Christians..."Trinity"?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Okay first of all, this is the second time you've accused me of being a Jehovah's Witness. I've already told you that I'm not. If you're going to continue making false accusations about me and trying to incorporate that as part of your argument, then I am no longer interested in communicating with you. So consider that strike two!

First off, I've never accused you of being a Jehovah's Witness in the first place. So I don't know how you get to a "second time" when there wasn't even a first time. Second, this so called "second time" you are referring too, I STILL didn't accuse you of being a Jehovah's Witness, I said your line of reasoning was the same as that of a Jehovah's Witness, which is not the same thing as saying you are one.


Ahhh, a home run right after "strike two".

Secondly, don't you think it'd be better to hold this discussion for the separate about Jesus and Michael, instead of hijacking this one?

Just tell me where you want to take it and I will be there a half hour early :beach:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, he will not ever sin.

And neither would Jesus, right? So basically you are saying that mere created beings have the same moral perfection as the Almighty. Is that what you are saying?

Likewise, if an Angel was incarnated on Earth (at least those who did not descend to mate with human women in Genesis 6), especially the Archangels or the highest in command of the Angels, the Firstborn among them, the "Logos", he or she would not sin either.

So would they not sin because it is impossible for them too, or because they could, but they won't?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, first consider what Joseph's response was to Potiphar's wife.

Genesis 39:8-9
8 But he refused. “With me in charge,” he told her, “my master does not concern himself with anything in the house; everything he owns he has entrusted to my care. 9 No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?”

Ok so let me put it this way. At what point are we sinning? If I think a thought of me engaging in any type of sinful act, am I sinning because of the mere thought? Or am I sinning when I actually consider engaging in the sinful act? Is it the mere thought, or is it thought + desire? I think the latter. So in the case of Joseph, maybe the thought crossed his mind, and lets face it, all kind of crazy thoughts come to our mind from time to time that we would NEVER consider actually doing. So maybe the thought came to his mind, but the desire wasn't there. And in the case of Jesus, maybe the thought came to his mind, but the desire wasn't there. So after careful consideration, I will go with the definition of "tempt", and according to dictionary.com there are five definitions, but I think the fourth one is perfect in the case of Jesus: "To put (someone) to the test in a venturesome way".

And my point is that according to Hebrews 4:15, HE WAS. And IF he wasn't, then how could this legitimately serve as an example for mankind to follow? If Jesus COULDN'T be tempted as we could, then what was the point of the test? Why would the devil "tempt" him if he was incapable of being tempted? That doesn't make any sense!

Right, and that is the point!!! Paul said that Jesus was tempted, and yet without sin!!! So the example was for us to get to a point in our spiritual lives where we can get tempted, and STILL be without sin, just like Jesus did. So it goes back to the definition of "tempted". If Jesus was without sin, then he obviously didn't have the desire to do what Satan tried to get him to do, right? Sin only comes with the desire, so just like in the case of Joseph, if she came on to him and he desired to do it and thought of the good time he would have, then that would be considered adultry because even Jesus said if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he commits adultry in his heart. If you lust after someone, you have desire, and according to Jesus, desire = sin. So obviously Jesus was tempted without desire because he was without sin, which further substantiates my original point.

I think your taking the scriptures a little bit out of context. It isn't that "thinking about doing something wrong" is considered a sin

Then was is it? Are you saying that thinking about stealing something isn't a sin? Thinking about murdering someone isn't a sin?

, it's that thinking about committing ADULTERY is the same thing as committing adultery. That passage has nothing to do with "being tempted", it has to do with what constitutes adultery. Applying it to any temptation in the general sense is taking it out of context.

It is the same concept. You just said yourself that thinking about committing adultery is the same thing as committing adultry. So imagine a woman tempting you to commit adultery with her and you have a desire to do so, are you not still commiting adultery based on your thoughtful desire?? Its the same thing.

All human beings are subject to temptations of the flesh. This is not something in our control and being tempted is not in itself a sin. Sin occurs when we succumb to our temptations and act upon them when we know it's wrong. It is our responsibility to resist temptations (as Jesus did) and act in accordance with his expectations.

I agree but it is not limited to the act itself, it is the thought also. If you are going to tell me that it is not a sin to have a desire to commit sinful acts, then you apparently hold to a different Christian theology than me.

James 4:7
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

It is "resistance" in the face of temptation that makes us righteous, and not the inability to be tempted.

Yeah, we can think about murdering people all day long. Not only is God ok with that, but it is something that Jesus would do.

That would be a misapplication of the intent of Matthew 5:28 (for aforementioned reasons). Additionally, this reasoning would further invalidate the point of the story of the temptation of Christ. Again, if he could not be tempted into sin in the way that we can (in the way that Hebrews 4 states), then he provided no lesson for us at all. The intended lesson is that he "resisted" temptation, therefore we must also resist temptation.

And according to my aformentioned explanations, back to the definition of "tempted". Ifyou are "tempted", you are to get to a spiritual point where you won't even have a desire to do certain things, no matter how desirable things once was.

I will give you an example of what I mean, and this is about the best example I can give you and if you still don't get it then I don't know what to tell ya :sorry1: . What is man's biggest weakness? Some will say women, right?

Now imagine the most unattractive most disgusting looking woman, in your opinion. Now suppose this woman was to try to seduce you in some way. Now, because of this seduction, suppose it crosses your mind for a split second, but you have absolutely no desire whatsoever to be with this woman that way. Are you being tempted? Well, depending on the definition of "tempted". Are you sinning? Absolutely not, because the desire isn't there, which is opposite of what Jesus talked about in Matt 5:28.

Now, imagine the most beautifully attractive woman (in your opinion), imagine if she was to seduce you in some way, but this time, you really THINK about it. You want it, you desire it...you mentally place yourself in the situation, so you are already there mentally before you are there physically...THAT is temptation. THAT is lust. THAT is sin. And THAT is what Jesus is talking about in Matt 5:28.

So if you believe as I do (which you don't) that to desire a sinful act is to sin, then for Jesus to be without sin he couldn't have DESIRED to do what he was being influenced to do, which is what we as Christians should be able to get to that point as well. Now of course we won't succeed every single time, but we are suppose to strive to get to that level. That was the point of the "temptation of Jesus".

God can not sin (by definition), but Jesus COULD sin because he had free will.

I guess we have a fundamental disagree on this. It is my belief if Jesus COULD sin, but he DIDN'T sin, that would still make him morally imperfect. First off, I don't believe that any human could live a sinless life, and by "sinless life" I mean going an entire life of without committing one single sin. I believe that the only person that COULD accomplish such a feat would be God himself, since only God is morally perfect. And I substaniate this belief based on the fact that if it was possible for a mere man to be able to do such a thing, then Jesus wasn't special in the sense that God could have had any other morally perfect person to die for the sins of the world, and there would be nothing objectively special about Jesus. That is just my personal opinion and while it isn't a knockout case, there is more pros than cons.

The ability to sin does not make someone "tainted" as long as they choose not to. Adam had the ability to sin the day he was created, but the bible says that he didn't become "imperfect" until he chose to sin. Sure it's "possible", (albiet highly unlikely). If every "sin" is in fact a choice made in free will, then you always have the ability NOT to sin.

This, I believe is an equivocation of the word "perfect". God didn't create man morally perfect. If a man plays basketball and he is a good free throw shooter, and he made 100% of his free throws over the course of the season, he is perfect...in the sense that he made all of his free throw attempts. But he ISN'T perfect in the sense that he CANNOT miss ANY free throws. The probability of him missing is always there, even if he shoots a million for a million from the line. So if it were possible for Jesus to sin, then he would still be morally imperfect. And that is why I keep asking; was Jesus morally perfect because he could sin but didn't sin, or was he morally perfect because he didn't sin, because he COULDN'T sin. I think the latter.

I never suggested that it was in the first place.

Well you said it was possible for Jesus to sin but he didn't. If it is possible for you to sin, then guess what, you have a sinful nature.

You are defining what it means to be "morally perfect" by your own standards, but the bible speaks of others who were "blameless and righteous" in the eyes of God.

Sherm made this same point so I will ask you the same thing I asked you...take any person in the bible or in the history of mankind that were "blameless and righteous" in the eyes of God...would the deaths of either of those individuals be sufficient enough as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind?? So could the death of Jesus had been replaced by the deaths of John the Baptist, Noah, or Job?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I was just asking if you agreed or knew that John 1:1c should read "a god" since you didn't counter COTW's use of it with such, that is all.

But it shouldn't, that is point.

 

[captainbryce]

First off, I've never accused you of being a Jehovah's Witness in the first place. So I don't know how you get to a "second time" when there wasn't even a first time.

Allow me to refer you back to post #285

QUOTE: "Man I swear you are a under cover Jehovah's Witness. That is exactly what they would say hahaha."
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3549967-post285.html

And then post #300

QUOTE: "You are making it seem as if there is a scriptural rule which states that Michael’s name can only be used when it is in the context of angels battling demons. Sounds like Jehovah’s Witness logic to me."
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3553426-post300.html

Second, this so called "second time" you are referring too, I STILL didn't accuse you of being a Jehovah's Witness, I said your line of reasoning was the same as that of a Jehovah's Witness, which is not the same thing as saying you are one.

What's the point of bringing up what some other religious denomination thinks? This was obviously an attempt to link me with Jehovah's Witnesses (as you did the first time). So yes, while you technically, "cleverly" didn't directly accuse me of being one, indirectly that's exactly what you are in fact doing, otherwise why do you keep bringing them up?

I think your taking the scriptures a little bit out of context. It isn't that "thinking about doing something wrong" is considered a sin

Then was is it? Are you saying that thinking about stealing something isn't a sin? Thinking about murdering someone isn't a sin?

Ok so let me put it this way. At what point are we sinning? If I think a thought of me engaging in any type of sinful act, am I sinning because of the mere thought? Or am I sinning when I actually consider engaging in the sinful act? Is it the mere thought, or is it thought + desire? I think the latter.

I don't think it's that simple. I don't think there is an equation that you or I can simply plug in and come up with a solution as far as what constitutes sin. I believe that it all depends on the situation and mostly on the individual. What was in that person's heart at the time? Because that's what matters.

1) If a man wants to slash the tires of his ex-wife's new boyfriend and then acts on it, then the man is guilty of sin (IMO)!

2) If a man considers slashing the tires of his ex-wife's new boyfriend, but doesn't act on it for fear of getting caught and prosecuted for vandalism, then the man is STILL guilty of sin (IMO)!

3) If a man considers slashing the tires of his ex-wife's new boyfriend for a moment, but then realizes that this is not what Jesus would do, and decides to be the better man and not slash the tires, then he is not guilty of sin (IMO).

4) If a man considers slashing the tires of his ex-wife's new boyfriend for a moment, but then decides to take pity on the boyfriend (and the ex-wife) instead and subsequently prays for them, then he is not guilty of sin (IMO).

In each case, the man had the initial thought AND desire to commit a sinful act; but it was the thoughts which followed the initial thought that affected his desire and ultimately influenced his decisions. Personally, I believe that the reason why you choose to commit the act or not to commit the act determines whether or not you are guilty of sin, not necessarily the initial thought or desire to do it. In other words, WHY did you choose not to commit the sinful act. Was it for the right reasons or the wrong reasons? But this is why we can't simply say that someone else is a sinner or not a sinner, because we don't know what's in other people's hearts as Jesus does.

Even breaking a commandment (while an act of sin) may not necessarily be judged as an unrighteous act if the person acted righteously. If a mother steals baby food from a Walmart in order to feed her starving baby, is she guilty of sin? Many would argue yes, because she violated God's commandment "thou shalt not steal". However, if she didn't steal with malice in her heart but only for a good cause, do you think Jesus would still held her in contempt? As Paul says, we are not saved by works of the law, but through faith in Christ.

1 Corinthians 4:3-5
3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

The point is, regardless of what you DID or failed to do, at the end of the day, each person knows in their heart whether or not they are guilty of sin, and so does Jesus. I believe that certain acts may be deemed as "sinful", and certain thoughts and/or desires may also be deemed as "sinful". But ultimately our sins are judged based on the "motives" and "attitudes" behind these thoughts or actions (the reason WHY we have such thoughts or commit certain actions).

1 John 3:15
Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

So in the case of Joseph, maybe the thought crossed his mind, and lets face it, all kind of crazy thoughts come to our mind from time to time that we would NEVER consider actually doing. So maybe the thought came to his mind, but the desire wasn't there.

I don't like using the term "desire" when it comes to "sexual sins" because it is easy to conflate the true meaning of the word. In a sexual sense, desire means "arousal", but in other contexts it means something totally different. So I would put it more like this: Joseph may have thought about Potiphar's wife in a sexual way, and may have even been aroused by the thought. But despite his attraction to her, he had no motive or intent to actually pursue her (not because he thought he might get caught, but because in his heart he knew that it was morally wrong). That is what I equate with the temptation of Christ. I don't think Matthew would have bothered to mention Jesus being "hungry" if he had no desire to eat. It isn't that he had no desire to eat, it's that he was motivated to obey God and thus had no intention of eating.

So the example was for us to get to a point in our spiritual lives where we can get tempted, and STILL be without sin, just like Jesus did.

Exactly. So this answers your question of whether or not it is possible for a human being to commit no sins. The answer is yes!

It is the same concept. You just said yourself that thinking about committing adultery is the same thing as committing adultry. So imagine a woman tempting you to commit adultery with her and you have a desire to do so, are you not still commiting adultery based on your thoughtful desire?? Its the same thing.

Again, it depends on your INTENT. It is not a simple equation as you are making it out to be. I don't think it's as simple as "what you are thinking about". I think it is more likely a combination of "why you are thinking about it", "how long you dwell on such thoughts", "what you choose to do with such thoughts", and "what motivates you to make the choice you made".

If you choose not to commit adultery with her, then WHY did you make this choice? What was in your heart at the time? These are questions that we cannot answer about other people, only Jesus can.

I agree but it is not limited to the act itself, it is the thought also. If you are going to tell me that it is not a sin to have a desire to commit sinful acts, then you apparently hold to a different Christian theology than me.

I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. My position is not so cut and dry as you are painting it to be. Please see my above reasoning and re-evaluate!

Yeah, we can think about murdering people all day long. Not only is God ok with that, but it is something that Jesus would do.

Your sarcasm is not becoming of you. This is a straw man argument!

 

[captainbryce]

I guess we have a fundamental disagree on this. It is my belief if Jesus COULD sin, but he DIDN'T sin, that would still make him morally imperfect.

Why? Both Satan and Adam were created morally perfect by God, and yet they also both had the ability to sin. How do you explain that?

First off, I don't believe that any human could live a sinless life, and by "sinless life" I mean going an entire life of without committing one single sin.

I believe that Jesus proved that you can. I also believe that Luke 1:5–6 proves that Zacharias and Elizabeth accomplished this. Granted, I believe that it is highly unlikely (given our sinful nature) that we could do this, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. Every sin is a choice! If we have a choice, then we can always choose not to sin.

I believe that the only person that COULD accomplish such a feat would be God himself, since only God is morally perfect. And I substaniate this belief based on the fact that if it was possible for a mere man to be able to do such a thing, then Jesus wasn't special in the sense that God could have had any other morally perfect person to die for the sins of the world, and there would be nothing objectively special about Jesus.

There is a major flaw in your logic here. The difference between Jesus and the others is that he was not born into sin, whereas everyone else was. I believe that the only thing that compels us to make sinful choices is our sinful nature (that we inherited from Adam, which Jesus did not). So it isn't the fact that Jesus is God, it's the fact that he did not have a sinful nature as we do. But having a sinful nature does not mean you are a slave to sin, nor is the opposite true. Zacharias and Elizabeth both had a sinful nature, yet they chose not to sin, whereas Adam did NOT have a sinful nature, yet he chose to sin. Again, if Satan knew that Jesus could not be tempted, then what was the point of the test? That question has still not been answered!

This, I believe is an equivocation of the word "perfect". God didn't create man morally perfect.

Yes he did! God is morally perfect and he created man in his own image and his own likeness, then blessed them and saw that they (along with everything else he made) was GOOD! Man did not know evil until he ate of the tree of knowledge. That is what the scriptures say. So where do you derive the notion that God intentionally created man to be "morally imperfect"? If God is "good", then why would God do this?

If a man plays basketball and he is a good free throw shooter, and he made 100% of his free throws over the course of the season, he is perfect...in the sense that he made all of his free throw attempts. But he ISN'T perfect in the sense that he CANNOT miss ANY free throws.

Irrelevant. Your argument is akin to saying that any being of free will is "morally imperfect" because they have the ability to sin. And that's not how I define "morally imperfect", and I don't think that's how God would have defined it either. Under your interpretation, the only way to be morally perfect is to not have the ability to sin. In other words, we'd all have to be programmed slaves. But that's not how God created any of his living beings. Angels, humans and animals all have free will! We don't become morally imperfect until we have the intent to do something "immoral".

So if it were possible for Jesus to sin, then he would still be morally imperfect.

You're entitled to your opinion. For the record, I don't agree.

And that is why I keep asking; was Jesus morally perfect because he could sin but didn't sin, or was he morally perfect because he didn't sin, because he COULDN'T sin. I think the latter.

I think the former! I think that if he couldn't sin, then there is no purpose for the temptation of Christ.

Well you said it was possible for Jesus to sin but he didn't. If it is possible for you to sin, then guess what, you have a sinful nature.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't find your opinion to be consistent with scripture. The King of Tyre who was Satan was the "seal of perfection" and "blameless in his ways" from the day he was created until wickedness was found in him. God didn't create him with a sinful nature!

Sherm made this same point so I will ask you the same thing I asked you...take any person in the bible or in the history of mankind that were "blameless and righteous" in the eyes of God...would the deaths of either of those individuals be sufficient enough as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind?? So could the death of Jesus had been replaced by the deaths of John the Baptist, Noah, or Job?

The answer is no, but the reason for that isn't because they committed any sins. It is because they were BORN INTO SIN. Do you believe in the concept of original sin? Only someone who was born free of sin can atone for someone else's sins. Even a man who lives a sinless life is still tainted by original sin (except Jesus). We must still die in order to atone for the sin of Adam, no matter how good we are. Therefore, we cannot atone for anyone else's sins even if we commit no sins.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

 

[Shermana]

But it shouldn't, that is point.

Oh but it should.

That's the point.

 

[Shermana]

And neither would Jesus, right? So basically you are saying that mere created beings have the same moral perfection as the Almighty. Is that what you are saying?



So would they not sin because it is impossible for them too, or because they could, but they won't?

Because they won't. Likewise, it wouldn't be impossible for God to sin either. He just won't either.

Do you deny that the Angels wouldn't sin? How do you know they would?

 

[aka[DoW]]

Angels did sin... nephelim was the result.

 

[Shermana]

Angels did sin... nephelim was the result.

Right, they are CAPABLE of sinning.

Just like God and Jesus are CAPABLE of sinning. There was no magic force which prohibited Jesus from sinning. It was purely his own free will of which he was perfectly obedient to the Law and Commands of God.

But the ones who refused to sin, would they necessarily sin if they were on Earth? Not necessarily. I would place my bets against Uriel and Raphael and Michael and Gabriel sinning whatsoever if they were incarnated on Earth either.

 

[aka[DoW]]

Right, they are CAPABLE of sinning.

Just like God and Jesus are CAPABLE of sinning. There was no magic force which prohibited Jesus from sinning. It was purely his own free will of which he was perfectly obedient to the Law and Commands of God.

But the ones who refused to sin, would they necessarily sin if they were on Earth? Not necessarily. I would place my bets against Uriel and Raphael and Michael and Gabriel sinning whatsoever if they were incarnated on Earth either.

God capable of sinning???? The only way for God to sin would be for Him to go against His nature.. which is impossible because to do such a thing He would have to stop being God.

 

[Shermana]

God capable of sinning???? The only way for God to sin would be for Him to go against His nature.. which is impossible because to do such a thing He would have to stop being God.

Then you're saying God has no Free will.

I don't see however why being God would make it so he can't sin. That's just some artificial dogma that has no scriptural basis. he can do whatever he wants. He just chooses to do no error, that's what makes him perfect. If he wasn't capable of erring, he wouldn't be perfect, he'd be a robot.

Now if your Theology is believing in a big robot in the sky, that's fine.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because they won't. Likewise, it wouldn't be impossible for God to sin either. He just won't either.

God can't do something that is contrary to his nature, and his exercised free will won't allow him to do something that contradicts his essence.

Do you deny that the Angels wouldn't sin? How do you know they would?

You do realize that Satan and his crew are all fallen angels, right?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then you're saying God has no Free will.

So I believe the question is...is the possibility of sin consistent with the attribute of omnibenevolence? After some heavy thought, I don't believe the possibility of sin is consistent with omnibenevolence, and here is why:

Now you said belove that God can sin, but he won't. I respectfully disagree, because before you sin, you have to have the thought/desire to sin. I don't believe God can have the thought/desire of sinning. Sin is an abomination to him, and he would never desire to do such a thing. So if he will never have even the DESIRE to commit such acts, how could he ever actually commit the act?

I believe God does have free will, but remember, free will is only the capability to freely choose to do something. God cannot freely choose to do something that is contrary to his character, because if he did, he wouldn't be God. Now that is my line of reasoning, and I factor that reasoning in with the fact that I find it highly unlikely that other holy men throughout the bible, their deaths would be sufficient to die for the sins of the world. Only God could have the moral character to accomplish this, and all others would fall short.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why? Both Satan and Adam were created morally perfect by God, and yet they also both had the ability to sin. How do you explain that?

Once again, equivocating the word "perfect".

I believe that Jesus proved that you can. I also believe that Luke 1:5–6 proves that Zacharias and Elizabeth accomplished this. Granted, I believe that it is highly unlikely (given our sinful nature) that we could do this, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. Every sin is a choice! If we have a choice, then we can always choose not to sin.

Three things that jumped out at me immediately. First, you are assuming that just because the bible call them blameless that they were "blameless" their whole lives. You don't know what kind of lives they lived before Zachariars' priesthood. Second, if you are willing to grant that they were morally perfect, then you are saying that either one of their deaths would have been sufficient enough for the sins of mankind, if that is the case. Are you prepared to say that? Third, to say that any created being is morally perfect is to say that that person's moral character is on the same level as God, since he is morally perfect...and are you prepared to say that as well.

There is a major flaw in your logic here. The difference between Jesus and the others is that he was not born into sin, whereas everyone else was.

Being born in to sin is irrelevant if you believe that people can live morally perfect lives. If Zecharias and Mary were morally perfect as you seem to think, then it doesn't matter a darn whether or not they were born into sin, would does it?

I believe that the only thing that compels us to make sinful choices is our sinful nature (that we inherited from Adam, which Jesus did not). So it isn't the fact that Jesus is God, it's the fact that he did not have a sinful nature as we do. But having a sinful nature does not mean you are a slave to sin, nor is the opposite true. Zacharias and Elizabeth both had a sinful nature, yet they chose not to sin, whereas Adam did NOT have a sinful nature, yet he chose to sin.

Same answer as above. If it is possible for people to live morally perfect lives, then how they are born is irrelevant.

Again, if Satan knew that Jesus could not be tempted, then what was the point of the test? That question has still not been answered!

Maybe he didn't know? Why assume he knew?

Yes he did! God is morally perfect and he created man in his own image and his own likeness, then blessed them and saw that they (along with everything else he made) was GOOD! Man did not know evil until he ate of the tree of knowledge. That is what the scriptures say. So where do you derive the notion that God intentionally created man to be "morally imperfect"? If God is "good", then why would God do this?

Umm, Bryce, the fact that they eventually sinned goes to show you how morally perfect they were. No imperfection can come from perfection.

Irrelevant. Your argument is akin to saying that any being of free will is "morally imperfect" because they have the ability to sin.

How can you be considered "morally perfect" if there is a chance that you can commit a immoral act? Makese no sense.

And that's not how I define "morally imperfect", and I don't think that's how God would have defined it either. Under your interpretation, the only way to be morally perfect is to not have the ability to sin.

Right!!! Can you call a car a "perfectly running car" (without using a figure of speech) if the car has the ability to not run properly?

In other words, we'd all have to be programmed slaves. But that's not how God created any of his living beings. Angels, humans and animals all have free will! We don't become morally imperfect until we have the intent to do something "immoral".

I used the basketball/free throw shooter example, one that describes how you continually equivocate the word "perfect", and one that I would like a direct response to.

I think the former! I think that if he couldn't sin, then there is no purpose for the temptation of Christ.

I've already answered this.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't find your opinion to be consistent with scripture. The King of Tyre who was Satan was the "seal of perfection" and "blameless in his ways" from the day he was created until wickedness was found in him. God didn't create him with a sinful nature!

So he was blameless in his ways, but found wickedness? That doesn't sound like moral perfection to me.

The answer is no, but the reason for that isn't because they committed any sins. It is because they were BORN INTO SIN. Do you believe in the concept of original sin? Only someone who was born free of sin can atone for someone else's sins. Even a man who lives a sinless life is still tainted by original sin (except Jesus). We must still die in order to atone for the sin of Adam, no matter how good we are. Therefore, we cannot atone for anyone else's sins even if we commit no sins.

Well, explain what does being "tainted" by sin means. If you are morally perfect, then tainted by sin is irrelevant. Tained by sin, but still perfect? Makes no sense.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Allow me to refer you back to post #285

QUOTE: "Man I swear you are a under cover Jehovah's Witness. That is exactly what they would say hahaha."
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3549967-post285.html

Oh I forgot about that one, sue me. :cigar:

 

[Shermana]

So I believe the question is...is the possibility of sin consistent with the attribute of omnibenevolence? After some heavy thought, I don't believe the possibility of sin is consistent with omnibenevolence, and here is why:

Now you said belove that God can sin, but he won't. I respectfully disagree, because before you sin, you have to have the thought/desire to sin. I don't believe God can have the thought/desire of sinning. Sin is an abomination to him, and he would never desire to do such a thing. So if he will never have even the DESIRE to commit such acts, how could he ever actually commit the act?

I believe God does have free will, but remember, free will is only the capability to freely choose to do something. God cannot freely choose to do something that is contrary to his character, because if he did, he wouldn't be God. Now that is my line of reasoning, and I factor that reasoning in with the fact that I find it highly unlikely that other holy men throughout the bible, their deaths would be sufficient to die for the sins of the world. Only God could have the moral character to accomplish this, and all others would fall short.

God can't freely choose to sin because it's not his character? Says who? Character has to do with what you're capable of doing. It has to do with what you choose to do within your capabilities. It has nothing to do with simply being robotic and following a series of Protocol simply because there's no other option. Character is defined BECAUSE of options.

Now you have yet to explain why the Archangels would be sure to sin if they lived on the Earth. Just because a few angels sinned doesn't mean they would too, especially if they demonstrated such loyalty to not join them.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

God can't freely choose to sin because it's not his character? Says who? Character has to do with what you're capable of doing.

We are talking moral perfection here, right?? If it is possible for imperfection to come from perfection, then it wasn't perfection in the first place? Or do you have a different meaning of "perfection" that neither I nor Webster's dictionary know about.

It has to do with what you choose to do within your capabilities. It has nothing to do with simply being robotic and following a series of Protocol simply because there's no other option. Character is defined BECAUSE of options.

Ok so I have a two questions for you...

1. Is there a possible world at which Jesus would sin? (If you claim that it was possible for Jesus to sin, but he wouldn't).

2. Is there a possible world at which God (the Father) would sin? (If you claim that it is possible for God to sin, but he won't).

I anxiously wait for your response.

Now you have yet to explain why the Archangels would be sure to sin if they lived on the Earth. Just because a few angels sinned doesn't mean they would too, especially if they demonstrated such loyalty to not join them.

I don't know about being "sure" to sin, but the possibility was obviously there, due to the fact that we have fallen angels and all.

 

[Shermana]

We are talking moral perfection here, right?? If it is possible for imperfection to come from perfection, then it wasn't perfection in the first place? Or do you have a different meaning of "perfection" that neither I nor Webster's dictionary know about.

These are abritrary abstracts using human terminology and concepts we place upon them. "Perfection" can also be defined as "That which is capable of being corrupted but isn't".

Ok so I have a two questions for you...

1. Is there a possible world at which Jesus would sin? (If you claim that it was possible for Jesus to sin, but he wouldn't).

There's a possible world where we're all talking horses in a Magical My Little Pony Universe of Sunshine and Gumdrops, called Bronytopia. There's a possible world where Good is evil and evil is good.

However, I would argue that in every single existence, all characteristics are constant, and Jesus would not sin because of his character. So I would say its possible, but highly unlikely. Again, this is about personal choice.

2. Is there a possible world at which God (the Father) would sin? (If you claim that it is possible for God to sin, but he won't).

I would say its possible but unlikely.

I don't know about being "sure" to sin, but the possibility was obviously there, due to the fact that we have fallen angels and all

If it wasn't possible for Jesus, the Devil wouldn't have tempted him. That silly devil, how stupid of him for not knowing Jesus couldn't POSSIBLY sin. What a waste of time that was. He could have been busy roasting bronies on a spit.

 

[captainbryce]

Then you're saying God has no Free will.

I don't think anyone is saying that.

I don't see however why being God would make it so he can't sin.

Because most people understand the definition of SIN to be "doing something that goes against God". So God committing a sin is a paradox! How can God do something that is against what he wants? Anything that God chooses to do, is something that he WANTS to do (otherwise, he wouldn't do it).

That's just some artificial dogma that has no scriptural basis. he can do whatever he wants.

Then, by definition it would no longer be a "sin" for him to do it!

He just chooses to do no error, that's what makes him perfect. If he wasn't capable of erring, he wouldn't be perfect, he'd be a robot.

That argument is not consistent with logic. A "robot" that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present, that is incapable of doing any "wrong" IS perfect! If it was capable of making a mistake, then it wouldn't perfect! That's why HAL-9000 says that computers like him have a "perfect operational record"; because they are incapable of making an error. Once an error is recorded, then it is no longer considered "perfect".