akinszz:
And the funny things about all these feminists is that when their is danger (snake, armrobbers, etc) they will be the first to remind you ain't u a man..

Are you sure you know what the bill is about at all?

jayriginal:


I did with my first post. I told you clearly that what you refer to as agnosticism is atheism. You made the point that they have two different names and I countered by telling you that an elephant is an animal. Or if you like, man is a mammal.

An atheist doesn't believe in God(s). That's all there is to it. It's when people now want to go into peculiarities that you start hearing of positive, negative, weak, strong, evangelical, new etc atheists.

Okay, so in essence, Agnostics are basically Atheists who don't believe in God but leave the possibility open that God does exist?

Perfect' beings sinned, because they could! And so they chose to. They are not robots but cognitive individuals who could be reasoned with. Perfection in your context would apply to animals - both domestic and wild. The perfection of man's creation on the other hand, is the exact duplication of the essence of God in mortal flesh.

Sin is a function of imperfection (like in my analogy of a ball and a road, bouncing is a function of imperfection of either the road or the ball or external influences). If sin is a function of imperfection, then it would be impossible for a perfect being to sin, except it was not perfect to start with or it was somehow corrupted by an external factor which, as at the time of Lucifer's fall, was not in existence. So except we say Lucifer (and by extension, the rest of the heavenly host) and Adam and Eve as at creating were not perfect then it should have been impossible for them to sin. If their imperfection was then caused instead by some external factors or influence that we are not familiar with, then any of them truly be blamed for their fall from grace?

nuwell:


Your logic is good. But the major discrepancy is that while the road is smooth, the ball has a will to roll where it pleases, even though it has been set on a course. It can chose to follow the course or to veer from it. It can chose to bounce and can go to any length to achieve this, including inventing fictional ruts in the road to support its decision.

'Perfect' beings sinned, because they could! And so they chose to. They are not robots but cognitive individuals who could be reasoned with. Perfection in your context would apply to animals - both domestic and wild. The perfection of man's creation on the other hand, is the exact duplication of the essence of God in mortal flesh.

The only 'offense' God committed is also the one very significant factor that distinguishes man from all other creation - He gave him freewill!

...with all the attendant risks involved, such as an abuse of it. It's the same way the gift of salvation through Jesus is today also being discountenanced and abused.

Yet, God in all His Omniscience did not withhold His affection.

Therein lies the rub. Because we're still looking at a perfect being becoming imperfect when imperfection did not pre-exist it. In the case of Adam and Eve, we could make the excuse that since Lucifer /the devil had previously sinned, then there was a pre-existing case of imperfection that caused their eventual fall. However, before Lucifer's fall from grace, there was no such thing as imperfection. It just wasn't in existence (we're supposing). Going back to the analogy of the ball and the road, if there was no such thing as imperfection in existence, then, regardless of the direction the ball rolls and the distance, it will never bounce except the road all on it's own develops a bump or the ball all on it's own develops an unevenness on its surface both scenarios which, in a perfect setting (which, by the way, is what we were presented with), are impossible without an external force. So what external force could have made Lucifer fall if there was no evil pre-existing him?

Also, and this is a pretty bothersome one, why would God, having seen that one of his heavenly host was capable of imperfection, still leave his creation open to corruption?

nuwell:
...This death like sin, is fundamentally what happens when a man cuts himself off from God and Life. He loses his purpose and becomes disoriented and disillusioned. He must now seek affirmation from other sources other than from his Creator and Father, God. It is from this condition that a man having lost everything that matters and who literally has nothing more to lose will lash out at himself and others, in a fruitless bid to acquire some measure of affirmation. Hence, the source of all the vices humans then recognize as sin.

The choice that was made in the garden was a choice of death over life - a choice to heed contrary counsel other than the counsel of God. Even having been warned of the consequences of such a choice (and like every choice) it was a wilful, deliberate decision of man to disobey God and hence, rebel against His wisdom and discretion, in instructing the man He created how to use the freewill with which he had been gifted.

When the serpent asked, ‘has God indeed said...’, his purpose was to cast aspersions on the integrity and wisdom of God in leaving instructions for the conduct of the man, to discredit God before the man. Once again, the man had the choice to reject such suggestions and stick with his original set of instructions, trusting that God who created him, appointed him to the station in which he found himself as well as the provisions to prosper in the purpose for which he was created, had sound judgement in establishing such guidelines. So, being tempted to rebel is not the sin. Because we have freewill, we will always be confronted with options to explore what’s beyond the boundaries of God’s instructions. Deciding to rebel is the seal of the sin.

In distrusting God’s intentions, man also literally cast aspersions on his own existence and acquired an insecurity complex that stripped him of his confidence. It is obvious even in modern society how this cancer afflicts men.

My first question is not quite on the consequences of sin but on the possibility of a perfect being to sin. The sin committed by our first parents is what brought imperfection to the human race, right? Meaning before that sin, they were perfect, in God's apparent image and likeness. If they were then perfect and our propensity to fall to temptation is function of our imperfection, how did they then commit that first sin that made them imperfect in the first place? Same as with Lucifer. He was one of the heavenly host and also, by that extension, expected to be a perfect being. How then did this perfect being commit sin? Take this analogy, a perfectly round ball on a perfectly flat and smooth road. If you were to roll that ball on the road, there is absolutely no reason why it should bounce since both the surface of the ball and the road are perfectly uniform. If the ball does bounce at some point, then it means one of them is not perfect in nature, hence the bounce.

jayriginal:


An elephant is an animal.

Do you understand?

Kindly explain how that analogy applies to the distinction between Atheists and Agnostics

jayriginal:


No they wouldn't.

If they were the same, there wouldn't be any need to have two different words defining each.

nuwell:
Hello,
I can help you answer some of these questions. They are indeed thoughtful questions. I will post my first responses shortly.

That would be nice. Would be waiting.

Tell that to the touts that still smoke gbana in this weather.

femi4:
I and my Father are one Jn 10

Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

"We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

This doesn't necessarily mean he's saying he is God. Like the Bible says a man shall leave his parents and be joined with his wife and they shall become one. That doesn't mean the man can claim to be his wife. They being one as I understand it is a unity of purpose and plan not necessarily person.

2) Will God Take Away Free Will after Christ's second coming? Pursuant to my previous question on Lucifer's fall, one might be tempted to say God gave him free will and that was why he chose to consider pride in his heart. However, what is to say that after Christ's second coming, and people have been ruptured and death and the devil have been cast in hell, someone else in heaven wouldn't also get corrupted? Would it mean, by making heaven, your free will will be taken away so that you only do and think what God wants you and so we don't have another situation of someone getting proud and the same cycle starting all over again?

3) Who really tempted Eve? In spite of the fact that we generally believe that it was the devil that tempted our first parents, the Bible never expressly said so. It only said the serpent was wily and cunning but it never said it was possessed by the devil. Even when they were being cursed, the serpent was never addressed as the devil and, if the serpent was possessed by the devil, then we truly can't blame it for its actions as it was just serving as a channel for something more powerful than it to operate, hence, there would have been no need to curse the serpent as well. So how come the serpent, if it wasn't possessed by the devil, could tempt Adam to sin? If we do say that the serpent was possessed by the devil or was the devil, how come God allowed the devil into his garden of perfection, knowing that it's distinctly possible that the devil would also tempt his creation to sin and also knowing what the consequences of the success of such a venture would be? If it wasn't the devil, then would it follow that serpent was "smarter" than both Adam and Eve, in knowing what was what and what God had placed in the garden. That would also mean the serpent had a higher level of cognition and thought than the first humans, which would make it closer to God in a particular likeness than they were.

I have a few questions, and I would like whoever would attempt answering them to give each question sound consideration before responding. I wouldn't like half baked or regurgitated answers but answers that are the product of deep and serious reasoning. Also, I wouldn't like this to devolve into an insult fest, so if you feel strongly about certain things, bridle your tongue - or fingers.

1) Can God sin? Someone has already asked this question on another thread, but I want to look at it in greater perspective. Let's back it up a little - when God said "let's create man in our image", it should follow that God just wasn't talking about physical form. It's also about cognition and character. One of God's characteristics is perfection, and if Adam and Eve were created perfect, how come they still sinned? If they were created perfect and yet sinned, can we logically deduce that God can also commit what we regard as sin?

"But they were tempted", is the response I can see some have prepared. Well, let's back it up a bit further, to the Father of sin, the devil or lucifer (there are arguments that lucifer is not the devil but that is a digression here). Now Lucifer was an angel in heaven and committed the sin of pride. If God created everything in heaven and everything in heaven is perfect, how come Lucifer sinned, in spite of being a creature of perfection? Was he also tempted to think himself as greater than God? If that was the case, who tempted him (remember, a perfect being) to see himself as comparable with God? And by extension, is it possible that angels in heaven can still be tempted to fall right now?

jayriginal:


What you call agnosticism is atheism. Atheism is simpler than you imagine.

Agnostics would beg to differ.

cloudgoddess:

But atheists wouldn't even have to answer this question for their position to still be the more valid and logical one. Even if we had no clue what led to the universe in it's present state, "A Jewish God Yahweh poofed it here in 7 days, then morphed humans out of clay" would STILL be just as unsupported of a claim to make. Just like "The universe is a simulation being run by alien cats", or "A great goat burping the galaxy into existence."

No proof, no acceptance. The atheist position is simply to not accept any claims of a supernatural deity that are unsupported. If theists were saying, "I think some form of a creator deity exists, but I'm aware that could very well be false, or a different entity entirely that's nothing like Yahweh" , there would be little need for these discussions. But theists, depending on their specific religions, are putting forth a specific named deity, who supposedly performs specific acts in our world, and insisting that it is absolutely real and true without any doubt. Yet they have not put forth sufficient evidence at all for any reasonable, unindoctrinated person to believe in said deity, so those assertions are rejected by the atheist.

Atheists are not bound to the big bang, or any other idea of how the universe came about. We are willing to change our views on that particular issue based on logical, reliable & un-biased or emotional evidence. Which no religion to date has provided.

Isn't this agnosticism?

UyiIredia:
@ senbonzakurakageyoshi: There's a tried and true answer to the question of who designed God. It's nobody. Nobody designed God since God is the first cause. So you see it's not a stalemate. It's a win for the theist.

It's not exactly tried, true or satisfactory. I'm a Christian, but even I know that answer is not just conclusive. Everything as it is is preceeded by something. It's how we know we have roots, ancestors, history. Something always comes before. It's all too evident in nature. If we say nobody designed God is a satisfactory enough answer, then it's only logical that an atheist saying the big bang "just happened" should also be satisfactory and conclusive. But we theists don't take it as good enough. So how can we expect an atheist to also take God not having a cause as satisfactory if we cannot accept the big bang not having a cause as satisfactory because they are practically the same explanation for two different phenomena.

Almost all the time I come here, I see an abundance of threads (basically arguments) between theists and atheists on the validity of their view points. After all is said and done, the validity of both is tied to the history of the sources - which is inexplicable by either party.

Quite a number of atheists believe existence as we know it today either came from the big bang or one of the other lesser known scientific explanations for reality and existence. But unfortunately Theists can nail them with the question - what caused the big bang? And what came before the big bang? That is a question that has gotten no satisfactory answer.

However, this does not mean the Theists have held the atheists to a checkmate, because the atheist have a counter-question of their own; if God created everything, then who created God? For us to have been designed, then our designer must have been pre-designed, in which case, who is God's designer? How can God be said to have created reality if he/she/it exists within the same reality? On this front too, no satisfactory answers have been provided, the usual answer being that we'll find out when we get to heaven or that it's God's will that we don't know his source, or that God's existence is beyond human comprehension.

In other words, a stalemate.

So is there really any need to keep arguing about who is right and who is wrong?

KingEbukasBlog:
Thought



Thoughts come from the mind . And we are products of God's mind . The difference between man's thoughts and God's thoughts is that while man's thoughts are conceived because He observes time linearly and he does not have knowledge of everything God's thoughts are not conceived . His thoughts have always been with him .

Plan

God's plan for mankind is to live with him forever . And this is clearly indicated in the bible . As humans we make plans and materialize our plans through action . We are certainly seeing God's plan unfolding before our every eyes - they are materializing .

Cogito ergo sum

This means I think , therefore I am - Consciousness , Self Awareness . God is an eternal conscious creator . He has always been aware of himself . Since God has always been conscious , he always had his thoughts with him .

Prescience

God is prescient - he knows that He will at some point in time he would take a particular action and his knows the outcome . Thoughts can come forth from humans because of uncertainty . You take decisions because you are not certain of the outcome . God does not need to decide because He knows the outcome . He just needs to act . Actions can be impulsive to man but to God he is just acting out his forethought

Intelligence and Creativity

Nature is designed . Creativity is the act of turning new and imaginative ideas into reality . God's creative actions brought forth our reality . The Physical universe was never in existence , but God made this possible or real through its creation . God's foreknowledge of Nature may have given him the intelligence to create it .


So yes God thinks but not in our human kind of way . Like I said earlier while our thoughts as humans are conceived , God has always borne his thoughts - they have always , are , will always be with him .

Isaiah 55:8-9

Doesn’t this rather make God like a computer; all the outcomes to any processes and calculations are already pre-programmed. If the outcome is beyond the computer's capacity, then it is pre-programmed to return an error or shutdown the process. Either way, it doesn't actually think because it already has the answers to all the possible permutations, combinations and operations that can be carried out on it. In this case, the computer cannot "change it's mind" and return a different answer or conceptualize new things since it already knows all possible things existing within its scope or domain.

I would like to think self awareness is the product of thought. If you don't think, then you can't be aware. It's why computers can calculate and store information but cannot create or return what is beyond their programming.

I would like to think God is more than just a calculating computer.

And finally, the top five!

Trimmed down a short list of five, I think these are my top five favorite car model names:

Kia Picanto: The name just sounds like the car looks; tiny, portable, something you can put in your pocket. Just cute.

Ford Edge : The name just sounds sharp, like it can cut you if you pronounce it wrong. As for the car itself? Love it! Love it! Love it!

Toyota Tundra: The name sounds like it’s powerful and can crush your tongue. When I hear the name of the vehicle, I just envision this strong, powerful beast, standing on a hill in the jungle and daring anyone to come near it and get crushed under its powerful limbs. That’s a name that carries weight!

Hyundai Elantra: The name just sounds soft, musical and romantic. If this car were a human being, it would be a sensuous, alluring lady, judging by the name alone. That’s a name I can just pronounce all day.

Porsche Panamera: Remember that guy/girl in school who had that name you wish your parents had given you instead of the clunky, unpronounceable jumble of letters you were stuck with? The Porsche Panamera is probably that car to other cars. The name just sounds refined and classy, like something only rich people give their kids. And of course, the car is also something only rich people give their kids!

That’s my top five! Feel free to drop yours in the comments below!

https://greysweaterdude./2016/04/23/my-top-ten-car-model-names/

17) Grand Cherokee (Jeep)
18) Panamera (Porsche)
19) Mustang (Ford)
20) Durango (Dodge)

13) Edge (Ford)
14) Fusion (Ford)
15) Soul (Kia)
16) Picanto (Kia)