Board index ‹ God

[Busta Rhyme]

> First of all, how can you know such a thing?

Because it's a logical necessity. Like you said an omnipotent being cannot be caught off guard.

> Second of all, the Bible doesn't consider it a backfire. That makes it sound like an "oops" that caught God off guard.

You are suggesting that God planned for serpent to trick humanity, plus all the negative consequences thereafter.

> Parents have children knowing that the child could have physical problems...

Bad analogy, parents are not omnipotent that can zap physical problems away. At no point would the child of an omnipotent parent get injured, unless the parent want the child to be injured.

> we have a desire to create life... So also God... God was not satisfied...

By suggesting God have a desire to create life, that God was not satisfied, you are implying that God is somehow less than fully complete without us, that God is getting something from us. So much for perfection...

> ...but [the claim that omnipotence implies 100% success] not true. Just like parents who have a baby...

Again, human parents are not omnipotent. A child of an omnipotent parent is incapable of breakage, if the parent wishes it.

> best of all possible worlds is to create free agents... then free agents it must be.

Nowhere is it implied that a child incapable of breakage would not be a free agent.

> It couldn't be fixed right then and there. What it required was the birth of an individual who was sinless...

The birth that individual there and there. Boom! Thousands of years worth of sin mitigated, and God only knows how many souls would have be spared the separation form God's holiness.

> If someone falls off a cliff and is injured, why not do surgery right there? Well, any number of reasons...

Sure, all these reasons boils down to one thing - we are not omnipotent and have to work within the laws of nature. The same does not apply to God.

> [Exodus 34:7] a Semitism denoting continuity and is not to be understood in an arithmetical sense...

You picked which verse to take literally and which to interpret symbolically. Interpreted it how you like, but that's not what the plain text says and you know it. Perhaps more importantly the majority of Christians know it too and subscribe to the doctrine of "original sin."

[jimwalton]

> Because it's a logical necessity. Like you said an omnipotent being cannot be caught off guard.

See, I disagree. Love means vulnerability. When you choose to love a free agent, you open yourself up. It's not a logical necessity that an omnipotent being, who is also omniscient, and who is also love is never going to get hurt because of that love. He wasn't caught off guard, but to love means that you do make promises and you do act even though there are risks. The presence of a risk doesn't mean that God couldn't be omnipotent and still assume the risk. I disagree with you.

> You are suggesting that God planned for serpent to trick humanity, plus all the negative consequences thereafter.

No I'm not. I am suggesting that God is omniscient and stands outside of time. He could see it before it happened, but he didn't plan it. Knowledge isn't causative, only power is (if you've had physics, which I'll assume is true, you know this to be the case). People also seem to think that God's knowledge, which counts as foreknowledge since it before the incident, means that the decision has already been made by God, but that's not so, either. The relativity of time gives us enough of a glimpse into the time picture to know that it's a very real possibility that time isn't solely linear, and so God's foreknowledge doesn't require that their power to choose was meaningless.

> Bad analogy, parents are not omnipotent that can zap physical problems away.

You misunderstand omnipotence as well as how God works in the world. For God to zap away all physical problems would be a complete abrogation of science. There would be no such thing as science any more, since nothing would be predictable. And if nothing were predictable, there wouldn't be such a thing as reason, ether. Both science and reason require order, regularity, and predictability.

> By suggesting God have a desire to create life, that God was not satisfied...

I don't mean satisfied in the sense of "less than fully complete," but in the sense of desiring more. I want to learn to love my spouse even more than I do. It is no comment about the completeness of our love, but only a statement of a desire for an even richer and more fulfilling relationship. If there is no such deeper level, so be it; I'm satisfied. But if there were, I'd love to find it.

> Nowhere is it implied that a child incapable of breakage would not be a free agent.

It's a standing contradiction. If a child cannot choose what would break them, they are not free. If a child can only choose a particular realm of options, they are not truly free.

> The birth that individual there and there. Boom!

Um, nice try, but silly. If the person had to die as an innocent, who's going to take his life if there are only 2 people? You also seem to think that the thousands of years were just a waste of time; if so, you missed the point of the Bible tracing through history, revealing God and working in historical events, revealing Himself in the proper time and in the proper way depending on the historical context. There's a reason for God's plan. Haven't you ever had an experience in your life where you thought back and said, "Wow, I'm SO glad I didn't make that decision," or "So glad I didn't jump into that," because your life experiences and the history that has passed has made you see things differently, and you learn as you go? I think we all learn as we go, and there is a reason God waited as he did until the time was right for things to happen.

> Sure, all these reasons boils down to one thing - we are not omnipotent and have to work within the laws of nature. The same does not apply to God.

Again, you misunderstand omnipotence and how God works. You want God to be like Tim in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail: bam here, boom there, no waiting, no considering, just slam bam boom. That's no way to do things. God doesn't do it either.

> You picked which verse to take literally and which to interpret symbolically.

No, I used scholarship. It's the best way to approach the Bible rather than just reading on the surface and thinking we've got it all figured out.

1. Knowing that it is a Semitism means that we have to go back into the culture to see what the idiom meant. We just can't go by our modern, English understanding of everything. it wasn't written in English, nor in our time, nor in our culture.

2. The quote of the parallel from Murshilish shows that the phrase in the ancient Near East was understood as examples, not a curse and a guarantee.

3. The "punishing" as "destiny" comes from an understanding of how retribution theology in the Bible helps to explain texts. Hebrew has several words for "punish". Some mean pay for crimes, some discipline to bring about improvement, and others are idiomatic connoting "determine destiny." The verb can mean either positive as well as negative destiny.

All of these things must be taken into consideration as we interpret the text. You can't just slap out "you're cherry picking." It's a false accusation, and that's not the case at all.

> Perhaps more importantly the majority of Christians know it too and subscribe to the doctrine of "original sin."

I subscribe to the doctrine of original sin, but this text isn't talking about that.

[Regnus Numis]

> It's not free will if one only has the choice for good. It's not free will if God overrides every possibility for rebellion. Only by an authentic temptation and opportunity to disobey is love tested and proved.

This explanation is what many atheists/agnostics like me take a fundamental issue with. Should I deliberately leave a loaded gun in the same room as my 5 year-old son just to test his trust in me, telling him he will "surely die" if he plays around with the gun? I shouldn't leave a loaded gun around my son in the first place. Why is the story of Adam and Eve any different? I know you don't believe in the story of Satan's rebellion in Heaven, but at least the tale implies that rebellion is primarily an inevitable consequence of free will. God shouldn't need to manufacture a rule just to create an opportunity for rebellion; an opportunity for rebellion should naturally present itself, given our free will. To suggest God would designate a rule solely for the sake of testing our obedience opens a whole new can of worms, namely the notion that numerous biblical rules, especially in the Old Testament, were only made so God could observe how far He can stretch our loyalty. People who are critical of God's ways often accuse Him of caring solely about obedience; your explanation only validates their claim.

Edit: Even without the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, free will would still apply in terms of what cuisines we could create, architectures we could design, stories we could write, games we could invent, music we could compose etc.

[jimwalton]

> Should I deliberately leave a loaded gun in the same room as my 5 year-old son just to test his trust in me, telling him he will "surely die" if he plays around with the gun?

Of course not. It's not a fair analogy. There was nothing "loaded" about the fruit. The fruit wasn't dangerous, but only symbolic, like a line in the sand. No wonder you take such fundamental issue—you have misconstrued the situation. It wasn't a set up. In the ancient world, "the knowledge of good and evil" corresponds to the ability to decide. It was a legal idiom meaning "to formulate and articulate a judicial decision." What is forbidden to the humans is the power to decide for themselves what is in their best interests and what is not, to the exclusion of God. The fruit wasn't magical; it wasn't a loaded gun; it wasn't dangerous. It was a tree. It is symbolic of what how they were going to direct their lives: in relationship with God or apart from Him, to be self-made or to find one's value in God. The tree plays its part in the opportunity it offers, rather than the qualities it possesses. As we read what the woman says about it ("was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom") we see what this was really all about: the decision to be like God outside of God's purposes, by positing themselves as the center and source of order.

Francis Schaeffer comments: "The test could have been something else. No act of primitive magic is involved here. This is the infinite-personal God calling on personal man to act by choice. And it was a motivated command, "...for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die," which would make no sense if man is only a machine. He could so act by choice because he was created to be different from the animal, the plant and the machine."

John Walton says, "In taking from the tree, Adam and Eve were trying to set themselves up as a satellite center of wisdom apart from God. It is a childish sort of response: 'I can do it myself;' 'I want to do it my way.' These are not as much a rejection of authority per se, but more an insistence on independence. With people as the source and center of wisdom, the result was not order centered on them, but disorder—extending to all people of all time as well as to the cosmos. Life in God's presence was forfeited."

> I know you don't believe in the story of Satan's rebellion in Heaven

No I don't. We know nothing about how Satan came to be as he is portrayed in the Scripture.

> God shouldn't need to manufacture a rule just to create an opportunity for rebellion

He didn't.

> an opportunity for rebellion should naturally present itself, given our free will.

This is exactly what was going on, and the tree was a symbol of it, and the bright spiritual being (serpent) was an agent of deceit.

[Regnus Numis]

Just a quick verification, but do you believe the story of Adam and Eve was an allegory? It only makes sense for you to emphasize the symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil if the story was merely an allegory. Otherwise, why prohibit Adam and Eve from consuming the forbidden fruit if it contained no harmful properties? Symbolism alone isn't a sufficient reason; I don't forbid another person from consuming certain harmless foods just because of what I think they symbolize.

[jimwalton]

> do you believe the story of Adam and Eve was an allegory?

No I don't. They were historical persons. The Garden of Eden was a geographical location. There were actually many trees in the Garden, two of which were marked off as having symbolic importance. Like getting to the top of Mt. Everest. Sure it really happened, but what it means to the climber is far more significant. Like a line drawn in the sand. All it is is a literal scrape of a stick in the ground, but it's symbolism can be huge. When the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914, it was the murder of one historical man, but it was of such huge symbolic import that the world went to war over it. Adam & Eve were real, but the fruit wasn't magical—only a symbol of something far greater and deeper going on.

> Symbolism alone isn't a sufficient reason

People feel that Donald Trump being elected president is a portent of our country going down the tubes. He symbolizes something evil to them. People consider that If Kim Jong Un fires a missile at Guam he will have "crossed a line in the sand" that has devastating symbolic meaning. Hey, it's just a small island, so why should we care? Because it's a symbol of something far more ominous. I disagree with you that symbolism alone isn't a sufficient reason.

[Busta Rhyme]

> Love means vulnerability. When you choose to love a free agent, you open yourself up. It's not a logical necessity that an omnipotent being, who is also omniscient, and who is also love is never going to get hurt because of that love.

Why do you think this is true? I can see how this is true for us non-omnipotent beings, but for an omnipotent being like God?

> I am suggesting that God is omniscient and stands outside of time. He could see it before it happened, but he didn't plan it. Knowledge isn't causative...

I didn't say anything about causation. I said planned. I know something is going to happen, doesn't imply I am causing that something.

> For God to zap away all physical problems would be a complete abrogation of science.

Then so be it. Good bye science.

> And if nothing were predictable, there wouldn't be such a thing as reason.

That doesn't follow. Logic still exist, we've already established earlier that God's omnipotence does not extend to square circles.

> I don't mean satisfied in the sense of "less than fully complete," but in the sense of desiring more.

I would argue that the two are equivalent. If you can love your spouse more, then you weren't loving your spouse fully. Progressing to an even richer and more fulfilling implies a less rich and less fulfilling relationship before.

>the person had to die as an innocent, who's going to take his life if there are only 2 people?

One of the 2 obviously.

> you missed the point of the Bible tracing through history...

That's the point, all of that can be missed, had Jesus paid the wages of sin there and then. It is a complete waste of time. There would not have been any reason to see things differently through life experience and history, had sin became an non-issue immediately after the fall.

> bam here, boom there, no waiting, no considering, just slam bam boom. That's no way to do things.

Why not? I would argue that it is the only way to do things given the premise of omnipotent and perfect God. Such a being does not and cannot compromise.

> No, I used scholarship...

Except said scholarship starts with the premise that the Bible has to make sense as a whole and every seemingly contradictory point can and should be reconciled.

[jimwalton]

> Why do you think this is true?

Because it's how love works. Love means vulnerability. It has nothing at all to do with omnipotence. God's omnipotence is the power to accomplish what he purposes. Love is a different dynamic subject to different praxes.

> I said planned.

God's foreknowledge doesn't necessitate that he planned, i.e., determined, what will take place. He knows it because he can see it, not because he caused it or planned it.

> Good bye science.

You think humanity as robots would be a better world?

> Logic still exist

Au contraire, mon frère. If I can't legitimate weigh options, consider various courses, think through pros and cons, or infer the most reasonable decision, there is no such thing as reason. I am an automaton, not intelligent, not able to reason, not able to think. All is determined and I am merely a cog in the wheel of time.

> I would argue that the two are equivalent.

Then you and I disagree. There is one thing to feeling a lack; it's another to be satisfied and desiring even more of the joy.

> I would argue that it is the only way to do things given the premise of omnipotent and perfect God

You seem to give an outrageous capability to omnipotence. You want God to take away your free will, science, your ability to reason, and your ability to experience life. You want either Adam or Eve to kill Jesus, as if that would make everything all right. Obviously not, because Jesus was killed 2000 years ago, and many people still scorn him, refusing to come into relationship with him. What's really to be accomplished by slam bam boom done. If you think that would somehow keep subsequent history from corruption, you're not realistically looking at the last 2000 years, or even the last 100. I don't quite know where to go from here. We obviously see things radically differently.

> I would argue that it is the only way to do things given the premise of omnipotent and perfect God

This is very incorrect. Honest scholarship starts with the text and tries to understand it. We have to follow truth where it leads. Starting with a premise that it has to make sense is starting with a bias, and trying to reconcile every seemingly contradictory point as a premise is to approach the text with a slant and an agenda. That's not scholarship.

[Regnus Numis]

> People feel that Donald Trump being elected president is a portent of our country going down the tubes. He symbolizes something evil to them. People consider that If Kim Jong Un fires a missile at Guam he will have "crossed a line in the sand" that has devastating symbolic meaning. Hey, it's just a small island, so why should we care? Because it's a symbol of something far more ominous. I disagree with you that symbolism alone isn't a sufficient reason.

Certain people are afraid that Donald Trump's attitude and policies will lead to America's downfall, so they want him impeached to save our country. If Kim Jong Un fires a missile at Guam, then it means he is growing aggressively bolder and we must take action before he can do further harm. In both cases, it's an issue of preventing negative consequences. Since the forbidden fruit didn't contain harmful properties, why prohibit Adam and Eve from consuming it?

[jimwalton]

Stepping on the surface of the moon was one small step for man, but a large step for mankind. Insignificant events can be indicators of a much larger picture. John Calvin writes, "Why was the tree forbidden to man? Not because God would have him to stray like a sheep, without judgment and without choice; but that he might not seek to be wiser than became him, nor by trusting to his own understanding, cast off the yoke of God, and constitute himself an arbiter and judge of good and evil." The tree represented obedience or rebellion. It was wrong only because it was forbidden, not because it contained harmful properties. Peter Grieg writes, "Right at the heart of the creation story, we see God establishing this principle of free will by planting a tree from which Adam and Eve were not to eat. In so doing, we understand that God created for them the dangerous possibility of disobedience in order to create the higher possibility of voluntary submission."