What does God "want"?

[Vera_Ljuba]

It’s true that there is goodness in people who don’t understand or believe in God. I also accept that there is cruelty among those who claim to belong to God. It’s a mystery to us why evil is permitted …perhaps it’s down to the fact that those who are forgiven much, love much. This is just a guess though, I really don’t know.

I like that you admit your lack of knowledge. That is an intellectually honest approach. However, I don’t accept the “mystery” approach. There has never been an acceptable solution for the “problem of evil”.

I guess it really depends on how you look at freedom. We believe we have freedom from sin and that evil is committed under slavery.

There is only one way to look at freedom. The freedom to hurt others does not add any value to our life. It is a typical instance when “less is more”. Less freedom to do evil is more freedom to do good.

Our abilities aren’t necessarily the same as our will.

Correct. However, the will without the ability to act on that will is useless.

The parable isn’t intended as an uncaring God but rather a caring God. He leaves the weeds in there to protect the wheat. As we cling to our evil ways, until we come to know God, we really don’t know any better.

I don’t see it like that. The wheat does not need protection, and the weed most certainly does not protect. It might strangle the wheat. It is a very bad parable.

 

[spedteacherita]

God’s omnipotence allows him to do everything, except logically contradictory scenarios. And there is no logical necessity to allow something that God does not want.

I agree. He will not do something He does not want. He can make good of something that we think/feel is not good, though.

 

[STT]

“Wanting” and “liking” are different things. Often related. But different. Similarly, “wanting” and “needing” continue to be different as well.

Your position here seems to hinge on the conflation of terms with different meanings.

I think I already mention the difference and importance of need and like.

I do. Why would your ability to perform evil create an inner apathy toward righteousness? I see no teleological reason for it. Rather, I would imagine that it would create an urgency for the good instead, given the ultimate consequences of both.

Too bad evil often provides more immediate gratification…

Yes, we do care because we are not perfect and can do evil and we like life. The problem is that God cannot perform evil. This, appearance of evil, is unavoidable therefore that is God who is responsible for evil.

 

[STT]

Anything created is inherently inferior to its creator.

Do you have any argument for that?

Could God make another uncreated, eternal being?

He cannot create uncreated.

Could He make another infinitely perfect being?

He probably can create perfect being.

 

[Vonsalza]

One can reject God, while being loving and caring toward humans.

No, no they cannot. Being loving and caring toward your fellow man is a completely Godly attribute.

We are talking about children not adults.

The point still stands.

Sheer nonsense. God can differentiate between wheat and the weed…

Of course. And in the parable, he does. And allows them both to persist until the entire field will be threshed. Your angry god would likely just burn the field outright and begin again.

For the time being, I think I will put you into my “ignore basket”. You don’t pay attention, twist what is being said. And I find that pretty boring.

As I am more than happy to point our that your arguments generally lack proper form and factual soundness as well as letting you know that your interpretations of scripture are wildly subjective if not outright atypical, that’s probably best for you.

This, appearance of evil, is unavoidable therefore that is God who is responsible for evil.

Man chose of his free will to engage in evil. As such, it was avoidable. Man simply didn’t avoid it.

Again, as yours is a statement->conclusion type “argument”, it’s not really an argument. Statements only “lead” to themselves, not anything else - unless you’ve employed a second, hidden premise. If so, please share it.

Would you care to syllogize why you think God is responsible for evil? From that, we can likely identify the axiomatic premise we disagree on - and then debate specifically that, if there’s room for debate.

 

[fhansen]

Do you have any argument for that?

A carpenter creates a doghouse. The doghouse is “superior” to the carpenter in terms of providing protection and shelter for his dog and yet it’s obviously of less innate worth/value than the carpenter himself evidenced by, for one thing, the fact that doghouses can’t/don’t create carpenters. The image and handprint of the creator is in his creation, but not the other way around.

He cannot create uncreated.

Then the created being is already inferior.

He probably can create perfect being.

Probably? Probably not.

 

[STT]

Man chose of his free will to engage in evil. As such, it was avoidable. Man simply didn’t avoid it.

You are talking about sin such as a person who has never committed sin and doesn’t know the mechanism. We always decide not to sin. The problem is that temptation for performing sin always exist. We can resist for a while but at one point our resistance break and we commit sin.

Again, as yours is a statement->conclusion type “argument”, it’s not really an argument. Statements only “lead” to themselves, not anything else - unless you’ve employed a second, hidden premise. If so, please share it.

Would you care to syllogize why you think God is responsible for evil? From that, we can likely identify the axiomatic premise we disagree on - and then debate specifically that, if there’s room for debate.

(1) Performing sin is just matter of time (I have a thread on this topic in here)
(2) This means that sin is unavoidable for some individuals
(3) This means that these individuals are not responsible for their sins
(4) Therefore God is responsible for sins

In simple word, God allows Satan to rule over us. He is stronger than us because of obvious reason: We perform a lots of sins. We perform sin when we cannot resist it anymore. Therefore we are not responsible for sins. Hence God is responsible for sins.

 

[STT]

A carpenter creates a doghouse. The doghouse is “superior” to the carpenter in terms of providing protection and shelter for his dog and yet it’s obviously of less innate worth/value than the carpenter himself evidenced by, for one thing, the fact that doghouses can’t/don’t create carpenters. The image and handprint of the creator is in his creation, but not the other way around.

That I agree.

Then the created being is already inferior.

Inferior in the sense that His existence is due to another God. Other than that He is not inferior.

Probably? Probably not.

Actually I forgot this. Mary and Jesus were perfect meanwhile being human. Therefore it is possible to be human and perfect. Hence God can create perfect beings.

 

[Vonsalza]

You are talking about sin such as a person who has never committed sin and doesn’t know the mechanism.

No I’m not. Adam and Eve were told to not eat of the tree. For the morally neutral, this (name removed by moderator)ut shouldn’t have been difficult to follow.

We always decide not to sin… We can resist for a while but at one point our resistance break and we commit sin.

Then your first statement is demonstrably false.

(1) Performing sin is just matter of time (I have a thread on this topic in here)
(2) This means that sin is unavoidable for some individuals
(3) This means that these individuals are not responsible for their sins
(4) Therefore God is responsible for sins

Whoa whoa. Your “This means” is the same as a “therefore”. Statements are not arguments. Statements self-refer. You need more than one to derive a conclusion.

Essentially, you’re saying "A therefore B therefore C therefore D. That’s a classic slippery slope. Poor form. If you turned that in to Dr. H in my university days, he’d write a big red “X” atop your argument. And then likely berate you a little - which you tolerated because he was thoroughly Scottish and likable.

But to your point, if you’d like to establish “performing sin is a matter of time” as an originating premise, then I’d like to attack the soundness of it. I think it’s more like “performing sin is a choice”. I would agree, however, that it’s a likely choice, as sin generally accompanies self-interest. But Likely =/= inevitable, even across an infinite number of opportunities. Your probability of resistance might be infinitesimally small across a growing series, but it’s never 0. You do have a choice.

Think of it like flipping a coin. What’s the odds of flipping 1,000,000 times and always getting tails? Zero? Nope, but small. Now add to this the tremendous advantage of being able to determine what side of the “coin” you allow to pop up.

Resisting sin is hard. It’s also possible.

I take issue with other premises here, but that’s enough for now.

In simple word, God allows Satan to rule over us.

If Satan vanished today, you’d still have the sinful nature you inherited from your dad. Satan’s not the biggest problem in your life. You are.

 

[fhansen]

Actually I forgot this. Mary and Jesus were perfect meanwhile being human. Therefore it is possible to be human and perfect. Hence God can create perfect beings.

Jesus was uncreated God, so imperfection is no option for Him. Mary retained the free will innate to all humans, which allowed her to hold to and express her created nature imperfectly, or perfectly, at her discretion. She continuously chose the latter. Her inferiority due to her “createdness” (not-being-God), provided the capacity or potential for sin when combined with free will. Her free choice to remain steadfast to her nature means that she did not abuse that freedom. She was imperfect relative to God, who cannot sin, but remained “perfectly Mary” due to her choice not to sin.

 

[STT]

No I’m not. Adam and Eve were told to not eat of the tree. For the morally neutral, this (name removed by moderator)ut shouldn’t have been difficult to follow.

But the temptation to eat the fruit was there. They could avoid sin if they could resist the temptation. They commit the sin meaning that they were broken and couldn’t resist sin anymore.

Then your first statement is demonstrably false.

How?

Whoa whoa. Your “This means” is the same as a “therefore”. Statements are not arguments. Statements self-refer. You need more than one to derive a conclusion.

Essentially, you’re saying "A therefore B therefore C therefore D. That’s a classic slippery slope. Poor form. If you turned that in to Dr. H in my university days, he’d write a big red “X” atop your argument. And then likely berate you a little - which you tolerated because he was thoroughly Scottish and likable.

I read about this type of argument in wiki and it seems that there is no problem with it. Here is the link for you.

But to your point, if you’d like to establish “performing sin is a matter of time” as an originating premise, then I’d like to attack the soundness of it. I think it’s more like “performing sin is a choice”.

Have you ever had reach to a point that you could not resist a sin anymore? It is not a choice but rather breaking your resistance.

I would agree, however, that it’s a likely choice, as sin generally accompanies self-interest. But Likely =/= inevitable, even across an infinite number of opportunities. Your probability of resistance might be infinitesimally small across a growing series, but it’s never 0. You do have a choice.

It is inevitable when temptation becomes so strong. I believe it is a natural defense. You just want to get ride of psychological pain.

Think of it like flipping a coin. What’s the odds of flipping 1,000,000 times and always getting tails? Zero? Nope, but small. Now add to this the tremendous advantage of being able to determine what side of the “coin” you allow to pop up.

I don’t understand. Your example in fact approves my view.

Resisting sin is hard. It’s also possible.

You either are strong enough to resist temptation or not. You sin in the second case.

I take issue with other premises here, but that’s enough for now.

I don’t see any issue.

If Satan vanished today, you’d still have the sinful nature you inherited from your dad. Satan’s not the biggest problem in your life. You are.

If it so then we are given a nature which is hard to resist. Whose fault is it? God’s fault.

 

[STT]

Jesus was uncreated God, so imperfection is no option for Him. Mary retained the free will innate to all humans, which allowed her to hold to and express her created nature imperfectly, or perfectly, at her discretion. She continuously chose the latter. Her inferiority due to her “createdness” (not-being-God), provided the capacity or potential for sin when combined with free will. Her free choice to remain steadfast to her nature means that she did not abuse that freedom. She was imperfect relative to God, who cannot sin, but remained “perfectly Mary” due to her choice not to sin.

Jesus and Mary were human. Either they were both perfect or not. In first case they could resist sin and in second case they could sin.

 

[fhansen]

Jesus and Mary were human. Either they were both perfect or not. In first case they could resist sin and in second case they could sin.

Jesus was God and human. He could not sin. Humans are imperfect relative to God. Jesus was innately perfect due to His Godhood; Mary retained her created, human, perfection due to her choice(s). God did not force Mary to be sinless.

 

[Vonsalza]

But the temptation to eat the fruit was there. They could avoid sin if they could resist the temptation. They commit the sin meaning that they were broken and couldn’t resist sin anymore.

That’s quite the inference you make.

The only indubitable conclusion you can draw from the act is that the act occurred. “The collapse of their resistance” is your personal explanation for it. I see no reason to believe this.

I read about this type of argument in wiki and it seems that there is no problem with it. Here is the link for you.

Yeah. It’s a logical fallacy.

Read a little further in your Wiki than the top line.

Have you ever had reach to a point that you could not resist a sin anymore?

No. But I’ve reached a point where I stopped resisting. By choice.

It is inevitable when temptation becomes so strong.

No, it isn’t. I think you’re trying to float an excuse for the evils you do.

The blame rests on your shoulders alone. Please do not conflate “temptation” with “involuntary”.

I don’t understand. Your example in fact approves my view.

Did you read it?

Point being, regardless how tempting the sin my be, you always has the ability to resist it, even if that probability is infinitesimal.

You either are strong enough to resist temptation or not.

Temptation only breaks you if you allow it. That is a choice.

If it so then we are given a nature which is hard to resist. Whose fault is it? God’s fault.

It’s God fault that you gave in?

What a grossly irresponsible view.

 

[fhansen]

Jesus and Mary were human. Either they were both perfect or not. In first case they could resist sin and in second case they could sin.

Human perfection requires human communion with God. Unless this is retained, humans cannot achieve or maintain their perfection. So the first and primary part of perfection for a human is to remain in communion with God, which Adam failed to do, or to seek and achieve communion with Him now. This is the first choice we need to make, and this is the basis of the New Covenant in fact. This is how we’re justified/perfected.

 

[GLam8833]

Human perfection requires human communion with God. Unless this is retained, humans cannot achieve or maintain their perfection. So the first and primary part of perfection for a human is to remain in communion with God, which Adam failed to do, or to seek and achieve communion with Him now. This is the first choice we need to make, and this is the basis of the **New Covenant ** in fact. This is how we’re justified/perfected.

The Scriptures back this up: " Christ was delivered over Once for sins, the righteous
for the unrighteous, to bring us to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but was
made alive by the Spirit." 1 Pet. 3:18

 

[STT]

That’s quite the inference you make.

The only indubitable conclusion you can draw from the act is that the act occurred. “The collapse of their resistance” is your personal explanation for it. I see no reason to believe this.

Then watch yourself next time you commit a sin.

Yeah. It’s a logical fallacy.

Read a little further in your Wiki than the top line.

I read further but I don’t understand why such a argument is logical fallacy. Could you please elaborate.

No. But I’ve reached a point where I stopped resisting. By choice.

No. It is opposite. Your resistance always collapse first. That is the moment that you give up and choose sin.

No, it isn’t. I think you’re trying to float an excuse for the evils you do.

The blame rests on your shoulders alone. Please do not conflate “temptation” with “involuntary”.

I am not conflating between these two.

Did you read it?

Point being, regardless how tempting the sin my be, you always has the ability to resist it, even if that probability is infinitesimal.

No, that does say different thing. It says the probability of no committing sin is very small if the person is tempted multiple times. Here we are talking about one occasion.

Temptation only breaks you if you allow it. That is a choice.

Then why people sin?

It’s God fault that you gave in?

What a grossly irresponsible view.

Replace Satan temptation with inner temptation. You sin when your inner temptation is very strong and your resistance collapse. Therefore the sin is not your fault.

 

[Vonsalza]

Then watch yourself next time you commit a sin.

If you so readily conflate appearance with reality, you must get quite the kick out of magic shows.

I read further but I don’t understand why such a argument is logical fallacy. Could you please elaborate.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

No. It is opposite. Your resistance always collapse first. That is the moment that you give up and choose sin.

Resistance is an act of will. It is not something that exists apart from you.

Then why people sin?

Personal gain or gratification.

Replace Satan temptation with inner temptation. You sin when your inner temptation is very strong and your resistance collapse. Therefore the sin is not your fault.

The devil may have influenced, but Eve chose to eat. Then so did Adam. Sin was their fault as “no” was also an option.

 

[STT]

If you so readily conflate appearance with reality, you must get quite the kick out of magic shows.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Resistance is an act of will. It is not something that exists apart from you.

Personal gain or gratification.

The devil may have influenced, but Eve chose to eat. Then so did Adam. Sin was their fault as “no” was also an option.

Are we perfect? No. We cannot sin only at the time that we are in Heaven. We are buggy outside Heaven therefore we make sine and are not responsible for it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Then why people sin?

That is the basic question. If I would know that I should not do something, because it is forbidden AND I cannot get away with it, AND still would do it, I would be a mental case. If one can hope to avoid punishment, that would be different. But Christians do not have that hope… Big Brother always watches them and punishes not just the actions, but the thoughts, too (even if one does not act on them).