The interpretation I'm most comfortable with concerning Eden is one that lays out our early humanities' awareness of our own capacity for good or evil. We are capable of either at any time. And we are aware of what we can do to others and what they can do to us. That's somewhat frightening if you think on it. Consequences of sin is because we are aware of the control we have to change things, and don't do it. (that's a short version)
As elementary as that appears, I think there's a fundamentally different way to see it. However, lacking the innate ability to perceive spiritual realities, not only will natural man not see it, he'll find it impossible to understand or believe. This was not God's original intent, nor was it how He designed Adam. In short, I think the real choice that Adam had was not between good and evil, but rather, between what could be perceived and known spiritually, and what could be perceived and known physically. And the consequences of his choice (which is plainly evident) resulted in... yeah, you guessed it. The lack of choice for mankind thereafter. (that's the short version... more could be said, but perhaps you get the point)
16 hours ago, Bolshevik said:
Get to Noah's time and only he is doing things the best way.
I take it you mean, the best way possible - given and considering his inherent genetic limitations.
16 hours ago, Bolshevik said:
Noah was just wiser than the rest, was able to see down the road, and his wisdom spared himself and his family.
Unless you're equating wisdom with believing God (and you might be), I don't see it being some natural talent or ability that saved Noah. God didn't necessarily have much to work with here, but it was evidently enough to allow the grace of God to shine through. Consequently, the focus is centered on God's grace (and not Noah.)
16 hours ago, Bolshevik said:
The Law comes in some time after that . . . TLC you're basically saying the Law was to prepare for the need of JC.
I trust you realize that I'm not the source for that. (It probably starts in Rom.5:20.)
2 hours ago, Bolshevik said:
Do you know if The Law is meant for the Group (Israel), or at the individual level, or both?
According to what is written in Rom.3:19, it was given to, and intended for, Israel. I don't know of anywhere in scripture that indicates it was at any time given to, or intended for (at any time), any of the rest of the world. But that's not letting the rest of the world "off the hook" (so to speak.) More than anything else, I suppose that Israel was singled out... favored above every nation in the world... to prove this one thing - that it really didn't matter. No one was worthy, and (absolutely) nobody (not even Jesus Christ) was going to get by or make it (past death) merely by trying to fine tune (or perfect, if you will) their "physical awareness" (which was the route that Adam chose to go when he "ate" of - and became one with - it.) It probably won't fit in your computer, but I actually don't see or think of the end of life in the flesh as a something that was only imposed upon man as a result of sin. (Note how that was worded.) As a further note to that, I also do not believe that Adam would have "lived forever" had he not sinned. Nor do I think that he would have died, had he not sinned. Not that I can necessarily prove it from scripture, but personally, I think that eternal life was always a part of God's original plan for man, and the life that Adam started with was (always) purposefully designed to be temporary. In other words, had he not sinned, it would eventually have needed to be "exchanged" (for lack of a better word) for what, I suppose, is the kind of life that Christ now has. (but, hey... my mind is far from normal, so it'd be highly unusual - if not impossible - for you to make much sense of this.)
As elementary as that appears, I think there's a fundamentally different way to see it. However, lacking the innate ability to perceive spiritual realities, not only will natural man not see it, he'll find it impossible to understand or believe. This was not God's original intent, nor was it how He designed Adam. In short, I think the real choice that Adam had was not between good and evil, but rather, between what could be perceived and known spiritually, and what could be perceived and known physically. And the consequences of his choice (which is plainly evident) resulted in... yeah, you guessed it. The lack of choice for mankind thereafter. (that's the short version... more could be said, but perhaps you get the point) - ok, we can agree at least there was a change in perception and awareness that was pivotal
I take it you mean, the best way possible - given and considering his inherent genetic limitations. - his choices. Big choices, and small, daily choices. His decisions, there cumulative effect, were better than others. May not his innate ability.
Unless you're equating wisdom with believing God (and you might be), I don't see it being some natural talent or ability that saved Noah. God didn't necessarily have much to work with here, but it was evidently enough to allow the grace of God to shine through. Consequently, the focus is centered on God's grace (and not Noah.) - for sake of discussion I think we can equate the two
I trust you realize that I'm not the source for that. (It probably starts in Rom.5:20.) - I do, just getting your take on it.
According to what is written in Rom.3:19, it was given to, and intended for, Israel. I don't know of anywhere in scripture that indicates it was at any time given to, or intended for (at any time), any of the rest of the world. But that's not letting the rest of the world "off the hook" (so to speak.) More than anything else, I suppose that Israel was singled out... favored above every nation in the world... to prove this one thing - that it really didn't matter. No one was worthy, and (absolutely) nobody (not even Jesus Christ) was going to get by or make it (past death) merely by trying to fine tune (or perfect, if you will) their "physical awareness" (which was the route that Adam chose to go when he "ate" of - and became one with - it.) It probably won't fit in your computer, but I actually don't see or think of the end of life in the flesh as a something that was only imposed upon man as a result of sin. (Note how that was worded.) As a further note to that, I also do not believe that Adam would have "lived forever" had he not sinned. Nor do I think that he would have died, had he not sinned. Not that I can necessarily prove it from scripture, but personally, I think that eternal life was always a part of God's original plan for man, and the life that Adam started with was (always) purposefully designed to be temporary. In other words, had he not sinned, it would eventually have needed to be "exchanged" (for lack of a better word) for what, I suppose, is the kind of life that Christ now has. (but, hey... my mind is far from normal, so it'd be highly unusual - if not impossible - for you to make much sense of this.) - Thank you
The opening post does not define what morality is or where it really comes from. But implies it doesn't come from Yahweh as an objective source, whatever it is.
The opening post asks for subjective reactions to hypothetical situations. How is that to be interpreted?
Then makes a subjective response to a system of Law and refuses to consider context.
Because, clearly, the undefined something is much better today than it used to be, therefore Yahweh's take on this undefined something must be of lower value.
The opening post does not define what morality is or where it really comes from. But implies it doesn't come from Yahweh as an objective source, whatever it is.
The opening post asks for subjective reactions to hypothetical situations. How is that to be interpreted?
Then makes a subjective response to a system of Law and refuses to consider context.
Because, clearly, the undefined something is much better today than it used to be, therefore Yahweh's take on this undefined something must be of lower value.
What else am I missing?
Maybe proving a negative.
The opening post makes an assertion. Others have to prove "not i'm not" or agree. Or refrain from argument.
Edited by Bolshevik spelling, prove that it wasn't
Demonstration of his own, I presume is your intent...
(as in... open mouth, insert foot.)
There's always a risk. Interesting rabbit hole though. I found your point about the Law very cool.
Lucifer as I understand him, represents falling in love with your own creation. Your ideas perhaps. He didn't need infinity, God, he thought he had perfection and needed nothing else.
You're saying Man was the next plan? (Tolkien had men as replacement for elves . . just see a parallel don't know if that matters)
Lucifer as I understand him, represents falling in love with your own creation. Your ideas perhaps. He didn't need infinity, God, he thought he had perfection and needed nothing else.
I'm not really on board with that (or whatever it is that you might be trying to say - I'm not exactly sure.) Because it seems more likely that creative genius (if that's even a reasonably fair or sensible way to speak of it) would find itself more important than whatever was produced or resulted from it. At least, that's what appears to be mostly evidenced in lives today.
17 hours ago, Bolshevik said:
You're saying Man was the next plan?
In a way, yes. Think of it as "what if," if you want...
What if Lucifer was second, only to the Lord God, in all creation. (forget any nonsense about being one of three "archangels." there are no others beside him, and there is one - and only one - above him.) But, there came a point where that wasn't enough. And (you probably know this part) ... he abdicates his second place position and reaches for higher.
The result? A vacancy at the right hand of God (i.e., second only to God Himself.) You're a smart young guy... what should God to do? Create another perfect being to fill that position? Wait... wasn't the first one created perfect for that position? How is God going to do any better in a "do over"? And, what happens to the first character that failed (aka, the devil)?
What if (and to show how utterly foolish the prior morning star was), a rock - a chunk of dirt - (i.e., "man" - aka, Adam) is the nominee. But, there will be a time of proving, after which - if proven worthy, the appointment will be made.
well, it's a deep rabbit hole (not much related to this thread) ...and you're already working to fill in the blanks, so... 'nuff said.
This thread asks "Why would an all power all knowing all loving etc. God not make a perfect Law?"
In LOTR Eru Iluvatar, God, had all of his angels create music. Melkor (The Devil) tried to create rift in the music. Eru just smiled, somehow the disharmony fed back and eventually worked itself out. Which ....ed Melkor off even more. Even when he tried to destroy creation it worked out in favor of creation, in the long run.
The Law was not above the rest of creation. One little disharmony.
There's an importance to imperfection, isn't there?
Are there any of the OT laws you do like? Or are all of them, all bad?
Thou shalt not commit murder.
This is a stupid question, and I'm tired of you derailing with thread with irrelevant diversions like "Mesopotamia used to do such and such." Mesopotamia does not claim to be the source of objective morality.
At some point, the dishonest way you guys have approached the subject matter of this thread has to prick your conscience just a little.
It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equating the law with God Himself) is a false premise, something which Jesus himself appears to point out several times in the gospels:
Mark 3:4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
Luke 6:9 Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?
In fact, Paul rather plainly states that the law is not made for a righteous man (1Tim.1:9.) So, why suppose or portray God (who the scripture so clearly declares "good") as intending for the law to make Himself - or anyone else - appear "good"? Furthermore, along this same line, why would Paul acknowledge his own lack of good (see Rom.3:12) while at the same time tell us that concerning the righteousness of the law, he was without fault (Phil.3:6)?
There is nothing false about the premise I laid out.
If God is the source of objective morality, then his law should be objectively moral. Any argument to the contrary proves my point (namely, that he's NOT the source of objective morality, and therefore the imperfection of the law is no surprise).
There was never a time in history when it was an objectively moral punishment for a rapist to "have to" marry his victim and pay her father 50 shekels. An omniscient God would know that. So either he's not omniscient, he's not moral, or both.
It makes sense that a society's laws and understanding of morality would evolve with time. It makes no sense that a God's understanding of morality would evolve unless he were imperfect and immoral (or at least imperfectly moral) to begin with.
If God is the source of objective morality, then his law should be objectively moral.
Thus sayeth Raf.
Still, I think the error is in a simple failure to see the intent of the law, which in and of itself is designed to lead to the conclusion that apart from God (who is good) man is (and will one day be judged) inherently immoral (i.e., not good.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
266
38
32
188
Popular Days
Aug 7
50
Aug 8
46
Aug 2
42
Aug 1
33
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 266 posts
waysider 38 posts
TrustAndObey 32 posts
Bolshevik 188 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2017
50 posts
Aug 8 2017
46 posts
Aug 2 2017
42 posts
Aug 1 2017
33 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Raf.......YES! And so are you! TY!
TrustAndObey
I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it
TLC
It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equati
Posted Images
Bolshevik
If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock even he can't lift?
Frame a bad question, get . . . lots of stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
As elementary as that appears, I think there's a fundamentally different way to see it. However, lacking the innate ability to perceive spiritual realities, not only will natural man not see it, he'll find it impossible to understand or believe. This was not God's original intent, nor was it how He designed Adam. In short, I think the real choice that Adam had was not between good and evil, but rather, between what could be perceived and known spiritually, and what could be perceived and known physically. And the consequences of his choice (which is plainly evident) resulted in... yeah, you guessed it. The lack of choice for mankind thereafter. (that's the short version... more could be said, but perhaps you get the point)
I take it you mean, the best way possible - given and considering his inherent genetic limitations.
Unless you're equating wisdom with believing God (and you might be), I don't see it being some natural talent or ability that saved Noah. God didn't necessarily have much to work with here, but it was evidently enough to allow the grace of God to shine through. Consequently, the focus is centered on God's grace (and not Noah.)
I trust you realize that I'm not the source for that. (It probably starts in Rom.5:20.)
According to what is written in Rom.3:19, it was given to, and intended for, Israel. I don't know of anywhere in scripture that indicates it was at any time given to, or intended for (at any time), any of the rest of the world. But that's not letting the rest of the world "off the hook" (so to speak.) More than anything else, I suppose that Israel was singled out... favored above every nation in the world... to prove this one thing - that it really didn't matter. No one was worthy, and (absolutely) nobody (not even Jesus Christ) was going to get by or make it (past death) merely by trying to fine tune (or perfect, if you will) their "physical awareness" (which was the route that Adam chose to go when he "ate" of - and became one with - it.) It probably won't fit in your computer, but I actually don't see or think of the end of life in the flesh as a something that was only imposed upon man as a result of sin. (Note how that was worded.) As a further note to that, I also do not believe that Adam would have "lived forever" had he not sinned. Nor do I think that he would have died, had he not sinned. Not that I can necessarily prove it from scripture, but personally, I think that eternal life was always a part of God's original plan for man, and the life that Adam started with was (always) purposefully designed to be temporary. In other words, had he not sinned, it would eventually have needed to be "exchanged" (for lack of a better word) for what, I suppose, is the kind of life that Christ now has. (but, hey... my mind is far from normal, so it'd be highly unusual - if not impossible - for you to make much sense of this.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The opening post does not define what morality is or where it really comes from. But implies it doesn't come from Yahweh as an objective source, whatever it is.
The opening post asks for subjective reactions to hypothetical situations. How is that to be interpreted?
Then makes a subjective response to a system of Law and refuses to consider context.
Because, clearly, the undefined something is much better today than it used to be, therefore Yahweh's take on this undefined something must be of lower value.
What else am I missing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hey Raf,
Are there any of the OT laws you do like? Or are all of them, all bad?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Maybe proving a negative.
The opening post makes an assertion. Others have to prove "not i'm not" or agree. Or refrain from argument.
Edited by Bolshevikspelling, prove that it wasn't
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Raf.......YES! And so are you! TY!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Of course the writer of the book, if they defined Yahweh as the source of Objective Morality,
and as the reader, you subjectively feel, "hey that's not Moral"
Why did the writer put that in? Why did they want that reaction?
Is the conclusion and purpose of Old Testament therefore to hate Yahweh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Maybe this is where God's willingness equals God's ability comes in.
If he's able to make you suffer and destroy you, than he's willing to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Which does, happen, to everyone, which we all say is immoral. Therefore, He is.
He is a Jealous God after all.
Is it our Morality that makes us powerless to stop Him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"He was more moral than Yahweh" - Mrs. VPW, ultra-revised edition
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
That man wasn't first in Gen.1:1, and it was the fall of Lucifer that precipitated the reason for man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Raf has started threads to demonstrate logical fallacies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Demonstration of his own, I presume is your intent...
(as in... open mouth, insert foot.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
There's always a risk. Interesting rabbit hole though. I found your point about the Law very cool.
Lucifer as I understand him, represents falling in love with your own creation. Your ideas perhaps. He didn't need infinity, God, he thought he had perfection and needed nothing else.
You're saying Man was the next plan? (Tolkien had men as replacement for elves . . just see a parallel don't know if that matters)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I'm not really on board with that (or whatever it is that you might be trying to say - I'm not exactly sure.) Because it seems more likely that creative genius (if that's even a reasonably fair or sensible way to speak of it) would find itself more important than whatever was produced or resulted from it. At least, that's what appears to be mostly evidenced in lives today.
In a way, yes. Think of it as "what if," if you want...
What if Lucifer was second, only to the Lord God, in all creation. (forget any nonsense about being one of three "archangels." there are no others beside him, and there is one - and only one - above him.) But, there came a point where that wasn't enough. And (you probably know this part) ... he abdicates his second place position and reaches for higher.
The result? A vacancy at the right hand of God (i.e., second only to God Himself.) You're a smart young guy... what should God to do? Create another perfect being to fill that position? Wait... wasn't the first one created perfect for that position? How is God going to do any better in a "do over"? And, what happens to the first character that failed (aka, the devil)?
What if (and to show how utterly foolish the prior morning star was), a rock - a chunk of dirt - (i.e., "man" - aka, Adam) is the nominee. But, there will be a time of proving, after which - if proven worthy, the appointment will be made.
well, it's a deep rabbit hole (not much related to this thread) ...and you're already working to fill in the blanks, so... 'nuff said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It does relate
This thread asks "Why would an all power all knowing all loving etc. God not make a perfect Law?"
In LOTR Eru Iluvatar, God, had all of his angels create music. Melkor (The Devil) tried to create rift in the music. Eru just smiled, somehow the disharmony fed back and eventually worked itself out. Which ....ed Melkor off even more. Even when he tried to destroy creation it worked out in favor of creation, in the long run.
The Law was not above the rest of creation. One little disharmony.
There's an importance to imperfection, isn't there?
Edited by Bolshevikimperfect post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Are you guys done derailing all my threads? Because I'm over it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thou shalt not commit murder.
This is a stupid question, and I'm tired of you derailing with thread with irrelevant diversions like "Mesopotamia used to do such and such." Mesopotamia does not claim to be the source of objective morality.
At some point, the dishonest way you guys have approached the subject matter of this thread has to prick your conscience just a little.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It's not a stupid question since it asks how you are reading it.
Why would the bible say God is the source of objective morality? (assuming it really does)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The Bible doesn't.
People say it of Yahweh. It is that premise that I am challenging. If you do not accept that premise, then I am not arguing with you.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-god
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equating the law with God Himself) is a false premise, something which Jesus himself appears to point out several times in the gospels:
In fact, Paul rather plainly states that the law is not made for a righteous man (1Tim.1:9.) So, why suppose or portray God (who the scripture so clearly declares "good") as intending for the law to make Himself - or anyone else - appear "good"? Furthermore, along this same line, why would Paul acknowledge his own lack of good (see Rom.3:12) while at the same time tell us that concerning the righteousness of the law, he was without fault (Phil.3:6)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There is nothing false about the premise I laid out.
If God is the source of objective morality, then his law should be objectively moral. Any argument to the contrary proves my point (namely, that he's NOT the source of objective morality, and therefore the imperfection of the law is no surprise).
There was never a time in history when it was an objectively moral punishment for a rapist to "have to" marry his victim and pay her father 50 shekels. An omniscient God would know that. So either he's not omniscient, he's not moral, or both.
It makes sense that a society's laws and understanding of morality would evolve with time. It makes no sense that a God's understanding of morality would evolve unless he were imperfect and immoral (or at least imperfectly moral) to begin with.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Thus sayeth Raf.
Still, I think the error is in a simple failure to see the intent of the law, which in and of itself is designed to lead to the conclusion that apart from God (who is good) man is (and will one day be judged) inherently immoral (i.e., not good.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.