Is Faith logical?

[LaramieHirsch]

Hello. I am back. I was unable to post sooner this weekend, due to the oncoming storm of tornadoes that diverted my attention. But I have a moment now.

Well, Jelrak TB, only one more Axiom I wish to propose for now. A tenth and final Axiom, which we can both agree on. From there, we can step out of the Axiom establishing phase for now.

Axiom 10: Human beings, neither collectively, nor individually, know everything.

I figure I’d polish the last one off with something simple. Agree? Or disagree?

After this, I do have ten more axioms I could propose–in one post, too. But for now, let’s see what we can see with what we have.

Also, Jelrak, are there any points you are interested in me wrapping up? Points you proposed? I know I must be missing some.

 

[ErnestoMM]

Why I must buy expensive pills while I can get generics generic viagra super active on line with delivery to my place and for considerably lower price. I am ready to accept the situation that customer support sometimes can be dull when I want to trace my order plus buy priligy

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Since it is apparently impossible to identify the “loving parent” (refer to posts 166 & 169) as a human or something else, I give up for the time being. Perhaps, there will be another time that distracting questions are not used to answer simple questions. I look forward to that time.

On the other hand, maybe there is no one who really cares about the differences between God the Creator and you and me as the created. Maybe no one really cares about the logical differences which can be seen as the evidence for faith in God. It is so much easier to think in terms of a material/physical world and somewhat innocent questions.

OK

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Rather I think it’s kind of a fools errand to inject logic into an allegorical story ( the Fall). At the heart of Christianity is the mystery of the Trinity. We cal it a mystery because it can’t be known by logic.

If allegorical, what might the various components have stood to represent?

If non-allegorical, as proposed by grannymh, what might be the fault in attempting to better understand a potential point of confusion?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Hello. I am back. I was unable to post sooner this weekend, due to the oncoming storm of tornadoes that diverted my attention. But I have a moment now.

Hope all is well.

Well, Jelrak TB, only one more Axiom I wish to propose for now. A tenth and final Axiom, which we can both agree on. From there, we can step out of the Axiom establishing phase for now.

Axiom 10: Human beings, neither collectively, nor individually, know everything.

I figure I’d polish the last one off with something simple. Agree? Or disagree?

Agreed.

After this, I do have ten more axioms I could propose–in one post, too. But for now, let’s see what we can see with what we have.

Also, Jelrak, are there any points you are interested in me wrapping up? Points you proposed? I know I must be missing some.

Section 1
From 1, 2, & 3, we must assume that it is not possible for God to err, to be surprised, to be disappointed, or to be angry (for all would require either a lack of foreknowledge (2), current knowledge (1), or perfection (3).

Would this not then suggest that no fair test for mankind could have been possible given that God would have predicted the outcome prior to the first creative act? If no fair test, how might mankind have deserved punishment for the Fall?

Section 2
In spite of 5, God appears unlikely to ever change his mind {for such a change would be foreseen (1 & 2) and be less than perfect (3)}. Further, if God exists in a realm in which time passes (4), is it not necessarily the case that he has foreseen all of his future actions? If so, how might God differentiate between exercising his Free Will (5) and merely following a preordained script? Assuming the script is preordained by God, himself, would this mean that all of his free choices were decided in an infinite past and no longer exercisable in a temporal now (1, 2, & 3)?