by GOD.

dadudemon
I agree.

I think that all of us are the "sons of God", technically. In less sexist terms, we should say "children of God". Because I'm LDS, I'll say that Jesus Christ is just the eldest and more intelligent of God's children...and also had the most sacred calling out of all of God's children. He is subservient to God (backed by many different instances).


So I kind of gloss over when Christians talk about Christ being the "Son of God": it is kind of moot since we are all that. However, I think they mean "only son of God begotten in the flesh". Which is different. That would mean that YHWH is the only one that was directly created by God.


However....even that is not true because it was the Holy Ghost that created Jesus in the womb. But maybe we could say "under the direct instruction of God, did God have YHWH created in Mary's womb". That still seems a bit arbitrary because we were all created, indirectly, by God.



So, I think the distinguishment is only one of vernacular but not actual when you get down to it.


This is why I agreed that he is a Son of God, just like the rest of us: God's chief creation, to be exact.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree.

I think that all of us are the "sons of God", technically. In less sexist terms, we should say "children of God". Because I'm LDS, I'll say that Jesus Christ is just the eldest and more intelligent of God's children...and also had the most sacred calling out of all of God's children. He is subservient to God (backed by many different instances).


So I kind of gloss over when Christians talk about Christ being the "Son of God": it is kind of moot since we are all that. However, I think they mean "only son of God begotten in the flesh". Which is different. That would mean that YHWH is the only one that was directly created by God.


However....even that is not true because it was the Holy Ghost that created Jesus in the womb. But maybe we could say "under the direct instruction of God, did God have YHWH created in Mary's womb". That still seems a bit arbitrary because we were all created, indirectly, by God.



So, I think the distinguishment is only one of vernacular but not actual when you get down to it.


This is why I agreed that he is a Son of God, just like the rest of us: God's chief creation, to be exact.
What is the rationale for separating YHVH and God as two distinct entities? (Using the tetragrammaton in reference to Jesus but not the father?)

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
What is the rationale for separating YHVH and God as two distinct entities? (Using the tetragrammaton in reference to Jesus but not the father?)

I have a hard time answering/understanding your question without going through great detail. Your question makes sense if asked: "What is the rationale for combining God, YHWH, and the Holy Ghost into one being?"*


However, for a lengthy dialogue on LDS and the Trinity Concept:

http://mormonapologeticstudies.org/2010/10/24/mormonism-and-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/

It's lengthy, as the question requires, but does have some irrelevant information. It is also not an "LDS Church sponsored" website. In fact, the Church discourages "arguing"...which is what apologetics boil down to.



*Here's why that question makes more sense than the one you posed: the Nicene Creed was virtually "new" as official doctrine. From what I know, most early Christians believed in the Godhead as Mormons do: one in purpose, mission, power, will...but not one in substance.

Mindship
Originally posted by dadudemon
God's chief creation, to be exact. I disagree. God's chief creation, His crowning achievement, the ultimate testament to His vast, unfathomable power is the atheist. wink

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have a hard time answering/understanding your question without going through great detail. Your question makes sense if asked: "What is the rationale for combining God, YHWH, and the Holy Ghost into one being?"*


However, for a lengthy dialogue on LDS and the Trinity Concept:

http://mormonapologeticstudies.org/2010/10/24/mormonism-and-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/

It's lengthy, as the question requires, but does have some irrelevant information. It is also not an "LDS Church sponsored" website. In fact, the Church discourages "arguing"...which is what apologetics boil down to.



*Here's why that question makes more sense than the one you posed: the Nicene Creed was virtually "new" as official doctrine. From what I know, most early Christians believed in the Godhead as Mormons do: one in purpose, mission, power, will...but not one in substance.
You're still doing it now.

In the old testament, God most high is referred to by the hebrew YHVH, among a multitude of titles. You seem to associate this name with Jesus, but not the Father. Since this title was used among Jews, and among the old testament, I don't see why you have somehow transferred that name onto Jesus; and then, you tell me that i'm the one "combining God and YHVH". I am pretty confused. The old testament uses that name for God, so, I do not understand why you are bringing up Nicea...my question is not about the trinity but rather the (to me, seemingly) bizarre application of the name YHVH.

I do not doubt what you're saying about the trinity, lots of the earliest church fathers gave them distinct existences (not sure about most). The famed Origen,, for one, espoused this. The catholic church has an odd way of retroactively rejecting some of their most prominent founders.

AsbestosFlaygon
Originally posted by dadudemon
God's chief creation, to be exact.
Wut?

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
You're still doing it now.


Still doing what? I typed a bunch of stuff. sad

Originally posted by King Kandy
In the old testament, God most high is referred to by the hebrew YHVH, among a multitude of titles. You seem to associate this name with Jesus, but not the Father. Since this title was used among Jews, and among the old testament, I don't see why you have somehow transferred that name onto Jesus; and then, you tell me that i'm the one "combining God and YHVH". I am pretty confused. The old testament uses that name for God, so, I do not understand why you are bringing up Nicea...my question is not about the trinity but rather the (to me, seemingly) bizarre application of the name YHVH.


You seem a bit combative. Why? I see no reason to be.

The answer to your question is very simple: the god of the old testament is Jesus Christ/YHWH/Jehovah/JHVH.

Even in LDS Theology, it is difficult to tell Who is speaking: God or Jesus? We sometimes have to get clarification (yes, I mean praying).

Here is a more official LDS write-up of why I/We believe that about the old testament God (it is from the "institute" course-work which is basically LDS "bible-school" courses):

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/old-testament-institute-student-manual-1/ot-in1-02-gen-a-A.asp



Edit - After re-reading my post and then your reply (that section I quoted from your post), it makes sense why you are confused. If you were approaching my post with the lack of information concerning Mormons and their belief on the old testemant God, it makes perfect sense that my reference to YHWH would be oddly out of place.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I do not doubt what you're saying about the trinity, lots of the earliest church fathers gave them distinct existences (not sure about most). The famed Origen,, for one, espoused this. The catholic church has an odd way of retroactively rejecting some of their most prominent founders.

In my studies, I have not found very many references to a trinity concept before the Nicene Creed. It is seemingly very rare. Almost all consider them separate...such as Origen. The Trinity concept seemed more political than doctrinal, TBH. I have talked about this before. I am abrasive to the more...politically motivated teachings/doctrines (that does include LDS stuff, too: Prop 8, for example). The Nicene Creeds are not exempt from my disfavor.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
You seem a bit combative. Why? I see no reason to be.

The answer to your question is very simple: the god of the old testament is Jesus Christ/YHWH/Jehovah/JHVH.

Even in LDS Theology, it is difficult to tell Who is speaking: God or Jesus? We sometimes have to get clarification (yes, I mean praying).

Here is a more official LDS write-up of why I/We believe that about the old testament God (it is from the "institute" course-work which is basically LDS "bible-school" courses):

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/old-testament-institute-student-manual-1/ot-in1-02-gen-a-A.asp



Edit - After re-reading my post and then your reply (that section I quoted from your post), it makes sense why you are confused. If you were approaching my post with the lack of information concerning Mormons and their belief on the old testemant God, it makes perfect sense that my reference to YHWH would be oddly out of place.
Hmm. That is an interesting theory, I had heard that some Christians considered the son active in the Old Testament. Looking at it from an atheists perspective (the bible is the work of many hands), it seems a little far fetched. But of course, when you bring extra biblical revelation into it, it is a whole new deal. I can see why it is, at least a fairly strong rationalization. Christians have adopted many different tactics trying to reconcile the attitudes of YHVH and Christ.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
Hmm. That is an interesting theory, I had heard that some Christians considered the son active in the Old Testament.


Indeed. I was suprised to see that other Christians concluded/believed that the God of the OT is Jesus. But if you take a step back and look at their reasoning (Mormons, not intentionally, take a demeaning position by saying, "They arrived at the truth, even with their limited knowledge, independent of modern revelations"wink, it seems sound.

It says Elohim/God created the heavens and the earth in the OT. In the NT, it says that "the word" (Jesus Christ) created the heavens and the earth under God's direction. So the step to "Jesus created the universe" is not a very big one for Christians without the "benefit" of a modern-day prophet.

Mormons did not properly distinguish (in an official capacity) Elohim (ultimate God) from Jehovah (Jesus Christ) until around 1906.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Looking at it from an atheists perspective (the bible is the work of many hands), it seems a little far fetched.

I agree. There are 3 exceptions to the "Jesus is the God of the OT" rule. And that makes things more confusing. This is partly why Mormons hold that all works created by man will, as a necessity, not be perfect. This is also why we are disliked by other Christians: it means we fundementally believe the bible to be flawed (same with the Book of Mormon...we just believe it to be less flawed since it has not been abridged/translated as many times).



Originally posted by King Kandy
But of course, when you bring extra biblical revelation into it, it is a whole new deal.

I actually lol'd. This also pisses off other Christians.

Non-Mormon Christian (NMC): "On what grounds do you make this conclusion Mr. Mormon?"
Mormon: "God revealed it to a real prophet of modern days."
NMC: "Jesus Christ facepalm."
Mormon: "Watch your language...but you're right! lol"



Originally posted by King Kandy
I can see why it is, at least a fairly strong rationalization. Christians have adopted many different tactics trying to reconcile the attitudes of YHVH and Christ.

I agree. If I approach the topic, secularly, it seems more likely that most of the time "God" is speaking in the OT to the Jews, the "speaker" is Jesus Christ, not the ultimate God.

More on topic, the trinity:

I find it to be a dodge by Christians who support the Trinity concept (a dodge when confronted from the atheist side of argument). To me, it is a confusing concept. It is quite silly to think that Jesus is God when he prays to God and talks of aligning his will to the Father's. It makes no sense to then say that Jesus is also the father IF they have two separate wills: else Jesus say he align his will to the Father's?

One thing that I have been considering, as of late, is the concept of Jesus NOT actually being all that divine. He may have just been a prophet, just as the secular world indicates. It appears his diviness was added AFTER the fact...including his "Son of David" lineage.

However, that does not detract from the fact that he could have attained god-ship after his death and resurrecton. Meaning, I am having my cake and eating it too, at this point.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. I was suprised to see that other Christians concluded/believed that the God of the OT is Jesus. But if you take a step back and look at their reasoning (Mormons, not intentionally, take a demeaning position by saying, "They arrived at the truth, even with their limited knowledge, independent of modern revelations"wink, it seems sound.

It says Elohim/God created the heavens and the earth in the OT. In the NT, it says that "the word" (Jesus Christ) created the heavens and the earth under God's direction. So the step to "Jesus created the universe" is not a very big one for Christians without the "benefit" of a modern-day prophet.

Mormons did not properly distinguish (in an official capacity) Elohim (ultimate God) from Jehovah (Jesus Christ) until around 1906.
This is an interesting point. It reminds me of the documentary hypothesis, where it is posited that the "YHVH" vs "Elohim" passages came from originally separate sources, clumsily interspersed within each other in the modern version.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. There are 3 exceptions to the "Jesus is the God of the OT" rule. And that makes things more confusing. This is partly why Mormons hold that all works created by man will, as a necessity, not be perfect. This is also why we are disliked by other Christians: it means we fundementally believe the bible to be flawed (same with the Book of Mormon...we just believe it to be less flawed since it has not been abridged/translated as many times).
It certainly is harder to argue against that. Someone who sticks to a text can be shown textual evidence of contradictions. I'm not sure what you do when someone has a vision, other than tell them they're crazy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I actually lol'd. This also pisses off other Christians.

Non-Mormon Christian (NMC): "On what grounds do you make this conclusion Mr. Mormon?"
Mormon: "God revealed it to a real prophet of modern days."
NMC: "Jesus Christ facepalm."
Mormon: "Watch your language...but you're right! lol"
I don't really have a problem with visions; you can't prove they're true, but imo you can't do that about anything in religion. I would say they're equally false, but maybe the vision is actually a little better, because you have a little more freedom to work out doctrine yourself. Of any religion, I would say the hippie "religion" is the best; just rely exclusively on visions and don't tie yourself to any dogma.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. If I approach the topic, secularly, it seems more likely that most of the time "God" is speaking in the OT to the Jews, the "speaker" is Jesus Christ, not the ultimate God.
It seems more likely to me that the "speaker" is Yaldabaoth. But I digress...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I find it to be a dodge by Christians who support the Trinity concept (a dodge when confronted from the atheist side of argument). To me, it is a confusing concept. It is quite silly to think that Jesus is God when he prays to God and talks of aligning his will to the Father's. It makes no sense to then say that Jesus is also the father IF they have two separate wills: else Jesus say he align his will to the Father's?

One thing that I have been considering, as of late, is the concept of Jesus NOT actually being all that divine. He may have just been a prophet, just as the secular world indicates. It appears his diviness was added AFTER the fact...including his "Son of David" lineage.

However, that does not detract from the fact that he could have attained god-ship after his death and resurrecton. Meaning, I am having my cake and eating it too, at this point.
What I dislike the most is the excuse "of course I can't explain it to you; it is a divine mystery beyond human comprehension". AKA "I don't understand it, but i'm gonna stick with it anyway!"

Lots of early Christians believed Jesus was not born divine, but gained divinity at his baptism when the holy spirit entered him. In some apocrypha it is not the holy spirit but the Son, who enters the human Jesus at that moment and "possesses" him.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
This is an interesting point. It reminds me of the documentary hypothesis, where it is posited that the "YHVH" vs "Elohim" passages came from originally separate sources, clumsily interspersed within each other in the modern version.

That's also something that I believe. Come on...TWO separate creation stories in the first few chapters? Why two? Obviously, something was abridged, combined, or got mixed up. The LDS claim to have an older more accurate source, from Moses, on the creation story via the books of Moses and Abraham. It does clear some problems up that the original Genesis account creates: the creation of the earth took a long time, there are thousands to millions of other planets with life (it leaves the possibility for a "multiverse" open, as well...because God tells Moses, in the book of Moses, that Moses would not be able to number all the worlds He has created like Earth), Adam and Eve were probably not the only humans around when they did there thing (because Cain marries someone that was not Adam's child), why Lucifer fell, and so forth. Granted, it could all be the musings of a charismatic human, but it helps me, at least, make sense of this God stuff a bit better.


Originally posted by King Kandy
It certainly is harder to argue against that. Someone who sticks to a text can be shown textual evidence of contradictions. I'm not sure what you do when someone has a vision, other than tell them they're crazy.

If you approach revelation from God as having always passed through a human, then why in the world would it be perfect? As a necessity of us not being omni-everything, the message would immediately be corrupted into something less. So why in the world would a Christian literalist stand by the Bible when even a layman can point out the problems that arise from the words? What do you do when someone claims to have had a vision? Pray about it. smile I know, I know...lame cop-out. But, yes, "crazy" would be my first conclusion.


Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't really have a problem with visions; you can't prove they're true, but imo you can't do that about anything in religion.

Do you mean "you can't do that with everything in religion"? Because I agree: at what point do you stop relying on visions from a "visionary" and actually request something tangible to go on? For example, if a prophet claims that God came to him in a vision and instructed him to focus on building familial bonds because it will improve society, then you could clearly measure whether or not what the man said is right: do some studies on happy families vs. broken families and see which types are happier. Surely some things God instructs CAN be measured by science?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I would say they're equally false, but maybe the vision is actually a little better, because you have a little more freedom to work out doctrine yourself. Of any religion, I would say the hippie "religion" is the best; just rely exclusively on visions and don't tie yourself to any dogma.

I also hold the same about visions. When any person claims a vision, I immediately become skeptical. 9 out of 10 times, there is a clear motivation behind that person claiming a vision...especially if they are an evangelical preacher. Thankfully, my parents were much more academic than most and strongly encouraged I research and be skeptical of everything around me. I feel that in today's internet age, one should not have to rely on the teachings of their parents in order to be skeptical: we should be skeptical of everything, regardless of our upbringing.




Originally posted by King Kandy
It seems more likely to me that the "speaker" is Yaldabaoth. But I digress...

Yes, we talked about this before. I'm still not sold on it since I see the "JHWH is Jesus" concept as having too many parallels to be discarded.


Originally posted by King Kandy
What I dislike the most is the excuse "of course I can't explain it to you; it is a divine mystery beyond human comprehension". AKA "I don't understand it, but i'm gonna stick with it anyway!"

That's exactly what I meant: clearly a dodge. It should not be surprising that Evangelical apologists are rarely taken seriously due to their inability to have a legitimate discussion on some of their beliefs.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Lots of early Christians believed Jesus was not born divine, but gained divinity at his baptism when the holy spirit entered him. In some apocrypha it is not the holy spirit but the Son, who enters the human Jesus at that moment and "possesses" him.

That's a good point and one that is not far off from the LDS perspective: Christ's divine ministry is not seen to have begun until AFTER he was baptized. We also believe it could not begin until after the baptism occured (he needed to show his subordination to God's command in order to begin his Earthly ministry, despite Him not needing to be baptized). No wonder some anti-mormons call us "American gnostics". hmm

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's also something that I believe. Come on...TWO separate creation stories in the first few chapters? Why two? Obviously, something was abridged, combined, or got mixed up. The LDS claim to have an older more accurate source, from Moses, on the creation story via the books of Moses and Abraham. It does clear some problems up that the original Genesis account creates: the creation of the earth took a long time, there are thousands to millions of other planets with life (it leaves the possibility for a "multiverse" open, as well...because God tells Moses, in the book of Moses, that Moses would not be able to number all the worlds He has created like Earth), Adam and Eve were probably not the only humans around when they did there thing (because Cain marries someone that was not Adam's child), why Lucifer fell, and so forth. Granted, it could all be the musings of a charismatic human, but it helps me, at least, make sense of this God stuff a bit better.
It is interesting at least. Origen claimed there had to be infinite universes, because saying God would stop creating at one was selling him short. Not exactly the same, I suppose.

Something absolutely fascinating I learned recently; at one point, the fall of Lucifer was considered a heretic belief by the Catholic church. Actually, inquisitors claimed this was one of the "heretical" beliefs of the Cathars, worthy of death; only to adopt that exact view later as official doctrine! What a cruel period.

Personally, I don't think the fall is very strongly based in pure biblical evidence. I suppose this may be cleared up in Mormon apocrypha? i have never actually read a Mormon text, maybe it should be on my list some time (currently working my way through the Nag Hammadi library).

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you approach revelation from God as having always passed through a human, then why in the world would it be perfect? As a necessity of us not being omni-everything, the message would immediately be corrupted into something less. So why in the world would a Christian literalist stand by the Bible when even a layman can point out the problems that arise from the words? What do you do when someone claims to have had a vision? Pray about it. smile I know, I know...lame cop-out. But, yes, "crazy" would be my first conclusion.

Do you mean "you can't do that with everything in religion"? Because I agree: at what point do you stop relying on visions from a "visionary" and actually request something tangible to go on? For example, if a prophet claims that God came to him in a vision and instructed him to focus on building familial bonds because it will improve society, then you could clearly measure whether or not what the man said is right: do some studies on happy families vs. broken families and see which types are happier. Surely some things God instructs CAN be measured by science?

I also hold the same about visions. When any person claims a vision, I immediately become skeptical. 9 out of 10 times, there is a clear motivation behind that person claiming a vision...especially if they are an evangelical preacher. Thankfully, my parents were much more academic than most and strongly encouraged I research and be skeptical of everything around me. I feel that in today's internet age, one should not have to rely on the teachings of their parents in order to be skeptical: we should be skeptical of everything, regardless of our upbringing.
Oh, well if that's what you're talking about, then i'm not in favor of it. I would not really seriously base my views on someone else's vision, regardless of whether it seemed plausible. I might consider my own vision though. That's what I was getting at. I don't really like the idea of basing my views on any authority figure, whether its a book or a visionary. I would respect personal experience more than any authority.

Everything i've seen in my life, actually convinces me that atheist families are happier than Christian ones. This may just have to do with the region I live in, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, we talked about this before. I'm still not sold on it since I see the "JHWH is Jesus" concept as having too many parallels to be discarded.
The thing about genesis that bothers me the most is the fact that humans gaining knowledge is depicted as a negative. If I was designing a religion, I would definitely portray the fruit of knowledge as a benefit to mankind. Of all the Christian denominations i've seen, only the Ophite/Cainite/Sethian gnostics meet that standard. That is the biggest reason I prefer them. As I said in another thread, the authoritarian mindset in Christianity is repugnant to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's exactly what I meant: clearly a dodge. It should not be surprising that Evangelical apologists are rarely taken seriously due to their inability to have a legitimate discussion on some of their beliefs.
What kills me the most, is fundamentalists who don't even read the Bible. I literally cannot imagine their thought process. If I had a text I actually thought was divinely inspired, how on Earth could I afford not to read it? It would be the most important book on Earth. I would read it dozens of times. I would try and learn the languages of the original text. It seems like most Christians are seriously lazy when it comes to contemplating the divine.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a good point and one that is not far off from the LDS perspective: Christ's divine ministry is not seen to have begun until AFTER he was baptized. We also believe it could not begin until after the baptism occured (he needed to show his subordination to God's command in order to begin his Earthly ministry, despite Him not needing to be baptized). No wonder some anti-mormons call us "American gnostics". hmm
I would take the title as a complement. Gnosticism>>>Nicene Christianity.

I would say it is not quite the same though. In the gnostic case, Jesus DID need to be baptized; he was just an ordinary man (though a pious one). But it was the spirit of Christ that was really the important part. The human Jesus was just a vessel.

Stoic
According to scripture; God said let us make man in our image. At that time man only had one nature, God's nature. God is a spirit, and therefore, when God made man in his image, he was a spirit as well. It was only when man fell out of sync with God's plan, by partaking of the fruit of knowledge did man take on a second nature, a dual nature. Man was once immortal according to scripture.

According to scripture, the only Son/s of God were the Angels. Reading Job shows us this much. It was only until after Christ ascended that Men/Women could be called Children of God.

Let me back up a little bit though. As there are the Children of God, there are also the Children of Satan, because of our duality, and will of choices. So no, not all men and women are Children of God, this is an erroneous train of thought.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Stoic

Let me back up a little bit though. As there are the Children of God, there are also the Children of Satan, because of our duality, and will of choices. So no, not all men and women are Children of God, this is an erroneous train of thought.
There is nothing to suggest this in the Scriptures.

Satan is nowhere near as important in the Bible as he became in Christian Theology during the Middle Ages and beyond.

Same with Hell really.

What you're describing sounds more like Zoroastrianism than Christianity to me.

Stoic
Originally posted by Omega Vision
There is nothing to suggest this in the Scriptures.

Satan is nowhere near as important in the Bible as he became in Christian Theology during the Middle Ages and beyond.

Same with Hell really.

What you're describing sounds more like Zoroastrianism than Christianity to me.


Have you read Job? <--- (older than the middle ages correct?) If not perhaps you should delve a little deeper. Does the Old Testament of the bible somehow make you believe, that the Spirit of God changes his stance as opposed to his stance in the New Testament? The only difference that I saw is how he chose to deal with mankind.

What I pointed out above was what was written in Genesis. What are you contesting?

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Stoic
Have you read Job? <--- (older than the middle ages correct?) If not perhaps you should delve a little deeper. Does the Old Testament of the bible somehow make you believe, that the Spirit of God changes his stance as opposed to his stance in the New Testament? The only difference that I saw is how he chose to deal with mankind.

I have actually.

And attempts to reconcile Old Testament God with New Testament God are always...lulzy. There's evidence to suggest that New Testament God was a version of the OT God that early Christians spruced up to suit the Platonic Ideal of "the One"

Children of Satan has no basis whatsoever in the Scripture. The closest I can think of within Christian theology is the concept of Double Predestination argued by some Calvinists: that some people are born destined to go to Hell.


That the Bible treats Satan as some kind of counterpoint to God...

...in the Bible he's a character who shows up a few times. I bet you also think Satan was the serpent in Eden.

Stoic
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I have actually.

And attempts to reconcile Old Testament God with New Testament God are always...lulzy. There's evidence to suggest that New Testament God was a version of the OT God that early Christians spruced up to suit the Platonic Ideal of "the One"

Children of Satan has no basis whatsoever in the Scripture. The closest I can think of within Christian theology is the concept of Double Predestination argued by some Calvinists: that some people are born destined to go to Hell.


That the Bible treats Satan as some kind of counterpoint to God...

...in the Bible he's a character who shows up a few times. I bet you also think Satan was the serpent in Eden.

As a matter of fact I do believe that Satan was the serpent in the Garden. In no way is Satan the counter point to God. There isn't some power struggle between the two, as many believe. God allows Satan to operate in men, but there will come a day that his power will be in a word... revoked.

John 8:44

For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies.

You are nearly on the verge of blasphemy if you did not know. Unless, you are not saying that the spirit of God had less part in the writings of New Testament than that he had in Old Testament teachings. According to scripture, which I just quoted, not all people are children of God.

In fact, according to scripture, Jesus said that you can not inherit that kingdom of God unless you are baptized in Jesus' name. It says that no man can come to the Father unless he first goes through him first.

the idea of a child or person in an immature mindset was deemed as unworthy of being born again, because they were unaware of sin. Hence why the bible says of mature mind. Therefore it is true that there are those that can be children of Satan, or the word Antichrist would likely not exist.

I'm not here to discuss my denomination, but to point out what scripture said.

dadudemon
I am unsure if the snake thing was real or not (leaning towards not real and just allegorical)...but if it was real, Eve most likely ate some shrooms in the Garden of Eden. Explain a talking snake that has a lawyer tongue that tried to convince a naked woman to eat some magical fruit?

Obviously, she was tripping.


I'm joking about 95%.

Really, though, the snake was "possesed" by Lucifer. That's what I would call "common christian" interpretation.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
I am unsure if the snake thing was real or not (leaning towards not real and just allegorical)...but if it was real, Eve most likely ate some shrooms in the Garden of Eden. Explain a talking snake that has a lawyer tongue that tried to convince a naked woman to eat some magical fruit?

Obviously, she was tripping.


I'm joking about 95%.

Really, though, the snake was "possesed" by Lucifer. That's what I would call "common christian" interpretation.
It may have been a joke, but, I think you are dead right. I think eating natural hallucinogens had a huge role in the development of religion in all likelihood, including the jewish religion.

Bentley
Very true. But both from an ancient religion perspective is entirely normal to personify divinity through animals, the snake can easily be a lower god/evil god, so considering it a demon is not entirely off possibilities.

Keep in mind that early judaism was a fertility rite and that God was a bull. There is a nice scene in the exodus in which Aaron makes a golden calf and Moses destroys it... But it is because the jews are iconoclasts, not because the bull doesn't represent God.

Anyways the duality between evil and good is more of a mysticism introduction to christianity that fully gained momentum at the middle ages -which were heavily influence by "hidden" knowledge. But yes, Satan is displayed as something very different in early scriptures.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
It may have been a joke, but, I think you are dead right. I think eating natural hallucinogens had a huge role in the development of religion in all likelihood, including the jewish religion.


I was joking...but I do not disagree with you. In fact, it would appear that religion, in general, spawned from our shamans hallucinating. Of course, that was thousands of years ago, but the cave paintings may have/probably were created by hallucinating tribal shaman.

To apply it to my own religion, Joseph Smith went into the woods, off by himself, and had a vision. When he came back, he was extremely exhausted and even passed out. Sounds like he either had a monumental spiritual experience and it took its toll on him physically

OR

He went in the woods to trip balls and was exhausted from it when he came back to the farm. wink




I jest...but I am jesting only at 95%. no expression

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon
I am unsure if the snake thing was real or not (leaning towards not real and just allegorical)...but if it was real, Eve most likely ate some shrooms in the Garden of Eden. Explain a talking snake that has a lawyer tongue that tried to convince a naked woman to eat some magical fruit?

Obviously, she was tripping.


I'm joking about 95%.

Really, though, the snake was "possesed" by Lucifer. That's what I would call "common christian" interpretation.
Which isn't from the Bible. That's from Paradise Lost by John Milton lol.

In the Bible the snake was...

...just a snake.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was joking...but I do not disagree with you. In fact, it would appear that religion, in general, spawned from our shamans hallucinating. Of course, that was thousands of years ago, but the cave paintings may have/probably were created by hallucinating tribal shaman.

To apply it to my own religion, Joseph Smith went into the woods, off by himself, and had a vision. When he came back, he was extremely exhausted and even passed out. Sounds like he either had a monumental spiritual experience and it took its toll on him physically

OR

He went in the woods to trip balls and was exhausted from it when he came back to the farm. wink




I jest...but I am jesting only at 95%. no expression
I do not do discredit to the idea you can get good lessons from this kind of experience... but, I think it is way better to just have them for yourself, than to try and base your life around someone elses'...

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
I do not do discredit to the idea you can get good lessons from this kind of experience... but, I think it is way better to just have them for yourself, than to try and base your life around someone elses'...

This is where a belief that "prayer" and "personal revelation" are tools against idiots that try to sell God to you.

If someone claims to have had a religious vision, it is my opinion that you have every eternal right to verify whether or not it was real through a personal, sincere, prayer.

Meaning, you can have a personal vision that means something personal to someone else. A shared "vision" if you will. No drugs required, either.

Stoic
The idea that a spirit can speak through an animal, is evident in Numbers 22-24 when Baalum had a conversation with his donkey on whether it was right and just to curse the Jews.

The serpent as Omega Vision pointed out, may have just been a serpent (what type of serpent is irrelevant). What is relevant is that a spirit (Satan's spirit) spoke through the serpent, and beguiled Eve.

Back to the pertinence of this thread, and it's opening statement, or question. According to scripture, unless a person repents of their sins, believes in their heart that Christ is their savior, and is baptized in Christ's name, they shall not have eternal life. now these are not my words, but words that were written in the bible.

According to scripture, the Jews used to perform animal sacrifices to atone for sin, and the bible says that God used to wink at those things, but that his spirit will one day cease to strive with man.

The Old Testament was how God used to deal with man. Jesus was born into this world to show man the path to salvation, and the way to get there.

So if the only way to become a child of God, is to be baptized, then what does this say about those who choose or chose not to be? Who's children are they? Certainly not Gods.

I can fully believe in the concept that not some people were born to go to hell, but that all people were born to go to hell, as they were born of sin, and shaped in iniquity. This is further backed by scripture, when it states that man has a dual nature. What are the two natures that scripture speaks of? Well we have Gods nature, and Satans nature.

Is there a such thing as legalism in Christianity? Of course there is. How can I say this? Well, the fact that a person must be baptized is just the tip of the iceberg. It also states that a person should be blameless in the sights of man, and therefore he/she can not be found guilty of fault. The bible says that Satan went to and fro seeking out whom he might destroy. Hmmm, let's think of how he did this. In Job, Satan approached a celestial assembly in which God sat with his sons (the angels) and asked God if he could kill Job. God answered no. Had Job been guilty of wickedness, the answer may have likely been different.

In the Old Testament, there was no such thing of men/women receiving the Holy Ghost/Spirit, and it dwelling within them. The spirit of God, was said to inspire people in the old times, but never was there an indwelling of his spirit until Christ died, and was resurrected.

Jesus said: "I will pray to the Father, and he will send a comforter (Holy Ghost/Spirit) in my name". Who's name? Jesus' name. So I am convinced that the Holy Spirit is in fact the Spirit of Christ, according to scripture.

There came a day, that the Pharisee's came before Jesus, and before they uttered one word, Jesus told them that "If they destroy this temple that "He" would raise it back up in three days. They laughed at him and said that how could he raise a temple in three days that took a many many months to build. Jesus was talking about his body, and not the synagogue, that he stood beside. Let me clarify something. The bible later said that God raised Jesus from the dead in three days. Hold on a second, if Jesus said that he would raise himself up in three days, was it God speaking through him, or was Jesus God? The mystery of the trinity?

I'll leave off with this. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word dwelled with man, and they knew Him not.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is where a belief that "prayer" and "personal revelation" are tools against idiots that try to sell God to you.

If someone claims to have had a religious vision, it is my opinion that you have every eternal right to verify whether or not it was real through a personal, sincere, prayer.

Meaning, you can have a personal vision that means something personal to someone else. A shared "vision" if you will. No drugs required, either.
Do you think the revelation is valid because it comes from God? Or would it be just as valid if it came from your own mind alone?

Bentley
Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you think the revelation is valid because it comes from God? Or would it be just as valid if it came from your own mind alone?


If we go by catholic theology, if having hallucinations makes you pious then it's a miracle.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Stoic


The serpent as Omega Vision pointed out, may have just been a serpent (what type of serpent is irrelevant). What is relevant is that a spirit (Satan's spirit) spoke through the serpent, and beguiled Eve.

That's from John Milton's Paradise Lost lol.

There's nothing in the original story to suggest that it was anything more than a snake. And if you read the Epic of Gilgamesh (which many parts of the Bible were taken/copied/stolen from/inspired by) you'll see that it's an ordinary serpent of no particular significance that also steals man's eternal life. There's a tale in North American native mythology (you'll forgive me if I can't remember which tribe) that also has a serpent stealing the elixir of the Gods and is punished by the Gods, condemned to crawl on his belly and lick dust.

Saying it was Satan is revisionism, to the ancients snakes on their own were evil and "subtle" enough to **** with people for the lulz.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's from John Milton's Paradise Lost lol.

There's nothing in the original story to suggest that it was anything more than a snake. And if you read the Epic of Gilgamesh (which many parts of the Bible were taken/copied/stolen from/inspired by) you'll see that it's an ordinary serpent of no particular significance that also steals man's eternal life. There's a tale in North American native mythology (you'll forgive me if I can't remember which tribe) that also has a serpent stealing the elixir of the Gods and is punished by the Gods, condemned to crawl on his belly and lick dust.

Saying it was Satan is revisionism, to the ancients snakes on their own were evil and "subtle" enough to **** with people for the lulz.
I agree. I mean mythology features talking animals all the time. I don't see anything special about this instance.

Stoic
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's from John Milton's Paradise Lost lol.

There's nothing in the original story to suggest that it was anything more than a snake. And if you read the Epic of Gilgamesh (which many parts of the Bible were taken/copied/stolen from/inspired by) you'll see that it's an ordinary serpent of no particular significance that also steals man's eternal life. There's a tale in North American native mythology (you'll forgive me if I can't remember which tribe) that also has a serpent stealing the elixir of the Gods and is punished by the Gods, condemned to crawl on his belly and lick dust.

Saying it was Satan is revisionism, to the ancients snakes on their own were evil and "subtle" enough to **** with people for the lulz.

To be perfectly honest, I have never once read Paradise Lost, by this John Milton. Believe me if you want to, but this is the truth.

Bentley
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's from John Milton's Paradise Lost lol.

There's nothing in the original story to suggest that it was anything more than a snake. And if you read the Epic of Gilgamesh (which many parts of the Bible were taken/copied/stolen from/inspired by) you'll see that it's an ordinary serpent of no particular significance that also steals man's eternal life. There's a tale in North American native mythology (you'll forgive me if I can't remember which tribe) that also has a serpent stealing the elixir of the Gods and is punished by the Gods, condemned to crawl on his belly and lick dust.

Saying it was Satan is revisionism, to the ancients snakes on their own were evil and "subtle" enough to **** with people for the lulz.


But gods are originally animals, so the revisionism is happening the other way around smile

ares834
Originally posted by Bentley
Anyways the duality between evil and good is more of a mysticism introduction to christianity that fully gained momentum at the middle ages -which were heavily influence by "hidden" knowledge. But yes, Satan is displayed as something very different in early scriptures.

Well the duality between good and evil is certainly present in the Bible. Most notiably in Revelations. However, you are right in early scripture (the Old Testement) Satan is quite different. In fact, in Job, it appears he is wworking with God rather than against him.

King Kandy
Dualism has been in Christianity from the earliest days, though, it was formulated in a very different manner. Early gnostics saw the dualism as not between God and Satan, but between Christ and Jehovah. Or, sometimes, between spirit and flesh.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Stoic
To be perfectly honest, I have never once read Paradise Lost, by this John Milton. Believe me if you want to, but this is the truth.
Well the mainstream Sunday School version of the Fall of Man has more in common with the scene from Paradise Lost than it does with the actual scriptures. Just as Sunday School/mainstream modern views on Hell have more to do with Dante's Inferno than what's actually in the Bible.

In the Bible a serpent shows up and tempts Eve. That's all.

In Paradise Lost Lucifer comes to the garden, possesses a serpent and uses it as a puppet to seduce/tempt Eve into sin.

Satan/Lucifer's first appearance in the Bible is in Job. And his role as an adversary is only (to my knowledge) established in the New Testament when he attempts to tempt Jesus.

Tbh though my interpretation (one not directly supported by the text, admittedly) is that God created the serpent specifically to tempt Eve.

Bentley
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Tbh though my interpretation (one not directly supported by the text, admittedly) is that God created the serpent specifically to tempt Eve.

Something that in turn damned humanity and made the serpent crawl. I guess it is possible -inside regular theology- if you adhere to the notion of kairos time, which basically makes the choice of Eve a moment of free will, she could always say no to the serpent and thus not fall from grace.

For me the implication would be more important for the beast itself, because for God to punish the serpent the transgression must've been done by the beast itself -the best would have the opportunity to sin, but taking the opportunity was by its own will-. So animals would've freewill.

Which is as close as you get into animal theology in the bible.

Stoic
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well the mainstream Sunday School version of the Fall of Man has more in common with the scene from Paradise Lost than it does with the actual scriptures. Just as Sunday School/mainstream modern views on Hell have more to do with Dante's Inferno than what's actually in the Bible.

In the Bible a serpent shows up and tempts Eve. That's all.

In Paradise Lost Lucifer comes to the garden, possesses a serpent and uses it as a puppet to seduce/tempt Eve into sin.

Satan/Lucifer's first appearance in the Bible is in Job. And his role as an adversary is only (to my knowledge) established in the New Testament when he attempts to tempt Jesus.

Tbh though my interpretation (one not directly supported by the text, admittedly) is that God created the serpent specifically to tempt Eve.


The crazy thing here is that I don't go to church either. I have yet o find one in the city that I live in, that I agree with, and had to rebuke a Preacher after his sermon for praying and teaching his congregation to pray for the dead. <-- (Real talk). So Sunday school is also out for me. It's not that I wouldn't go to church just that we are clear on that, I just don't want to.

I've always said that I love God, but that his children at times leaves much to be desired.

Do you believe that there are demonically possessed people? People that are bound up by demons, because of the doorways that they allowed to exist in their lives? I do. The spirit of God took possesion of Baalum's ass (Donkey) and spoke to Baalum in the book of Numbers... So how is it not possible that the spirit of Satan, could not take possession of a serpent that walked upright, and tempt Eve with the power to see?

You know the bible says that from the mouths of two or more witnesses, shall the truth be known. My point in this saying, is just that I am not familiar with Sunday school teachings. Nor am I familiar with this book Paradise Lost, by John Milton. There can be but one full truth, on any given subject correct?

You may be correct in your revelation, of what God intended in terms of sending Satan to tempt Eve. I can not contest this. It was not written, but you may be right, or you may be wrong. Satan had his own agenda, and still does, and did not need a reason to hate man for being the apple of God's eye. After all, he was once the most blessed in Heaven.

I stand by my belief though, that not all people are the children of God, although God desires for all people to make it to his kingdom. There's much to learn from the parable, of all people being "born into sin, and shaped in iniquity". Even more when you consider that none may enter the Kingdom of God, unless they are baptized in Jesus' name. it sucks, for some, but if what was written is true, it is something that will never change.

Stoic
Originally posted by Bentley
Something that in turn damned humanity and made the serpent crawl. I guess it is possible -inside regular theology- if you adhere to the notion of kairos time, which basically makes the choice of Eve a moment of free will, she could always say no to the serpent and thus not fall from grace.

For me the implication would be more important for the beast itself, because for God to punish the serpent the transgression must've been done by the beast itself -the best would have the opportunity to sin, but taking the opportunity was by its own will-. So animals would've freewill.

Which is as close as you get into animal theology in the bible.


You seem confused. No offense intended. Perhaps you should speak to someone. Perhaps an overseer, because it can be a dangerous thing, to lean on your own understanding, when it comes to things such as these.

dadudemon
Originally posted by ares834
Well the duality between good and evil is certainly present in the Bible. Most notiably in Revelations. However, you are right in early scripture (the Old Testement) Satan is quite different. In fact, in Job, it appears he is wworking with God rather than against him.

I disagree on the Job thing. Satan basically asked God if God would remove Job's happiness and to show God that his love/trust in Job was unfounded. God was like, "nah, you're wrong."

Apparently, Satan could not do anything against Job due to his righteousness. Satan is virtually powerless. So he needed God's help (God can control nature, Satan cannot...being a spirit).


My thing is: why in the world would God agree to such a thing? Is that not "tempting God"? The Mormons believe the conversation between God and Satan is slightly different: Satan was not given no power over nature, it was God's doing, only. The Job account says God gave Satan the power to do so: an impossibility especially if you consider Lucifer to be a fallen angel. God would not give out his power/authority to evil, ever, at any point. That's about as unrighteous of a depiction of God as we can get. We would have a "gray God" rather than a "white God", if that makes sense (think Jedi).

Bentley
Originally posted by Stoic
You seem confused. No offense intended. Perhaps you should speak to someone. Perhaps an overseer, because it can be a dangerous thing, to lean on your own understanding, when it comes to things such as these.


Well, it wasn't a real argument to begin with, but I don't see anything particularly confusing about it. If we are going ahead and saying the Serpent was a regular animal, it makes sense for the animal to be free and disobeying God.

Stoic
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree on the Job thing. Satan basically asked God if God would remove Job's happiness and to show God that his love/trust in Job was unfounded. God was like, "nah, you're wrong."

Apparently, Satan could not do anything against Job due to his righteousness. Satan is virtually powerless. So he needed God's help (God can control nature, Satan cannot...being a spirit).


My thing is: why in the world would God agree to such a thing? Is that not "tempting God"? The Mormons believe the conversation between God and Satan is slightly different: Satan was not given no power over nature, it was God's doing, only. The Job account says God gave Satan the power to do so: an impossibility especially if you consider Lucifer to be a fallen angel. God would not give out his power/authority to evil, ever, at any point. That's about as unrighteous of a depiction of God as we can get. We would have a "gray God" rather than a "white God", if that makes sense (think Jedi).

The Armor of God is a persons righteousness, and the Sword is God's word that man uses to cut through BS. Satan has every right to attack a person that is unrighteous, so in fact Satan can possess people, and even enter animals.

To strengthen this idea, do you recall the demons that possessed the man known only as Legion? They prayed to Jesus to allow them to enter the pigs, when cast out of the demonically possessed man.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Stoic
The Armor of God is a persons righteousness, and the Sword is God's word that man uses to cut through BS. Satan has every right to attack a person that is unrighteous, so in fact Satan can possess people, and even enter animals.

To strengthen this idea, do you recall the demons that possessed the man known only as Legion? They prayed to Jesus to allow them to enter the pigs, when cast out of the demonically possessed man.

Possessing someone and wielding powers over the elements are two different things.

Lucifer, a spirit and fallen angel, does not have the ability to manipulate the elements like God does.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Stoic

Do you believe that there are demonically possessed people? People that are bound up by demons, because of the doorways that they allowed to exist in their lives? I do. The spirit of God took possesion of Baalum's ass (Donkey) and spoke to Baalum in the book of Numbers... So how is it not possible that the spirit of Satan, could not take possession of a serpent that walked upright, and tempt Eve with the power to see?

Nope. I'm basically discussing the Bible as if it were just another piece of Literature.


Oh I apologize if it seemed like I was labeling your beliefs. I was just stating that my impression of the mainstream Sunday School teachings of Christianity are simplified and have more in common with Medieval Literature and Post-Constantine interpretations than with the source material.

Milton's Paradise Lost was a (I believe) 16th century epic poem that chronicled the Fall of Man. To my knowledge it was the first major instance where the Satan=Serpent connection was forged. It has such influence that even people who have never heard of it have been influenced by it's ideas where God and Satan are concerned.

That's if there's any truth at all. wink

Originally posted by dadudemon
Possessing someone and wielding powers over the elements are two different things.

Lucifer, a spirit and fallen angel, does not have the ability to manipulate the elements like God does.
Were I a Christian I think my stand would be that Satan would only have power over someone inasmuch as they surrendered their free will to him. Satan can't just possess someone as that would be a violation of God-given Free Will.

Of course whether free will can exist at all in a Universe with a Supreme, All-Knowing God is another matter entirely...

ares834
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree on the Job thing. Satan basically asked God if God would remove Job's happiness and to show God that his love/trust in Job was unfounded. God was like, "nah, you're wrong."

Apparently, Satan could not do anything against Job due to his righteousness. Satan is virtually powerless. So he needed God's help (God can control nature, Satan cannot...being a spirit).

Different readings I suppose. However, Jewish Tradition holds that Satan is an angel who works for God and his job is to tempt people. While reading Job this makes sense as Satan must first get permission from God before preforming his task.



Which is why the interpretation that Satan serves God makes sense in this book. With that all said, God is certainly darker in the OT.

Mindship
Originally posted by dadudemon
My thing is: why in the world would God agree to such a thing? It's just the One playin' with Itself. cool
We would have a "gray God" rather than a "white God", if that makes sense (think Jedi). Sense it makes.

Omega Vision
I've yet to see a convincing refutation of the Problem of Evil by a Christian

St Augustine's explanation was particularly unsatisfying.

ares834
I always assumed that if there was solely good there would be no free will.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by ares834
I always assumed that if there was solely good there would be no free will.
I don't personally believe in evil, just in good and a deficiency of good. This seems almost Augustinian at first brush only that I don't think good is something intrinsic to matter/nature like he seemed to think but rather a condition created of human choice/volition.

Bentley
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't personally believe in evil, just in good and a deficiency of good. This seems almost Augustinian at first brush only that I don't think good is something intrinsic to matter/nature like he seemed to think but rather a condition created of human choice/volition.

Men probably invented evil, but they didn't invent suffering.

ares834
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't personally believe in evil, just in good and a deficiency of good.

I never quite understood the distinction. Wouldn't the absence of good then be considered evil just as the absence of light is considered dark? Therefore, evil would exist just as darkness exists.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
Lucifer, a spirit and fallen angel, does not have the ability to manipulate the elements like God does.

What? Why?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What? Why?

I have a better question: why would Lucifer, a spirit and fallen angel, have the ability to manipulate the elements like God does?

Omega Vision
Originally posted by ares834
I never quite understood the distinction. Wouldn't the absence of good then be considered evil just as the absence of light is considered dark? Therefore, evil would exist just as darkness exists.
The difference is that darkness has no "essence", it's a negative quality that's defined as the absence of something rather than something with real qualities of it's own.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have a better question: why would Lucifer, a spirit and fallen angel, have the ability to manipulate the elements like God does?

But to me that's like asking: Why would a hufflup be able manipulate the elements like a fuppledup?

Representations of Lucifer and angels in my experience often have the power to command the elements. You have to explain to me why it doesn't works that way. It's your mythology. I can't think of a reason the Devil shouldn't be able to command the elements because I don't know the internal logic of your system of magic.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Lewis21
God Is only one, He is not the Father of any one but The creator of Every one. According some religion Book(Bible) son of God means The person who accept the onness of Allah and lead his life according to the teachings of God Almighty, so every person who believes in GOD is the Son of God, it does mean that he is Born to God but he is Created by GOD.

Not everything in the Bible is literal, and I believe I'll be able to find many Jews and Christians who will agree with this (probably equally as many who won't).

Main point is, Jews and Christians don't believe in Allah. This is an Islamic deity.

inimalist
Originally posted by ares834
I always assumed that if there was solely good there would be no free will.

only insofar as humans not having wings is a violation of our free will to fly on our own.

God defined the limits of what humans are able to do by designing our physiology and psychology. In theory, preventing us from doing evil would be no more a violation of free will than would preventing us from tracking 25 moving objects at the same time.

Bentley
Wouldn't we be too heavy to fly anyways?

inimalist
Originally posted by Bentley
Wouldn't we be too heavy to fly anyways?

I'm sure God could have figured out a way for us to if he wanted us to have absolute free will.

biologically speaking though, for sure, our bone and muscle structure would require wings of ridiculous size and the energy it would take would never be worth it.

ares834
Originally posted by inimalist
only insofar as humans not having wings is a violation of our free will to fly on our own.

God defined the limits of what humans are able to do by designing our physiology and psychology. In theory, preventing us from doing evil would be no more a violation of free will than would preventing us from tracking 25 moving objects at the same time.

Perhaps being unable to fly is a restriction on our free will, yet to be unable to do evil would completley eradicate our free will.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The difference is that darkness has no "essence", it's a negative quality that's defined as the absence of something rather than something with real qualities of it's own.

The difficulty is good certainly doesn't have essence ina physical sense and it does not appears to do so in a spiritual sense either. Basically I view good and evil in the same way I view lawful and unlawful which is to say none of them actually "exist".

inimalist
Originally posted by ares834
Perhaps being unable to fly is a restriction on our free will, yet to be unable to do evil would completley eradicate our free will.

how so? it would simply restrict the group of actions it is possible to do to a smaller number which we are free to choose among, exactly the same way that not being able to fly would.

you could still freely choose among the things it is possible to do. It would eliminate certain moral considerations about free will, but it certainly wouldn't eliminate free will specifically.

ares834
Originally posted by inimalist
how so? it would simply restrict the group of actions it is possible to do to a smaller number which we are free to choose among, exactly the same way that not being able to fly would.

you could still freely choose among the things it is possible to do. It would eliminate certain moral considerations about free will, but it certainly wouldn't eliminate free will specifically.

I disagree. In a way I agree with Omega Vision's view of evil in that it is simply the lack of good. As such, only the best action in any given circumstance is the purely good action as all the rest would have at least small traces of evil in them. Without any evil in the world we would be unable to choose these other actions and would always be restricted to choosing the best choice.

inimalist
thats silly

because I give 200 dollars instead of 300 to a charity I have committed an evil act by donating money to charity?

lol

also, it is arbitrary to use the ability to do evil as a definitional quality of free will. I would have just as much justification to say the ability to fly is the specific quality required for someone to have free will.

ares834
Originally posted by inimalist
thats silly

because I give 200 dollars instead of 300 to a charity I have committed an evil act by donating money to charity?

lol]

Nope. And a strawman at that. Donating money is an inheritently good act. Sure in a case where it is not the best action their may be trace amounts of evil perhaps ego stroking or doind it for the sense of goodness yet it is still a good act.



No you wouldn't. I may be unable to fly but I can still choose to walk or run to my next class. If their was no evil well then I would be restricted to the best way to get there.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But to me that's like asking: Why would a hufflup be able manipulate the elements like a fuppledup?

Sure, only if you're not aware of what those two "characters" represent. Since you are, your above point is invalid and does nothing to address what either of us have stated.


Your question is more like this:

"Why would a non-God, who has been cast out from God's presence, have the powers of God?"

The question seems to answer itself.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Representations of Lucifer and angels in my experience often have the power to command the elements.

I can't think of any, actually.

The closet I can come to are "Destroying angels". But those are symbolic...carry swords...and slay people the same way a human would. That's not commanding the elements.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You have to explain to me why it doesn't works that way.

I already did before you posted. You must explain to me why it would work that way.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's your mythology. I can't think of a reason the Devil shouldn't be able to command the elements because I don't know the internal logic of your system of magic.

While I do appreciate your condescending words, I have already explained why.



Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Main point is, Jews and Christians don't believe in Allah. This is an Islamic deity.


I do. I believe it to be the same diety with possibly different attributes.


Any religion that believes in a supreme god/ultimate god, I equate to my God.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
God defined the limits of what humans are able to do by designing our physiology and psychology. In theory, preventing us from doing evil would be no more a violation of free will than would preventing us from tracking 25 moving objects at the same time.

That doesn't make sense to me. Not even a little.

If God designed us to not be able to do evil, how does that allow us free will? It does not. We would then be bound to do evil and nothing we could do, think, or feel would change that. That's the fundamental difference between having free will and not, from a theological perspective.


You're approaching this from "free will means choosing to eat pizza or choosing to eat quiznos". Free will means that but it also means "choosing to eat that food and not sharing with my children because I'm hungry, damnit!"

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sure God could have figured out a way for us to if he wanted us to have absolute free will.

biologically speaking though, for sure, our bone and muscle structure would require wings of ridiculous size and the energy it would take would never be worth it.

I see, now. You're mixing up "Free want" with "free will".

Originally posted by inimalist
you could still freely choose among the things it is possible to do. It would eliminate certain moral considerations about free will, but it certainly wouldn't eliminate free will specifically.

You see, here is the problem. The entire point of being here is to have to choose between good and evil and then choosing good OVER evil. That is the primary definition of God's version of "free will".


Top inject with Mormon theology: Before the universe began, there was a council in heaven. Two plans of "salvation" were put forth. God and Jesus put forth the plan of salvation that we have now: Each of us go to earth and have a mortal experience, try to triumph over evil, learn as much as we can, form bonds, love each other, and Jesus' sacrifice would cover the gaps. However, there was a problem with this plan that many did not like: some would complete refuse God and never come back to Him: a very sad notion. Lucifer's plan (who may have been 3rd to 5th in command after God) was the answer to that: All would be forced to do good and none could do evil. Not a single soul would be lost to God. There's a problem with that plan, as well: there is no room for growth and development of the soul: the entire point of coming to this plane. Without growth, our eternal progress was dammed. God said he would go with Jesus' and His plan.

That's the fundamental difference between "free will" and "not free will" from a theological perspective.

Allowing decisions between mundane choices is not free will. For me, and this is entirely philosophical opinion, once you drop below the threshold of an inability to "sin" against God, you no longer have classical free will.

You view it as a sliding scale of just how much is limited. I do, as well. But I see a certain point on that sliding scale a representing the annihilation of literal free will: what's left cannot be considered true free will.


The concept of heaven is like that, however. BUT...everyone is so good that they choose NOT to be bad. No one sins, everyone is happy, everyone chooses right. That's supposed to be "ideal".


Originally posted by inimalist
thats silly

because I give 200 dollars instead of 300 to a charity I have committed an evil act by donating money to charity?

lol

That's not what he said, at all.

More like, "Because I give $200 instead of $300 (when I could have afforded it without problem and I knew it was a good charity with families that needed help), I could have made a "gooder" choice.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, it is arbitrary to use the ability to do evil as a definitional quality of free will. I would have just as much justification to say the ability to fly is the specific quality required for someone to have free will.

I disagree. For me, that's the fundamental definition of free will. What is arbitrary to me is saying "let's move the sliding scale of limitations around and call it all free will". That's arbitrary.

Again, you're using an example of "Free want".

In order for your example to be free will, you must define it as: one can choose to fly or not to fly.

In that case, we have that option. smile In other words, yes, we can have our cake and eat it too.




The sliding scale of free will extends infinitely when we can become gods of our own multiverse. However, the sliding scale does have a beginning: it's the moment we no longer have free will but are automatons.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your question is more like this:

"Why would a non-God, who has been cast out from God's presence, have the powers of God?"

For the same reason Melkor was still a major threat after being cast out by Illuvitar rather than instantly losing all of his power. For the same reason that my character in Skyrim can command the elements despite not being YWHW.

Because its totally possible for a magic system to work that way.

You have to explain why it works the way it does in every respect. Nothing is "obvious" so it's impossible for me to assume anything.That Lucifer should lose power over the elements after being cast out is no more self evident to me than why he should not have the ability to command pasta.

I'm really not aware of the extreme specifics of how magic works in Christian myth, honest. Why do you seem to think I am?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can't think of any, actually.

Do you not watch movies? Play video games? Watch television?

Command over fire is the most popular one. Occasionally ice.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I already did before you posted. You must explain to me why it would work that way.

Because he has magic powers so my starting point is "he can do anything he wants". It's your magic system, you have to explain to me why it has the limitations it does.

Is elemental magic specifically the domain of god or something? If so, why? Is God the power source for all angels? All spirits? Did he specifically revoke Lucifers powers over the elements? If so why not revoke all of them? Do angels have certain innate powers and certain divinely granted ones?

Are there citations in the Bible or Book of Mormon for why Lucifer wouldn't have any elemental powers?

Originally posted by dadudemon
While I do appreciate your condescending words, I have already explained why.

Except for that part where you never bothered to and decided to immediately begin by being condescending instead.

Bentley
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sure God could have figured out a way for us to if he wanted us to have absolute free will.

biologically speaking though, for sure, our bone and muscle structure would require wings of ridiculous size and the energy it would take would never be worth it.


So the argument is that since God is omnipotent he could've done otherwise? By your argument God can also allow freewill because he would just "find a way".

Bleh.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
For the same reason Melkor was still a major threat after being cast out by Illuvitar rather than instantly losing all of his power. For the same reason that my character in Skyrim can command the elements despite not being YWHW.

In other words, you don't have a reason.

I agree: you don't.




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You have to explain why it works the way it does in every respect. Nothing is "obvious" so it's impossible for me to assume anything.That Lucifer should lose power over the elements after being cast out is no more self evident to me than why he should not have the ability to command pasta.

I'm really not aware of the extreme specifics of how magic works in Christian myth, honest. Why do you seem to think I am?


So you want me to explain it again...which would be a third time.


Here, I'll make it easier:


Satan/Lucifer = not-God.

YHWH/Jesus = God.

God can control the elements/universe on a cosmic scale because he's God.

Satan cannot because he's just a spirit just like you and I are (underneath the corporeal realm).


We know that Lucifer has less power than we do because of the story of Adam and Eve: the snake can bruise our heal but we can crush it's head. Meaning, Satan is virtually powerless. His only powers are subtly influencing man on a level that I am not even sure exists.

However, none of that is even necessary to explain because of this: Satan is not God. He cannot control the universe like God...because he's not God. That's fairly simple.




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you not watch movies? Play video games? Watch television?

Command over fire is the most popular one. Occasionally ice.

Cool, so you were never actually trying to have an adult conversation. Got it.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because he has magic powers so my starting point is "he can do anything he wants". It's your magic system, you have to explain to me why it has the limitations it does.

Well, since I've already done that and you're choosing to ignore it...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is elemental magic specifically the domain of god or something? If so, why? Is God the power source for all angels? All spirits? Did he specifically revoke Lucifers powers over the elements? If so why not revoke all of them? Do angels have certain innate powers and certain divinely granted ones?

Are there citations in the Bible or Book of Mormon for why Lucifer wouldn't have any elemental powers?


You have it all wrong. YOU explain to ME why Satan has God-level powers. You're taking that position. I am taking the position: Satan is not God. Satan does not have God's powers. Satan is an outcast from heaven and at the very best, an Angel once upon a time.


You bring ME evidence for why he has God-level powers. My position is fairly simple: Satan is not God.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except for that part where you never bothered to and decided to immediately begin by being condescending instead.

You mean the part where I did bother to and asked you to clarify a question that did not make sense in the context of the conversation.


Again, where is your evidence (canon, not movies, not metaphorical books from JRR Tolkien, and certainly not video games) that Satan can control the elements on God's level?

Symmetric Chaos
Free Want vs Free Will

A thought experiment occurs to me.

Say Alice kidnaps Bob and locks him in a room to prevent him from going to class. Does he still have free will? Yes, I'd say he does. He can walk around the room, yell, bash the door.
If she chains him to a wall? Yes. He can struggle and scream.
Removes his limbs? Yes, he can scream.
Completely paralyzes his body? Maybe but I think I'd say yes. He can still think the thoughts he wants.

So if we were automatons that physically could only do perfect actions but could still think whatever we wanted would we have free will?

I'd say we've only restricted Free Want. Humans can only do things that humans can do. The automata are limited in exactly the same way. If you ask a man why he can't fly its not because he lacks free will, its because his body is limited. If you ask an automata why it can't do evil its not because he lacks free will, its because his body is limited.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, where is your evidence (canon, not movies, not metaphorical books from JRR Tolkien, and certainly not video games) that Satan can control the elements on God's level?

So the argument is simply that Lucifer is never shown in canon using elemental powers thus he probably doesn't have them? Fair enough. You could have started with that rather than jumping immediately into sputtering rage.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So the argument is simply that Lucifer is never shown in canon using elemental powers thus he probably doesn't have them?

Why is that new to you in this very same thread?


Originally posted by dadudemon
Apparently, Satan could not do anything against Job due to his righteousness. Satan is virtually powerless. So he needed God's help (God can control nature, Satan cannot...being a spirit).


My thing is: why in the world would God agree to such a thing? Is that not "tempting God"? The Mormons believe the conversation between God and Satan is slightly different: Satan was given no power over nature, it was God's doing, only. The Job account says God gave Satan the power to do so: an impossibility especially if you consider Lucifer to be a fallen angel. God would not give out his power/authority to evil, ever, at any point. That's about as unrighteous of a depiction of God as we can get. We would have a "gray God" rather than a "white God", if that makes sense (think Jedi).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Possessing someone and wielding powers over the elements are two different things.

Lucifer, a spirit and fallen angel, does not have the ability to manipulate the elements like God does.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...why would Lucifer, a spirit and fallen angel, have the ability to manipulate the elements like God does?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can't think of any, actually.

The closet I can come to are "Destroying angels". But those are symbolic...carry swords...and slay people the same way a human would. That's not commanding the elements.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fair enough. You could have started with that rather than jumping immediately into sputtering rage.

T-t-that's my line, not yours. erm


Also, I did start out with it and you even responded to it. I brought it up again. I even stated that at no point are Angels seen using elemental powers and the closest we get are Destroying Angels who basically wield swords...and they are suspect.

So, I will just have to say "no you stop going into a sputtering rages".

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Free Want vs Free Will

A thought experiment occurs to me.

Say Alice kidnaps Bob and locks him in a room to prevent him from going to class. Does he still have free will? Yes, I'd say he does. He can walk around the room, yell, bash the door.
If she chains him to a wall? Yes. He can struggle and scream.
Removes his limbs? Yes, he can scream.
Completely paralyzes his body? Maybe but I think I'd say yes. He can still think the thoughts he wants.

So if we were automatons that physically could only do perfect actions but could still think whatever we wanted would we have free will?

I'd say we've only restricted Free Want. Humans can only do things that humans can do. The automata are limited in exactly the same way. If you ask a man why he can't fly its not because he lacks free will, its because his body is limited. If you ask an automata why it can't do evil its not because he lacks free will, its because his body is limited.

This incorrectly presumes that the only types of sin are sins of physical action: not so.


Jesus brought the "new law" that clearly outlines that thoughts condemn us.


In order for it to be a perfect automaton, they'd have to have, literally, no free will. They would ONLY be able to think the way God considered "right" and by extension, only do things that were right. Obviously, neuroscience is showing us that we do what we think.

I am not a believer in pure libertarian free will. Any person that knows a little about biology and how the brain works would have to conclude that we do not have libertarian free will. But I do believe we have free will.


To a God who's consciousness is vastly superior to our own, we could appear as not having free will. Our choices would seem insignificantly limited to such a Being. So I think you and others should approach the subject from that angle: it actually makes sense. Is it truly free will if the "Creator" already knows all possible outcomes? What's the point of anything if God already knows all possible outcomes and choices? There's no point to free will at that point, is there? We are virtually automatons to the Creator, at that point.

King Kandy
Originally posted by dadudemon
This incorrectly presumes that the only types of sin are sins of physical action: not so.


Jesus brought the "new law" that clearly outlines that thoughts condemn us.


In order for it to be a perfect automaton, they'd have to have, literally, no free will. They would ONLY be able to think the way God considered "right" and by extension, only do things that were right. Obviously, neuroscience is showing us that we do what we think.

I am not a believer in pure libertarian free will. Any person that knows a little about biology and how the brain works would have to conclude that we do not have libertarian free will. But I do believe we have free will.


To a God who's consciousness is vastly superior to our own, we could appear as not having free will. Our choices would seem insignificantly limited to such a Being. So I think you and others should approach the subject from that angle: it actually makes sense. Is it truly free will if the "Creator" already knows all possible outcomes? What's the point of anything if God already knows all possible outcomes and choices? There's no point to free will at that point, is there? We are virtually automatons to the Creator, at that point.
That seems to just make it worse. If thoughts condemn you, then why not disallow the actual physical versions? Then, one's sin would only hurt themselves. Seems an obvious improvement.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
That seems to just make it worse. If thoughts condemn you, then why not disallow the actual physical versions? Then, one's sin would only hurt themselves. Seems an obvious improvement.

How are others supposed to learn from your mistakes if those mistakes can remain hidden? How can you know your actions/thoughts hurt others if they have no way to know them? God could give us telepathy and allow us to interact that way...through some sort of virtual interface. But isn't that just an meaningless distinction at that point? What would be the logical difference between a physical interaction and a mental one when they are the same?


But, actually, it is your thoughts (contents of your heart) in addition to your actions that you are judged on (in Christianity). So it is both, not just one or the other. That makes more sense because a person may have a thought that they do not want to act on: wow, she's sexy, I want to bone her. That's a bit primal and not something we have absolute control over. I hear meditation helps that...

You also presume that this corporeal form isn't just some sort of simulation. No matter how you approach, this is just a very complex simulation. I'm sure you hear Muslims and Christians spout, "This life is a test." Itz teh matrix!

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
This incorrectly presumes that the only types of sin are sins of physical action: not so.


Jesus brought the "new law" that clearly outlines that thoughts condemn us.


In order for it to be a perfect automaton, they'd have to have, literally, no free will. They would ONLY be able to think the way God considered "right" and by extension, only do things that were right. Obviously, neuroscience is showing us that we do what we think.

You're highighting the same problem I am.

The key question is: Do you have free will if you can only think and experience?

If you do then a world a perfect actions and free thoughts is superior to a world of free actions and free thoughts. If you believe we need to do evil in order to grow we ca start with a world where murder is physically impossible. I could still condemn myself but I can't kill anyone because my body (only) is unable.

The point is that if thoughts are what matters then a world of automatic action should be fine. There's no reason that our thoughts wouldn't be known. If growth is good then the automata would have to reveal our important thoughts to other so that they can learn from them.

Free will is not violated.
Growth is not prevented.
More people are saved.
Fewer people are harmed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So I think you and others should approach the subject from that angle: it actually makes sense. Is it truly free will if the "Creator" already knows all possible outcomes? What's the point of anything if God already knows all possible outcomes and choices? There's no point to free will at that point, is there? We are virtually automatons to the Creator, at that point.

That is another, perhaps more serious, issue in Christian theology.

inimalist
Originally posted by ares834
Nope. And a strawman at that. Donating money is an inheritently good act. Sure in a case where it is not the best action their may be trace amounts of evil perhaps ego stroking or doind it for the sense of goodness yet it is still a good act.

yes, hence why I said it was silly

Originally posted by ares834
No you wouldn't. I may be unable to fly but I can still choose to walk or run to my next class. If their was no evil well then I would be restricted to the best way to get there.

?

how is the most optimal route to anything a moral consideration?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You see, here is the problem. The entire point of being here is to have to choose between good and evil and then choosing good OVER evil. That is the primary definition of God's version of "free will".

fine, I just 100% disagree with your ontology

Originally posted by Bentley
So the argument is that since God is omnipotent he could've done otherwise? By your argument God can also allow freewill because he would just "find a way".

Bleh.

what other possible interpretation of "omnipotent" could there be?

Bentley
Originally posted by inimalist
what other possible interpretation of "omnipotent" could there be?

It is more of a reflection of the kind that omnipotence is already impossible to argue in consistent logic, so in makes a poor argument to begin with.

inimalist
Originally posted by Bentley
It is more of a reflection of the kind that omnipotence is already impossible to argue in consistent logic, so in makes a poor argument to begin with.

sure, but that could be said of most arguments involving God anyways. I was assuming we were ignoring the inconsistencies to talk about free will in that context.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're highighting the same problem I am.

Your next question shows that we are not on the same page.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The key question is: Do you have free will if you can only think and experience?

You're still fixed on "action" being the only form of morality. Even your thoughts condemn you.

You can be only a thinking entity and still have free will. You can think stuff. However, what you can think is highly dammed if you cannot interact, learn, and make choices about action.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you do then a world a perfect actions and free thoughts is superior to a world of free actions and free thoughts.

That's kind of what heaven is supposed to be like: where everyone has free will but chooses "good" for themselves and everyone.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you believe we need to do evil in order to grow we ca start with a world where murder is physically impossible. I could still condemn myself but I can't kill anyone because my body (only) is unable.

No, just being aware that something is evil and having to make the choice to do good is enough.

Apparently, we were aware of evil and bad choices before coming here (I'm using Mormon theology, at this point). Because we were in God's presence the entire time and we were purely innocent, we could not choose to do good for goodness sake (virtue ethics). Apparently, being in God's presence in our innocent form makes it impossible to sin because of his overwhelming presence (he's supposed to be a god of unimaginable power...or something). The plan was to send us here, away from God's presence, to think, grow, feel, and choose the right with our own free will. This is part of "eternal progression".


So back to your idea: yes, if you're just a thinking entity but are unable to kill someone, God being all-knowing, would know that you would have tried to kill the person if you had the physical ability to do so. This is why we are directed not to judge others but to forgive: we are supposed to take solace in the fact that God has a perfect knowledge so perfect justice can be meted.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The point is that if thoughts are what matters then a world of automatic action should be fine.

Nah, not at all. It's both.

Both your actions and your thoughts condemn you as I've explained.

If you had a perfectly righteous mind but were unable to control your actions, then you'd be innocent. If you had evil thoughts but were unable to do any bad because of it, your thoughts would condemn you...assuming you had free will and choose to dwell on those bad thoughts.

In this world, it's both: our thoughts lead to actions. Both condemn you. Your actions are secondary to your thoughts which allows for "internal processing" before you commit to those actions. It's kind of like a back up. Have you ever wanted to just punch someone in the face and you were about to but at the very last moment, decided to hold it back (your probably haven't but it's just an example...I'm sure you can think of one like it)? It's like that.


But what's the point of being here if we only think? We were already thinking individuals before we came here. We must take action with our thoughts in order to truly grow. For instance, you can read about roller-coasters or be told stories of roller-coasters all you want. It is hardly comparable to actually experiencing it. If we were only thinking entities, we would not be able to learn or experience things...we'd just be thinking entities in isolation from God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no reason that our thoughts wouldn't be known.

How would you express them if there is no way to express them? How would you experience other people if there's no way to experience them? You'd essentially be an isolated entity...alone...to your own thoughts...for the 50-100 years you get to "be away from God". Surely you see why it is better to have the ability to interact with a corporeal world for experience?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If growth is good then the automata would have to reveal our important thoughts to other so that they can learn from them.


What's to learn if there is no opposition or hardship or even a way to know of such hardships? What's to learn if you literally do not have the ability to communicate? I believe you're assuming that a thinking entity that has no way to interact, physically, with the world around it would be doomed to isolation. If you want to make it interact with the world around it, then it is not just a thinking entity incapable of taking actions.


But what opposition is there for that entity to learn if there is not pain, death, suffering, or any of that? Be an outcast to others? How so? You can still "hear" their thoughts and they yours. How could anyone ever truly be an outcast? What would be overcome? Basically, in order to do anything...you'd eventually get back to the system we are in now, even if you didn't intend to create it.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Free will is not violated.

Actually, it is: you may maintain your free will but what's the point of coming here for growth and development when you can't exercise your free will to do so?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Growth is not prevented.

Growth would be extremely limited. The only growth we could achieve is learning how to cope with isolation and being away from God's presence.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More people are saved.

Saved from what?nBased on your scenario, no one can grow so they are still innocent. They don't need to be saved.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fewer people are harmed.

As a fact, no one could be harmed because they have no way to act on others. Again, I assume they cannot communicate with each other.

Assume we are these spirit entites you are designing into this scenario. Assume they have no way of interacting with one another. The scenario does nothing to help us grow and learn besides teaching us how to cope with isolation and being out of God's presence. But how does that teach us how to be our own godly beings with godly traits? It doesn't. The learning is virtually useless since we could not sin to begin with and will always end right back in God's presence.


So let's assume they can interact. How so? Telepathy. Okay, so you must put a limit on telepathy so that people can learn and grow through bonds. Why? Well, if everyone has perfect telepathy, then no one can ever be an outcast so no social structures could truly form: everyone could think the thoughts of everyone through mutual telepathy.

So scratch that.


Let's go with limited telepathy. Meaning, it only projects so far out from you. This is better because you can be an outcast...sort of. How do become an outcast if you do not have the ability to move? Would you not end up in the same scenario as the first one: you could pop into existence where no one was around you...ruining the whole point of coming here. Your experience with the limited group you MAY end up with could be so limited as to not teach you much. You have no way of communicating with other groups besides the one you can communicate with. So you may be doomed to limited growth as would the rest of humanity.


And this leads us back to the best possible scenario, using your setup: make us locally telepathic with the ability to "float" around to where we want to go. Give people the ability to block out other's ability to think to them (you would project your thoughts into other heads in "real" telepathy..that's how you would communicate in s "senseless" world). But haven't you created just a limited version of what we already have, at that point? The amount of "sins" you can commit are limited to a lesser set. You will not be able to gain as much wisdom and experience due to the ability to not have as many choices. Especially if you approach it as I do (from the Mormon side) we are at a certain level of spiritual progression and we do not have enough experience to be under a near infinite amount of temptations or good choices. We need a limitation on what we can endure to make the best choices due to our limited intelligence.

So, I would say that your scenario (modified to what I have above) does work. But it is limited. We could get more experience and knowledge in what little time we do have in a more complex system.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is another, perhaps more serious, issue in Christian theology.

Indeed and it's one of the problems I have with a truly Omniscient God.

My only theory on this:

God is still omniscient. He just does not know which path we will choose out of the near infinite possibilities. Meaning, he still is aware of every potential variable in each of his children's existence but he does not know which of those near infinite choices each child will choose due to their Godly Trait of "Free Will". Yes, I created another "have your cake and eat it, too" scenario.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
That seems to just make it worse. If thoughts condemn you, then why not disallow the actual physical versions? Then, one's sin would only hurt themselves. Seems an obvious improvement.

I answered this, above. But, to be more specific to your post: the entire point of existence is each other and loving each other. Who's to say that we did not exist first as a thinking entity...isolated from everything (that's just about how we believe it in Mormonism: we existed as intelligences, for eternity, before God organized our intelligence into our spirits.)

The ability to sin in a way that could cause others to sin or harm each other is a far better teaching tool. "But that's just a horrible and cruel existence". If you think about it as limited as possible, sure. If this was it and there was nothing before or after this, that would be a horrible existence. Since we existed before and after this time on Earth, it's just a infinitely small blip in the eternities that imparts an almost infinite amount of wisdom to us. Learning how to purely love those around you is the point of being here.

What's the point of life? To love. That answers the other thread in the philosophy section, as well.

Bentley
Originally posted by inimalist
sure, but that could be said of most arguments involving God anyways. I was assuming we were ignoring the inconsistencies to talk about free will in that context.


We can do that, but if we're going to use arguments that mimick well known discussions that are known to be problematic just by changing their wording we're not really letting those inconsistences go.

Btw, I'm explaining my earlier reasoning, not implying you're relying in underlying contradictions to discuss here.

Mindship
Any discussion of "God" in all "His" infinitude will generate paradoxes faster than a pop-up bomb will generate windows. Best to pick a specific metaphor, agree on its limits and allowances, and work from there, IMO.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...a person may have a thought that they do not want to act on: wow, she's sexy, I want to bone her. That's a bit primal and not something we have absolute control over. I hear masturbation helps that... Fixed. cool

inimalist
Originally posted by Bentley
We can do that, but if we're going to use arguments that mimick well known discussions that are known to be problematic just by changing their wording we're not really letting those inconsistences go.

Btw, I'm explaining my earlier reasoning, not implying you're relying in underlying contradictions to discuss here.

I'm in total agreement, I do genuinely think most religious opinions on free will are specious at best, I was just trying to explain how evil could be eliminated while choice over ones actions could still exist

I think the bigger issue here is the definitions, either evil is just the absence of the most absolute good thing ever or the only reason we have free will is so that we might do evil. I think both of those are hugely problematic, and the latter I don't even consider to be consistent with Christian dogma. However, I must concede, if God gave us free will specifically so we could hurt each other, then we might be eliminating free will by preventing people from hurting one another (even though we would have choice over all of our other actions).

ugh, the latter part of that should have been addressed to ddm...

Originally posted by Mindship
Any discussion of "God" in all "His" infinitude will generate paradoxes faster than a pop-up bomb will generate windows. Best to pick a specific metaphor, agree on its limits and allowances, and work from there, IMO.

thumb up

although, even then it is almost impossible to get people to agree on the parameters.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
You see, here is the problem. The entire point of being here is to have to choose between good and evil and then choosing good OVER evil. That is the primary definition of God's version of "free will".

I thought I'd give a better response:

Like, I hear you, but I think you are, to quote Jack White, taking an effect and making it the cause.

Free Will deals with whether or not you have the choice over your actions. All actions. If you had control over choices of good and evil, but not over those that deal with mundane things, you would not have free will in any way that it is commonly discussed. Yes, God gave us free will, and God wants us to choose good over evil, but if that is the only definitional quality of what makes free will, you could still have free will if 99% of your actions were pre-determined, which no religious tradition that I know of would find as an acceptable interpretation of their doctrine of free will.

As a result of God giving us free will, we are able to choose between good and evil because good and evil are things that God endowed us to choose between. Similarly, he allowed us to choose between walking or running. Given our physiology and psychology, that God created, there is a population of actions that we are able to choose among.

I hear your point about free want, but I think you are missing my general point. Its not that "if we had free will we should be able to fly", its that, God designed us such that the action of flying is not among the population of things we are able to choose between. We still have free will even though we can't fly, because we are able to choose from a population of things that we can do.

From a theological perspective, sure, it would essentially undermine the moral imperatives surrounding free will for God to have moved evil actions into the population of things that we are physiologically unable to choose to do, and huge portions of Christian dogma that relate to the choice of going to heaven or hell would no longer be relevant, however, I think rather than the theological stance on free will being "it is related specifically to choosing good over evil, and if people can't choose evil they have no free will" might be better phrased as: "The choices between doing good or evil acts are of fundamental importance to this religion, and the dogma would make little sense if people couldn't choose to be evil".

Its more that as a consequence of free will and the ability to do evil, we are able to make choices that are relevant to God and sin. If God had designed us such that sin was in the population of things we couldn't choose between, but still allowed us to choose between the things we are able to do, free will would still exist however Christianity and its offshoots would be irrelevant.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're still fixed on "action" being the only form of morality. Even your thoughts condemn you.

You can be only a thinking entity and still have free will. You can think stuff.

The whole point of this thought experiment is that you have free will when you only have thoughts.
The whole point of this thought experiment is that you are still allowed to condemn yourself with thoughts.

I have explicitly said both of these things more than once.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So back to your idea: yes, if you're just a thinking entity but are unable to kill someone, God being all-knowing, would know that you would have tried to kill the person if you had the physical ability to do so.

Exactly, thus the automata still have free will. They can do evil and go to hell as a result, the only thing they can't do is harm others.

Originally posted by dadudemon
your actions and your thoughts condemn you as I've explained.

I was of the impression that either can be enough.
Evil thoughts. Condemned.
Evil actions. Condemned.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you had a perfectly righteous mind but were unable to control your actions, then you'd be innocent. If you had evil thoughts but were unable to do any bad because of it, your thoughts would condemn you...assuming you had free will and choose to dwell on those bad thoughts.

Exactly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But what's the point of being here if we only think? We were already thinking individuals before we came here. We must take action with our thoughts in order to truly grow. For instance, you can read about roller-coasters or be told stories of roller-coasters all you want. It is hardly comparable to actually experiencing it. If we were only thinking entities, we would not be able to learn or experience things...we'd just be thinking entities in isolation from God.

The automata are not humans. They might well have a way to give the minds inside of them intense experiences if needed. Recall, they're designed by God to be perfect so its hard to place limits on them in this regard.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How would you express them if there is no way to express them?

All the mind has to do is express itself. The automata will only prevent that if the act of expression would qualify as evil according to God.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What's to learn if there is no opposition or hardship or even a way to know of such hardships?

Why would there be no hardship? If it is good to experience hardship then the automata, being perfect, must present it to the minds inside of them. One's body refusing to carry out evil actions is also a hardship for some people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe you're assuming that a thinking entity that has no way to interact, physically, with the world around it would be doomed to isolation. If you want to make it interact with the world around it, then it is not just a thinking entity incapable of taking actions.

The automata simply are a device to prevent evil actions only. They do not isolate the riders in any way (unless God things interaction with others is evil for some reason).

Originally posted by dadudemon
But what opposition is there for that entity to learn if there is not pain, death, suffering, or any of that?

Death would still exist, there's no particular reason to prevent it.
Pain and suffering can still be experienced, provided by the automata in any of various ways. They only cannot be caused by other people.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
I thought I'd give a better response:

Like, I hear you, but I think you are, to quote Jack White, taking an effect and making it the cause.

Free Will deals with whether or not you have the choice over your actions. All actions. If you had control over choices of good and evil, but not over those that deal with mundane things, you would not have free will in any way that it is commonly discussed. Yes, God gave us free will, and God wants us to choose good over evil, but if that is the only definitional quality of what makes free will, you could still have free will if 99% of your actions were pre-determined, which no religious tradition that I know of would find as an acceptable interpretation of their doctrine of free will.

As a result of God giving us free will, we are able to choose between good and evil because good and evil are things that God endowed us to choose between. Similarly, he allowed us to choose between walking or running. Given our physiology and psychology, that God created, there is a population of actions that we are able to choose among.

I hear your point about free want, but I think you are missing my general point. Its not that "if we had free will we should be able to fly", its that, God designed us such that the action of flying is not among the population of things we are able to choose between. We still have free will even though we can't fly, because we are able to choose from a population of things that we can do.

From a theological perspective, sure, it would essentially undermine the moral imperatives surrounding free will for God to have moved evil actions into the population of things that we are physiologically unable to choose to do, and huge portions of Christian dogma that relate to the choice of going to heaven or hell would no longer be relevant, however, I think rather than the theological stance on free will being "it is related specifically to choosing good over evil, and if people can't choose evil they have no free will" might be better phrased as: "The choices between doing good or evil acts are of fundamental importance to this religion, and the dogma would make little sense if people couldn't choose to be evil".

Its more that as a consequence of free will and the ability to do evil, we are able to make choices that are relevant to God and sin. If God had designed us such that sin was in the population of things we couldn't choose between, but still allowed us to choose between the things we are able to do, free will would still exist however Christianity and its offshoots would be irrelevant.


I don't actually read anything in here that contradicts what I've said. The only thing I can say is: I'm obviously using a theological definition which ALSO has a secular application. And that's my point: being able to do evil is a consequence of having free will. The entire point is to be able to choose between those two and choose "good". Everything falls between: from truly evil choices, mundane/neutral choices, to purely good choices. It's definitely on a sliding scale the extreme majority of the time as decisions are almost never binary between a good and evil choice: that's the stuff of video games.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The whole point of this thought experiment is that you have free will when you only have thoughts.
The whole point of this thought experiment is that you are still allowed to condemn yourself with thoughts.

I have explicitly said both of these things more than once.



Exactly, thus the automata still have free will. They can do evil and go to hell as a result, the only thing they can't do is harm others.



I was of the impression that either can be enough.
Evil thoughts. Condemned.
Evil actions. Condemned.



Exactly.



The automata are not humans. They might well have a way to give the minds inside of them intense experiences if needed. Recall, they're designed by God to be perfect so its hard to place limits on them in this regard.



All the mind has to do is express itself. The automata will only prevent that if the act of expression would qualify as evil according to God.



Why would there be no hardship? If it is good to experience hardship then the automata, being perfect, must present it to the minds inside of them. One's body refusing to carry out evil actions is also a hardship for some people.



The automata simply are a device to prevent evil actions only. They do not isolate the riders in any way (unless God things interaction with others is evil for some reason).



Death would still exist, there's no particular reason to prevent it.
Pain and suffering can still be experienced, provided by the automata in any of various ways. They only cannot be caused by other people.

So, like I said, you are essentially recreating our existence inside of their minds (you're creating a "matrix" inside of their minds). So there is not point to the thought experiment as a means of differentiating it from how it is now. I noticed you cut out the most important portion of my post: the importance of life.

FistOfThe North
""God" and "the Son of God" are figments of an ignorant mind's imagination."

- FotNs

Bentley
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
""God" and "the Son of God" are figments of an ignorant mind's imagination."

- FotNs

The statement would be more impressive if one was a figment of imagination and the other was real, from an atheist point of view it would seem utterly redundant and clumsy.

Again, since it's a citation, it would be tacky to change it even if it was a rather poor statement to begin with.

(I'm just messing with ya stick out tongue )

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't actually read anything in here that contradicts what I've said. The only thing I can say is: I'm obviously using a theological definition which ALSO has a secular application. And that's my point: being able to do evil is a consequence of having free will. The entire point is to be able to choose between those two and choose "good". Everything falls between: from truly evil choices, mundane/neutral choices, to purely good choices. It's definitely on a sliding scale the extreme majority of the time as decisions are almost never binary between a good and evil choice: that's the stuff of video games

then you agree that free will can exist in a world without evil?

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
then you agree that free will can exist in a world without evil?

In our world? No.

However, I did state this already:

"That's kind of what heaven is supposed to be like: where everyone has free will but chooses "good" for themselves and everyone."

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
In our world? No.

However, I did state this already:

"That's kind of what heaven is supposed to be like: where everyone has free will but chooses "good" for themselves and everyone."

but then I think we do disagree (though, yes, I agree, we wont see it in this world stick out tongue)

my point is that the theological positions isn't so much that free will couldn't exist without evil, but that religion couldn't. I don't see how free will is uniquely defined by the ability to do evil.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
but then I think we do disagree (though, yes, I agree, we wont see it in this world stick out tongue)

Well, I'll requote each section of your post and show you that we do agree:

You said:
"Free Will deals with whether or not you have the choice over your actions. All actions. If you had control over choices of good and evil, but not over those that deal with mundane things, you would not have free will in any way that it is commonly discussed. Yes, God gave us free will, and God wants us to choose good over evil, but if that is the only definitional quality of what makes free will, you could still have free will if 99% of your actions were pre-determined, which no religious tradition that I know of would find as an acceptable interpretation of their doctrine of free will."

We agree, here. Here's what I said about that:

"The entire point is to be able to choose between those two and choose "good". Everything falls between: from truly evil choices, mundane/neutral choices, to purely good choices. It's definitely on a sliding scale the extreme majority of the time as decisions are almost never binary between a good and evil choice: that's the stuff of video games."

God is not directly concerned with whether or not you choose Charmin over Cottonelle toilet paper. There are many things we cannot choose for our selves, as well. Maybe even a majority. Where we are born, to which parents we are born, the land we are born in, the genetics we get, our money at birth, our physical appearance (bare with me, here), and even part of how we act due to a combination of our genetics and environment. So, no, I don't think religions would be upset at all if 99% of our actions were predetermined because it would appear that that is the way it is (maybe not 99%...but can you REALLY blame a person for being born gay? What about having manic depression? What about having anger issues that are hereditary?) So, yes, we agree here but, no, Religions won't be upset about not getting to choose some of our actions (some sects of Jews believe that God designed every single action that occurs in the universe before he even created it and God does not take a direct role in any action since the creation: earthquakes, floods, etc. I also believe this: shit will happen and God already designed it. Will there be a drought? Sure...and God will tell you when He's planned it.)

You said:
"As a result of God giving us free will, we are able to choose between good and evil because good and evil are things that God endowed us to choose between. Similarly, he allowed us to choose between walking or running. Given our physiology and psychology, that God created, there is a population of actions that we are able to choose among."

This is exactly my point. Those actions are very limited compared to the options God has but our options are there to allow us to grow as eternal beings.

You said:
"I hear your point about free want, but I think you are missing my general point. Its not that "if we had free will we should be able to fly", its that, God designed us such that the action of flying is not among the population of things we are able to choose between. We still have free will even though we can't fly, because we are able to choose from a population of things that we can do."

I disagree. Being able to fly is among our options to choose from. We have possessed that capacity for about 40-60 thousands years, now. We just did not develop the means until recently. If you're referring to a biological structure that allows flight, I say that is an argument of arbitrary semantics. We could say "create universes" but we may have already done that, as well, we just aren't aware of having done so. I think the argument you are making does not apply to the conversation because there are a near infinite reasons your wrong for every single reason you present for it. In addition, I think your argument is more about "free want" rather than free will, despite your protestations otherwise. I am not missing your point since I directly addressed the way you are intending it. I also addressed it the way you did not intend but created that meaning accidentally. All bases covered.


You said:
"From a theological perspective, sure, it would essentially undermine the moral imperatives surrounding free will for God to have moved evil actions into the population of things that we are physiologically unable to choose to do, and huge portions of Christian dogma that relate to the choice of going to heaven or hell would no longer be relevant, however, I think rather than the theological stance on free will being "it is related specifically to choosing good over evil, and if people can't choose evil they have no free will" might be better phrased as: "The choices between doing good or evil acts are of fundamental importance to this religion, and the dogma would make little sense if people couldn't choose to be evil"."

If God removed it, it would cross that not-so-arbitrary barrier I described for "free will". Removing our ability to choose evil is removing genuine free will. This is my definition. And you're correct: if God removed our ability to choose evil, we would still be in His presence, unable to sin. And free will, as I have defined it, is not limited to just good and evil choices. Part of free will, as I previously stated, are an almost infinite number of choices between. To that last part: I think the ability to choose evil applies to almost every single religion and most especially Eastern religions.

"Its more that as a consequence of free will and the ability to do evil, we are able to make choices that are relevant to God and sin. If God had designed us such that sin was in the population of things we couldn't choose between, but still allowed us to choose between the things we are able to do, free will would still exist however Christianity and its offshoots would be irrelevant."

We agree: the consequence of having genuine free will is the ability to do evil. Without it, we could not commit evil because we would be perfectly innocent. To that last part, no we do not agree. It would not be free will, at that point, if we were not allowed to do evil be removing the ability to do so. You choose to define it as a more limited form of free will than what we have now, I choose to define it as "false free will".


Overall, we agree on almost everything with you supposing, incorrectly, the Christianity applies to my definition of free will when even secular definitions still apply to my "meter stick" of what constitutes free will.

Originally posted by inimalist
my point is that the theological positions isn't so much that free will couldn't exist without evil, but that religion couldn't. I don't see how free will is uniquely defined by the ability to do evil.

Free will is not uniquely defined by the ability to do evil. It is the most important piece of the free will puzzle, however, and the entire system can no longer be called genuine free will with the removal of that piece, by my personal definition.

You want to call it free will (to remove evil), I don't. I don't suppose an objective morality, either, in the supposition. There are evils of relativity. The ability to choose those, even if relative, are still evil. But aren't those definitions anthropic, as well?

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Free will is not uniquely defined by the ability to do evil. It is the most important piece of the free will puzzle, however, and the entire system can no longer be called genuine free will with the removal of that piece, by my personal definition.

I suppose we do agree

to be fair, I probably just confused part of your position with that of ares', as it was a reply to his stance that you quoted in the first place.

His position was very much that the lack of evil eliminated free will because apparently any inefficiency is evil and if we didn't have free will we would be the most efficient things possible... or donating money is kind of evil if you aren't donating all of it... ugh...

Originally posted by dadudemon
You want to call it free will (to remove evil), I don't. I don't suppose an objective morality, either, in the supposition. There are evils of relativity. The ability to choose those, even if relative, are still evil. But aren't those definitions anthropic, as well?

sure, however, in the case of morality I don't see the issue with calling it anthropic unless you are trying to take an absolutist stance

I personally believe in anthropic objective morality

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
I personally believe in anthropic objective morality

But isn't that anthropically arbitrary making it not objective, at all? 313


Our technology will allow us to eventually become immortal...even if that means merging our minds into one super-god AI. At that point, do you think an truly objective morality will be defined? I actually do not know, myself.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
But isn't that anthropically arbitrary making it not objective, at all? 313


Our technology will allow us to eventually become immortal...even if that means merging our minds into one super-god AI. At that point, do you think an truly objective morality will be defined? I actually do not know, myself.

no

people seem to confuse the meaning of the word "objective" with "absolute"

objective means it is demonstrable and measurable. The colour blue is both anthropic and objective. What we call an elephant is both anthropic and objective. Science as a whole is both anthropic and objective. I simply apply the same ideas to morality.

and no, in terms of the technology thing, I don't think that would produce an absolute morality, because I think the question of what is good and evil is inherently one that refers to anthropic concepts. There is no morality if there are no sentient creatures which can be moral, it doesn't go beyond us. Though, an objective morality would almost seem tautological in that situation

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
no

people seem to confuse the meaning of the word "objective" with "absolute"

You might as well rephrase that as "you seem..."

Additionally, objective is simply impartial. You seem to be giving some sort of arbitrary credence to human actions as far as objectivity goes.



Basically, "anthropic objective morality" is arbitrary and even a misnomer. It would be more correct to call it "arbitrary objective morality" or even "moral relativism".

Originally posted by inimalist
objective means it is demonstrable and measurable. The colour blue is both anthropic and objective. What we call an elephant is both anthropic and objective. Science as a whole is both anthropic and objective. I simply apply the same ideas to morality.

I disagree, obviously, with your definitions. Calling an elephant and elephant is specifically not objective. Saying that English speakers generally call elephants "elephants" WOULD, however, be objective. It is an impartial observation.

Morality becomes much more nebulous, at this point. It is ALL anthropic, however.

Originally posted by inimalist
and no, in terms of the technology thing, I don't think that would produce an absolute morality, because I think the question of what is good and evil is inherently one that refers to anthropic concepts. There is no morality if there are no sentient creatures which can be moral, it doesn't go beyond us. Though, an objective morality would almost seem tautological in that situation

That's true: all of it would be anthropic from a secular sense. Assuming we actually create a true god-like AI, it would transcend anthropic definitions as a necessity. I was hoping it could come up with universal truths/objective morality.

inimalist
I'm not going to argue about what the word objective means, you are free to look it up

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not going to argue about what the word objective means, you are free to look it up

That's cool.

So far, I see my definition as being the most correct in the context of our conversation: "Additionally, objective is simply impartial."

What we call things is not objective because it is not impartial. However, labeling how many or a certain type of people as "the callers of that thing" WOULD be objective.

To expand, 99.43845% of Americans call creature X "elephant." That's the idea that you were trying to convey. Saying that creature X is "an elephant", however, is not objective but it definitely is anthropic. I may agree if you said "some people", however.


I just think "anthropic objective morality" is a sneaky way of avoiding calling yourself a moral-relativist.

Bentley
You could argue that anthropic is arbitrary, but isn't entirely arbitrary, it responds to a very real and physical set of rules compared with actual invention.

Unless I'm misreading some of the arguments you posted (I admit being relatively bad at the definition game)

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's cool.

So far, I see my definition as being the most correct in the context of our conversation: "Additionally, objective is simply impartial."

What we call things is not objective because it is not impartial. However, labeling how many or a certain type of people as "the callers of that thing" WOULD be objective.

To expand, 99.43845% of Americans call creature X "elephant." That's the idea that you were trying to convey. Saying that creature X is "an elephant", however, is not objective but it definitely is anthropic. I may agree if you said "some people", however.


I just think "anthropic objective morality" is a sneaky way of avoiding calling yourself a moral-relativist.

except that this is not the way I'm using the term at all

objective is similar to the term demonstrable, as in, this is an elephant because we call it an elephant AND it has these features that are associated with the things we call an elephant.

I'm certainly not a moral relativist in any way

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by dadudemon
I do. I believe it to be the same diety with possibly different attributes.


Any religion that believes in a supreme god/ultimate god, I equate to my God.

Of course. Myself being a deist, I am very open to different interpretations of God.

However, I do believe it is worth examining certain things in regards to Allah. Arabic word for God is Ilah. Allah was previously a supreme moon god of Arabia possibly imported from the Babylonian religion, or Ar-Rahman (mentioned in the Qur'an) in Yemani traditional pre-Islamic religions.

While I do agree that all supreme Gods in every religions are essentially the same, if we accept Allah as being the same God of of the Judeo-Christian religion, we therefore should afford the same privilege to Horus and Brahman as we do to Allah and YHWH.

dadudemon
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Of course. Myself being a deist, I am very open to different interpretations of God.

However, I do believe it is worth examining certain things in regards to Allah. Arabic word for God is Ilah. Allah was previously a supreme moon god of Arabia possibly imported from the Babylonian religion, or Ar-Rahman (mentioned in the Qur'an) in Yemani traditional pre-Islamic religions.

While I do agree that all supreme Gods in every religions are essentially the same, if we accept Allah as being the same God of of the Judeo-Christian religion, we therefore should afford the same privilege to Horus and Brahman as we do to Allah and YHWH.

thumb up

Awesome.

And I do consider Shiva to be the same "God" I believe in. Same with Vishnu/Krishna/Brahman. That would have to include Waheguru and Ahura Mazda.


We just disagree on certain aspects. The name does not matter: only that it is the 'divine' or Supreme Being for our universe/multiverse.


Edit - I am forgetting about the long ass list of African religions that have dozens of names for their own version of the Divine. I cannot deny them, either. Maybe Odin, fits, too.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
except that this is not the way I'm using the term at all

objective is similar to the term demonstrable, as in, this is an elephant because we call it an elephant AND it has these features that are associated with the things we call an elephant.

I'm certainly not a moral relativist in any way

Obviously, I disagree. That's how you're trying to use it despite your protests otherwise. What you're referring to, in your example again, is not objective: it is a tautology. This is an elephant because it is an elephant is essentially what you're saying. That's not objective, at all in any definition of objective.

Adding the "and" portion does nothing to change the fact that it is still anthropic. Objective? I don't know because I think you're trying your hardest to make it sound objective with the additions. It doesn't mean the same thing, at this point, because I didn't argue against that point, originally. It was the fact that you said ' elephants are called elephants' was objective.

Again, I just think "anthropic objective morality" is a sneaky way of avoiding calling yourself a moral-relativist. It is not even that sneaky: it is quite direct. Unless, of course, you have a definition for "anthropic objective morality" that does not definie itself by its name but means something else? In which, I would agree: it is not just a new flavor of moral relativism.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by Bentley
The statement would be more impressive if one was a figment of imagination and the other was real, from an atheist point of view it would seem utterly redundant and clumsy.

Again, since it's a citation, it would be tacky to change it even if it was a rather poor statement to begin with.

(I'm just messing with ya stick out tongue )

actually i was citing, well, myself. -FotNs- (F.ist o.f t.he N.orth s.tar.)

i don't understant how it would've been more impressive if, as you stated, "one was a figment of imagination and the other was real." that wouldn't of made sense and would defeat the purpose of the statement because i'm an athiest.

and an athiest i am but the statement doesn't seem utterly redundant and clumsy. How was it repetitive and lackng grace or dexterity?, as you presume it does?

but then again you were just trying to be silly. so i'll humor you and as a bonus, chalk it up to trival banter on your part.

Bentley
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
actually i was citing, well, myself. -FotNs- (F.ist o.f t.he N.orth s.tar.)

i don't understant how it would've been more impressive if, as you stated, "one was a figment of imagination and the other was real." that wouldn't of made sense and would defeat the purpose of the statement because i'm an athiest.

and an athiest i am but the statement doesn't seem utterly redundant and clumsy. How was it repetitive and lackng grace or dexterity?, as you presume it does?

but then again you were just trying to be silly. so i'll humor you and as a bonus, chalk it up to trival banter on your part.


Happy Dance

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, I disagree. That's how you're trying to use it despite your protests otherwise. What you're referring to, in your example again, is not objective: it is a tautology. This is an elephant because it is an elephant is essentially what you're saying. That's not objective, at all in any definition of objective.

Adding the "and" portion does nothing to change the fact that it is still anthropic. Objective? I don't know because I think you're trying your hardest to make it sound objective with the additions. It doesn't mean the same thing, at this point, because I didn't argue against that point, originally. It was the fact that you said ' elephants are called elephants' was objective.

Again, I just think "anthropic objective morality" is a sneaky way of avoiding calling yourself a moral-relativist. It is not even that sneaky: it is quite direct. Unless, of course, you have a definition for "anthropic objective morality" that does not definie itself by its name but means something else? In which, I would agree: it is not just a new flavor of moral relativism.

so, in your mind, the words in a language have no objective meaning?

as in, you don't know what I just said because of linguistic relativity?

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
so, in your mind, the words in a language have no objective meaning?

as in, you don't know what I just said because of linguistic relativity?

Please address the points I have brought up instead of using a tangential point to distract from my original point.

Your question is incorrectly asked.


If you were to capture what I have stated, you would ask this:

"So, in your mind, labels for creatures can vary from group to group meaning I cannot say that elephants are called elephants and label that as 'objective'? But rather, I should say that some people call elephants elephants in order to make my point about objective labels?"

If you said that above, which is almost a direct quote from my posts, yes, I would agree with it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lewis21
God Is only one, He is not the Father of any one but The creator of Every one. According some religion Book(Bible) son of God means The person who accept the onness of Allah and lead his life according to the teachings of God Almighty, so every person who believes in GOD is the Son of God, it does mean that he is Born to God but he is Created by GOD.

I don't think the bible ever says anything about Allah.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.