Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Luggenshump! Runt that's genius! We shall mourn our lack of luggenshump while worshipping the goddess Fuglyploof!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The 'Trinity' of Religious Contradiction
- Thread starter Ceridwen018
- Start date
There are a lot of terms here that are being used interchangably, but that are not synonymous.
Disobedience is NOT evil. It's result is evil.
The ability to choose is not Free Will. There is no inherent value in the ability to choose.
And Free Will is not an ultimate value.
God wants people that can LOVE Him freely. If a being had the ability to do anything they wanted but could in no way disobey his maker, if he could in no way displease him, if he could only enjoy serving his maker, then that being could NOT freely love his maker, he would in effect be forced to do it, he would be a robot.
Side note: Because you lack the ability for interstellar travel, does not effect you ability to choose. You can choose to travel to another star, it would just kill you. This is the point of disobedience. We have free will. We have the ability to make chooses outside of our programming, outside of our capabilities, we can choose to hate our maker, love from such a being is a thing to be coveted, which is why people marry, have children, etc.
Disobedience is NOT evil. It's result is evil.
The ability to choose is not Free Will. There is no inherent value in the ability to choose.
And Free Will is not an ultimate value.
God wants people that can LOVE Him freely. If a being had the ability to do anything they wanted but could in no way disobey his maker, if he could in no way displease him, if he could only enjoy serving his maker, then that being could NOT freely love his maker, he would in effect be forced to do it, he would be a robot.
Side note: Because you lack the ability for interstellar travel, does not effect you ability to choose. You can choose to travel to another star, it would just kill you. This is the point of disobedience. We have free will. We have the ability to make chooses outside of our programming, outside of our capabilities, we can choose to hate our maker, love from such a being is a thing to be coveted, which is why people marry, have children, etc.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
dharveymi,
So something which is good can create evil? If that be true, then it would be possible for god to create evil wouldn't it?
Then, praytell, what is free-will?
I see what you're saying here. Allow me to make an analogy:
A young mother is dropping her small child off at his first day of day-care. This will be the first big time that mother and child have been separated pretty much since his birth. It is a traumatizing event for both of them, however necessary. The smart thing for the mother to do, would be to drop the child as quickly as possible and speed off while the child is interested in something else, for if the child were to see her leave, he would surely cry for her to stay, whereas if he doesn't see her leave, he might assume she's just around somewhere and continue to play by himself. However, the mother can't stand the thought of her child's growing independence, and so hangs around a little longer than she should, hoping the child will grow restless and look for her, therefore satisfying her desire to feel needed and useful. Much to her dismay, the child finds this whole day-care thing pretty cool, and continues to play by himself and his new friends. Seeing this, the mother rushes out of the day-care and into her car, where she breaks down in tears.
The mother is obviously in the wrong here. Although she'd like for her child to stay a baby forever, and although she really enjoyed the feeling of having someone be totally dependent on her, it is a natural and necessary process for children to develop independence and grow up, as much as it may pain a parent's heart to know they aren't needed as much anymore.
For god to give us the choice of loving him or not loving him, because he wants us to run to him even in the midst of temptation, is to relegate him to nothing more than a young mother with a needy complex.
So something which is good can create evil? If that be true, then it would be possible for god to create evil wouldn't it?
Then, praytell, what is free-will?
I see what you're saying here. Allow me to make an analogy:
A young mother is dropping her small child off at his first day of day-care. This will be the first big time that mother and child have been separated pretty much since his birth. It is a traumatizing event for both of them, however necessary. The smart thing for the mother to do, would be to drop the child as quickly as possible and speed off while the child is interested in something else, for if the child were to see her leave, he would surely cry for her to stay, whereas if he doesn't see her leave, he might assume she's just around somewhere and continue to play by himself. However, the mother can't stand the thought of her child's growing independence, and so hangs around a little longer than she should, hoping the child will grow restless and look for her, therefore satisfying her desire to feel needed and useful. Much to her dismay, the child finds this whole day-care thing pretty cool, and continues to play by himself and his new friends. Seeing this, the mother rushes out of the day-care and into her car, where she breaks down in tears.
The mother is obviously in the wrong here. Although she'd like for her child to stay a baby forever, and although she really enjoyed the feeling of having someone be totally dependent on her, it is a natural and necessary process for children to develop independence and grow up, as much as it may pain a parent's heart to know they aren't needed as much anymore.
For god to give us the choice of loving him or not loving him, because he wants us to run to him even in the midst of temptation, is to relegate him to nothing more than a young mother with a needy complex.
Why is the mother wrong? Why do we have to run to Him when tempted? What did the mother do wrong? Shouldn't the mother want the love of her child? Why was the mother crying? Was there joy in her sorrow? Does God want us to choose obedience even when He isn't arround? I like your analogy. I think God is like the mother. I can't see how that's a bad thing. Do you have children?
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
The mother hung around at the day-care because she wanted her child to NOT be interested in his new school, and therefore continue on the path of independence, but to come running to her and affirm her need to be needed. After spending all day every day with her baby, the mother was having to let him go a little, which is understandably hard. The mother was crying because she felt that her child 'rejected' her in a sense because he chose to be more interested in his new surroundings than to cry for her.
The mother was wrong because children need to grow up and become independent, and she was trying to hinder that growth. This exact scenario takes place everyday. Every mother is guilty of it, and every mother has to go through it, but a good mother recognizes that she must take the next step in parenting and allow her child to become less dependent on her. Parents who do not allow this natural process end up with children who are still breastfeeding at age 7 (it's a lot more common than you might think) and who haven't developed the proper social skills that other kids their age have because they've never been given the opportunity or been shown that thats what they need to do.
The mother was wrong because children need to grow up and become independent, and she was trying to hinder that growth. This exact scenario takes place everyday. Every mother is guilty of it, and every mother has to go through it, but a good mother recognizes that she must take the next step in parenting and allow her child to become less dependent on her. Parents who do not allow this natural process end up with children who are still breastfeeding at age 7 (it's a lot more common than you might think) and who haven't developed the proper social skills that other kids their age have because they've never been given the opportunity or been shown that thats what they need to do.
No offense, but it was simply a bad analogy. The mother did decide to leave; you said that it was understandable, and it does demonstrate how much the the mother loved the child. The child, I'm sure, was expected to behave just as the mother had taught the child to behave, even though she wasn't there, or suffer the consequences. The mother didn't do anything wrong, and if the mother represents God, this is the kind of God I and a lot of other people would like to serve, so give it up (don't you love your mom, even when she gets mushy.)
Get another analogy, or better yet, give your heart to God, because He does love you like that mother loves her child.
Once again, what God wants is for His creatures to love and serve Him freely, not because they don't have a choice, but because they realize that God is right, He has there best insterest at heart, and wants only good for them. Without the ability to choose to love someone else and serve them, love is meaningless. (Do you really love me? Or, do you love me because I'm the last person on earth?)
Get another analogy, or better yet, give your heart to God, because He does love you like that mother loves her child.
Once again, what God wants is for His creatures to love and serve Him freely, not because they don't have a choice, but because they realize that God is right, He has there best insterest at heart, and wants only good for them. Without the ability to choose to love someone else and serve them, love is meaningless. (Do you really love me? Or, do you love me because I'm the last person on earth?)
The analogy is very good. The mother acted like the selfish, jealous, immature God who created man just to have some people who obeyed him and told him how good and necessary he was, and would cling to him in every difficulty or new situation, instead of having the capacity to adapt to a new environment and solve problems on their own.
It was the first day at the centre for the child, so it couldn't have been taught to behave in that situation.
What the mother did was very normal indeed. A similar, very common situation is when a parent picks up a young child after its visiting a grandparent, and the child doesn't want to leave. I am afraid that a majority of parents then feel rejected, instead of accepting that the child is capable of adapting, loving other persons, and has had a good time.
I prefer a god/parent who accepts that I grow up to take responsibility for my own life, without unduly bothering that god/parent.
It was the first day at the centre for the child, so it couldn't have been taught to behave in that situation.
What the mother did was very normal indeed. A similar, very common situation is when a parent picks up a young child after its visiting a grandparent, and the child doesn't want to leave. I am afraid that a majority of parents then feel rejected, instead of accepting that the child is capable of adapting, loving other persons, and has had a good time.
I prefer a god/parent who accepts that I grow up to take responsibility for my own life, without unduly bothering that god/parent.
I never said that. I don't need my children's love; I want it very much; I love them. Who doesn't want to be loved by those they love, especially their children.
Does God love us so much that He would prevent our growth and independence? Have you read anything that is in this thread? That is the whole point. God wants to be loved FREELY. He would never do anything that would interfere with our ability to choose to love another (another good definition of FREE WILL.) But what God (and our parents) have been telling us all along is that disobedience is NOT growth. God loves us, He knows us better than we know ourselves, after all, He made us. He alone knows what is best for us. He wants us to trust Him. As we choose to trust Him, we will learn that He is right, and learn to love Him.
Does obedience threaten our independence (assuming independence is a good thing, I personally would like to be somewhat dependent on a generous billionaire)? Willing obedience to just laws does not threaten our independence, it only enhances it.
It is a law in the US that all drivers should drive on the right side of the road (as opposed to the left, not the wrong side, but I digress.) Willing obedience to this law does not threaten my independance. Instead it makes my independence possible. If I drove on the wrong side of the road, I might go to jail, be seriously injured, or die. None of those outcomes does much for my independence. With the exception of the first outcome, the authors of the law are not responsible for the outcomes of breaking the law, they are just the natural logical outcomes of breaking the law.
These are the same kinds of things God wants from us. If we love Him, we will desire to do those things, because we have come to trust that God knows what is best for us. Disobeying these laws does NOT help us grow, that is what the serpent in the garden of Eden said, instead, disobedience naturally leads to death.
Does God love us so much that He would prevent our growth and independence? Have you read anything that is in this thread? That is the whole point. God wants to be loved FREELY. He would never do anything that would interfere with our ability to choose to love another (another good definition of FREE WILL.) But what God (and our parents) have been telling us all along is that disobedience is NOT growth. God loves us, He knows us better than we know ourselves, after all, He made us. He alone knows what is best for us. He wants us to trust Him. As we choose to trust Him, we will learn that He is right, and learn to love Him.
Does obedience threaten our independence (assuming independence is a good thing, I personally would like to be somewhat dependent on a generous billionaire)? Willing obedience to just laws does not threaten our independence, it only enhances it.
It is a law in the US that all drivers should drive on the right side of the road (as opposed to the left, not the wrong side, but I digress.) Willing obedience to this law does not threaten my independance. Instead it makes my independence possible. If I drove on the wrong side of the road, I might go to jail, be seriously injured, or die. None of those outcomes does much for my independence. With the exception of the first outcome, the authors of the law are not responsible for the outcomes of breaking the law, they are just the natural logical outcomes of breaking the law.
These are the same kinds of things God wants from us. If we love Him, we will desire to do those things, because we have come to trust that God knows what is best for us. Disobeying these laws does NOT help us grow, that is what the serpent in the garden of Eden said, instead, disobedience naturally leads to death.
Concerning what a parent teaches a child, I would assume that the mother would teach the child all sorts of things before she dropped him off. Depending on the child's age, not to kick, call names, take off his clothes in public, stick his finger in poop, etc. I'm sure that these rules would apply no matter where the kid was dropped off.
But, then, what the hay, it's not my story, and you already know my opinion of it, which hasn't changed.
But, then, what the hay, it's not my story, and you already know my opinion of it, which hasn't changed.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
I agree that the mother probably went over some rules with the child about proper behavior etc., but everyone knows the feeling of the double edged sword. Though she may have put in an honest effort to prepare her child for his first day out, deep down she herself isn't ready for it and wants her child to come running to her regardless.
You say that god would not do anything to us to keep us from loving another, but this is not wholly true. He'd send us to hell, wouldn't he?
As far as the garden of Eden goes, I would say that that disobedience certainly did lead to growth. Adam and Eve went from being little better than animals to the most enlightened creatures on earth. Yes, their immortality was taken away with it, but who wants to live forever anyways?
You say that god would not do anything to us to keep us from loving another, but this is not wholly true. He'd send us to hell, wouldn't he?
As far as the garden of Eden goes, I would say that that disobedience certainly did lead to growth. Adam and Eve went from being little better than animals to the most enlightened creatures on earth. Yes, their immortality was taken away with it, but who wants to live forever anyways?
I think that you have answered your own question. Who wants to live forever? Have you ever read the book or seen the movie "Tuck Everlasting." The premise is that a family drank from a fountain which gave them eternal life, an event that they refer to as a curse. In the world in which we live, eternal life is no prize. An eternal life with sin is eternal torture. God loves us and would never want this for us.
The Bible does not teach of a hell in which sinners will burn for ever. As a matter of fact, hell is not a place in the classical sense at all. Instead, it might be better thought of as the time when all sin, suffering, disease, and death is destroyed. Does God finally destroy those who will not obey? Yes.
Let me relate a story. A police officer had a son, despite everything the father did, the son was rebellious and disobedient. The son continually got in trouble at school and home. One day when the boy was a teenager, the father responded to a call that there had been a shooting, upon arriving at the scene he say a man running from the scene. He screamed for the man to stop. The suspect turned, pointed a gun, and the Father shot. The man fell. Running to him, he realized that the man was his son.
Hell is just the destruction of the wicked. It won't last forever but just until the wicked are destroyed. There are passages that seem to say something different, but are really just mistranslations. Hell is not being prepared for people, but for Satan and his angels. "God is not willing that any (person) should perish, but that all have eternal life."
The Bible does not teach of a hell in which sinners will burn for ever. As a matter of fact, hell is not a place in the classical sense at all. Instead, it might be better thought of as the time when all sin, suffering, disease, and death is destroyed. Does God finally destroy those who will not obey? Yes.
Let me relate a story. A police officer had a son, despite everything the father did, the son was rebellious and disobedient. The son continually got in trouble at school and home. One day when the boy was a teenager, the father responded to a call that there had been a shooting, upon arriving at the scene he say a man running from the scene. He screamed for the man to stop. The suspect turned, pointed a gun, and the Father shot. The man fell. Running to him, he realized that the man was his son.
Hell is just the destruction of the wicked. It won't last forever but just until the wicked are destroyed. There are passages that seem to say something different, but are really just mistranslations. Hell is not being prepared for people, but for Satan and his angels. "God is not willing that any (person) should perish, but that all have eternal life."
AMEN! dharveymi, sometimes I think I am the only one who sees it just that way.
I do so hate the idea of someone consigned to an ever burning hell for my failure to teach him about a savior. Just think about all of the souls all of us missed today, burning for eternity! OH! DEAR!!!!
I do so hate the idea of someone consigned to an ever burning hell for my failure to teach him about a savior. Just think about all of the souls all of us missed today, burning for eternity! OH! DEAR!!!!
dharveymi,
Perhaps because I don't live in the USA, I don't understand the point in your story. Is it to demonstrate how absurd the USA policy on firearms is, or is it to illustrate how parents according to Deut. 21:18-21 are obliged to kill a "stubborn and rebellious son"?
You write "Does God finally destroy those who will not obey? Yes." Does that mean, that if the father hadn't obeyed Deut. and killed his rebellious son, the father will be destroyed?
Perhaps because I don't live in the USA, I don't understand the point in your story. Is it to demonstrate how absurd the USA policy on firearms is, or is it to illustrate how parents according to Deut. 21:18-21 are obliged to kill a "stubborn and rebellious son"?
You write "Does God finally destroy those who will not obey? Yes." Does that mean, that if the father hadn't obeyed Deut. and killed his rebellious son, the father will be destroyed?
Are you people serious, was I that obscure? Do you people speak the same language?
1. NO ONE burns for eternity in hell. (It's just not in the Bible.)
2. Eternal life isn't a good thing for sinners, it's just eternal torture.
3. God loves even Satan and his angels and all the wicked.
4. Because of the nature of God (love, goodness, and righteousness), He cannot allow those who willingly choose to disobey to live forever, they must be destroyed once and for all at the end of this world.
5. No one has to be destroyed, He doesn't want to destroy anyone, just as the policeman had no desire to kill his son. God has provided a way that anyone who is willing can be saved.
It's that simple.
PS. Did I mention anything about the story being set in the US? Did I say anything about Deut.? Wow, where do you people come up with these things?
1. NO ONE burns for eternity in hell. (It's just not in the Bible.)
2. Eternal life isn't a good thing for sinners, it's just eternal torture.
3. God loves even Satan and his angels and all the wicked.
4. Because of the nature of God (love, goodness, and righteousness), He cannot allow those who willingly choose to disobey to live forever, they must be destroyed once and for all at the end of this world.
5. No one has to be destroyed, He doesn't want to destroy anyone, just as the policeman had no desire to kill his son. God has provided a way that anyone who is willing can be saved.
It's that simple.
PS. Did I mention anything about the story being set in the US? Did I say anything about Deut.? Wow, where do you people come up with these things?
A recent poster suggested, as Satan does, that disobedience leads to growth, because those who disobey have experiences that those who are obedient do not have.
I do not know what it is like to experience free fall from a 100 story building without a parachute; I do not know the experience that results from injesting cyanide. I have never thought that I was missing anything. I have experienced a car accident which I caused. I learned something from my exerience. I DON'T EVER WANT TO DO IT AGAIN. Even a casual reading of the story of Adam and Eve demonstrates that Adam and Eve did not believe that what they had gained was worth the cost. Let's get real.
I do not know what it is like to experience free fall from a 100 story building without a parachute; I do not know the experience that results from injesting cyanide. I have never thought that I was missing anything. I have experienced a car accident which I caused. I learned something from my exerience. I DON'T EVER WANT TO DO IT AGAIN. Even a casual reading of the story of Adam and Eve demonstrates that Adam and Eve did not believe that what they had gained was worth the cost. Let's get real.
You didn't say anything of the US. I just thought is was typical of your country. In which other countries would it have been possible 1) that a young boy acquires a gun, 2) that a policeman would fire to kill in the way you described? Neither is applicable to Sweden.
I mentioned Deut., because I thought it was applicable to the story.
I mentioned Deut., because I thought it was applicable to the story.