Can We Know Eternal

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

How do yours or my children trust us when they are not to the point of puberty, when they start to question their parents.

 

Edit:  And y'all keep harping on that Adam didn't know.  So my explanation is consistent with "Adam didn't know".

What sdelsolray said.

[sdelsolray]

I realize there are numerous denominations of the Christian Faith.  I wonder how many denominations of Christian Apologetics exist.  I seems that each believer has their own set of apologetics.

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

But apparently, this god did not (or would not) trust Adam.  Trust runs both ways.

Idk why God didn't work with him.  Maybe he saw Eve as a representation of his offspring?  Maybe he was not "well pleased".  I think if we are being truthful, we find more joy when we see similarities to ourselves in our children.  Maybe God didn't have that connection.  Good question.

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

I realize there are numerous denominations of the Christian Faith.  I wonder how many denominations of Christian Apologetics exist.  I seems that each believer has their own set of apologetics.

As many as there are individuals.....

[Edgarcito]

Please turn in you hymnals to number 336, "Trust and Obey", verses 1,2, and 4.  Don't forget to leave something in the plate for the Church of Dave on your way out.......glory.  

[sdelsolray]

16 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

As many as there are individuals.....

Quite convenient.  Are the inevitable differences and conflicts between and among so many different apologetic defenses to the Christian Faith ignored, disputed, something else?

[Edgarcito]

25 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Quite convenient.  Are the inevitable differences and conflicts between and among so many different apologetic defenses to the Christian Faith ignored, disputed, something else?

No it’s not convenient... “that you may know God”.  God sends Jesus... who remains alive, not someone we can’t have a relationship with, not someone dead, so we may have individual relationships w God through Christ.  The message is probably consistent but our move towards godliness varies.  

[◊ Krowb ◊]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No it’s not convenient... “that you may know God”.  God sends Jesus... who remains alive, not someone we can’t have a relationship with, not someone dead, so we may have individual relationships w God through Christ.  The message is probably consistent but our move towards godliness varies.  

 

So if it boils down to a relationship and not a religion then what is the purpose of doctrine?

 

Does this mean you consider Catholics, Church of Christ, Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, and Ray Comfort's easy-believism all valid interpretations of Scripture if the adherent forms the requisite individual relationship?

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It's about trust Walter.  I gather God wanted to see trust in Adam.  Pretty sure a knowledge of good and evil is not required to execute trust.....

 

Trust is gained when you build a history of caring with someone. Unless you are really insecure, you dont need to 'test' people's loyalty or love or trust. God just shows his insecurity by testing Adam, testing Job, testing Abraham, testing every human being. 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

4 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

But apparently, this god did not (or would not) trust Adam.  Trust runs both ways.

 

Did not trust his own creation. How weird is that? 

 

[WalterP]

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It's about trust Walter.  I gather God wanted to see trust in Adam.  Pretty sure a knowledge of good and evil is not required to execute trust.....

 

Ouch!  You just shot yourself in the foot, Edgarcito.

 

Scripture tells us that god made Adam and Eve unable to recognize good from evil.

 

So, from their p.o.v, Eden was a level playing field between god and Satan.

 

Which explains why Eve was just as likely to trust Satan as to trust god.

 

When someone cannot tell one seemingly trustworthy thing from another, what good is trust?

 

Trust requires the ability to understand that which is trustworthy from that which is not.

 

Neither Adam nor Eve had this ability.

 

I rest my case.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[alreadyGone]

6 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Did not trust his own creation. How weird is that? 

 

 

Repeating myself here...

When you decide to create something which can then act under it's own power, and you do not wish your creation to be of a particular nature, then your first priority is: do not form your creation to be of that nature.

 

If what you wish to create is something the opposite of that nature, then you work to form your creation to be that instead. It speaks nothing at all of "free will".

 

The "God didn't want robots" theorem is such a childlike, nakedly false dichotomy.

It is misguided assertion that free will = evil, but stopping just short of that logical conclusion, out of intellectual laziness and the desire to anthropomorphize God.

 

And yet, God chose "free will" for us, according to that reasoning.

 

Among protestants in the US this "no robots" reasoning runs amok these days.

People spout it out without a thought. Because it aligns with what they wish to believe...  Apologetics.

 

I wonder how Christians phrased that thought prior to 1920 when Karel Čapek coined the word "robot", before Asimov's novels popularized the word?

[WalterP]

Here's a tricky question for you to chew over, Edgarcito.

 

Before Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, WHERE in the garden of Eden was their moral compass located?

 

I can give you a clue if it's too tricky.

 

Thanks.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

Ok Edgarcito,

 

Here's a clue to help you out.

 

The question was...

 

Before Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, WHERE in the garden of Eden was their moral compass located?

 

The clue is...

 

Their moral compass wasn't located in any of the fruit of the trees they were allowed to eat from.

 

So, do you now  know where Adam and Eve's moral compass was located before they ate the fruit of the forbidden tree?

[Joshpantera]

On 2/3/2021 at 7:08 AM, alreadyGone said:

The "God didn't want robots" theorem is such a childlike, nakedly false dichotomy.

It is misguided assertion that free will = evil, but stopping just short of that logical conclusion, out of intellectual laziness and the desire to anthropomorphize God.

 

Of course that's the opposite of what the story actually entails. The "gods," not "god," did want robots according to the way in which the myth is laid out. No monotheistic god yet. No free will theology yet. No Satan yet at that point. All of those things are back read into the texts. And can be shown not to gel with the myth in the way that it was originally given. 

 

I posted about this so called choice in the free will thread. 

 

On 2/3/2021 at 7:08 AM, alreadyGone said:

When you decide to create something which can then act under it's own power, and you do not wish your creation to be of a particular nature, then your first priority is: do not form your creation to be of that nature.

 

If what you wish to create is something the opposite of that nature, then you work to form your creation to be that instead. It speaks nothing at all of "free will".

 

Then factor in you knowing the future or being all knowing as you do the creating. But tend to think all-knowing was also absent at the time of the Genesis myth. Just like the absence of the other later theological developments back read into the texts. 

 

God wanders around the garden calling out asking where Adam is? And asking what he's done. And Adam trying to explain what happened. People tend to read right over verses like that.

 

But at face value and considering the circumstances of the evolution of theological ideas, the "gods" didn't appear to already know everything at the time of the creation myth. 

 

The big question would be, at what point in the evolution of the judeo-christian mythology did god become visualized as all-knowing, or all-powerful, or all-present for that matter?

 

God wasn't all present in the garden. He wasn't present there as they ate the forbidden fruit. And he didn't seem to already know that they ate it. 

 

Some more food for thought...

[alreadyGone]

That's the great thing about myths... they can be easily adapted to say whatever you wish across the flow of time. 

[WalterP]

Hello Edgarcito.  

 

I see that you looked in on this thread an hour ago.

 

If you need any further help with my question, please let me know.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing your answer.

 

All the best,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

On 2/2/2021 at 8:56 PM, Krowb said:

 

So if it boils down to a relationship and not a religion then what is the purpose of doctrine?

 

Does this mean you consider Catholics, Church of Christ, Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, and Ray Comfort's easy-believism all valid interpretations of Scripture if the adherent forms the requisite individual relationship?

Well, I watched a show about NDE's last night just out of boredom.  The theme seemed to be leaving the physical body and communing with eternity, the colors, the spirits, becoming "part of".  

 

I'm thinking the doctrine may be just that, the communing, the becoming a part of, that we participate in that as well as we are able.  The message was warmth, love, in that connection during the separation from the physical. 

 

What are the benefits from knowing or practicing that connection?  Good question. 

 

Interestingly enough, they used the word eternal and know.  I thought that was relevant.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

On 2/2/2021 at 11:51 PM, midniterider said:

 

Trust is gained when you build a history of caring with someone. Unless you are really insecure, you dont need to 'test' people's loyalty or love or trust. God just shows his insecurity by testing Adam, testing Job, testing Abraham, testing every human being. 

 

 

 

 

But y'all just said there was no history of understanding, that they were essentially void of understanding.  

[WalterP]

On 2/3/2021 at 4:51 PM, WalterP said:

Here's a tricky question for you to chew over, Edgarcito.

 

Before Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, WHERE in the garden of Eden was their moral compass located?

 

I can give you a clue if it's too tricky.

 

Thanks.

 

Walter.

 

Bumped for Edgarcito's attention.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Bumped for Edgarcito's attention.

 

 

 

Hey, just a suggestion....I'd like to keep this thread about the original thought.....

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Hey, just a suggestion....I'd like to keep this thread about the original thought.....

 

No problem, Edgarcito.

 

See you in the 'Free Will' thread.

 

 

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Well, I watched a show about NDE's last night just out of boredom.  The theme seemed to be leaving the physical body and communing with eternity, the colors, the spirits, becoming "part of".  

 

I'm thinking the doctrine may be just that, the communing, the becoming a part of, that we participate in that as well as we are able.  The message was warmth, love, in that connection during the separation from the physical. 

 

What are the benefits from knowing or practicing that connection?  Good question. 

 

Interestingly enough, they used the word eternal and know.  I thought that was relevant.

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, were any of the NDEs on the show from a non-Christian background?  If other cultures and religions also experience NDE and those experiences are similar to the Christian community, that could indicate more of a pantheism as opposed to John 14:6.  The concept of eternal would be quite inclusive.

[midniterider]

Me: Trust is gained when you build a history of caring with someone. Unless you are really insecure, you dont need to 'test' people's loyalty or love or trust. God just shows his insecurity by testing Adam, testing Job, testing Abraham, testing every human being. 

 

Ed: But y'all just said there was no history of understanding, that they were essentially void of understanding. 

I guess I mean "in reality, not in the mythology of the Bible", people build a history of caring and because of that, trust...for someone else. I didnt have to perform some obedience test on my child, like place a syringe full of cyanide on a table in front of them and then say, "Dont shoot yourself up with that...." 

That kind of behavior isn't love. It's abusive parenting and what leads to social workers taking children from their parents. 

But a Christian will cut God slack for that kind of psychotic behavior because...well, I'm not sure why.

[midniterider]

Just now, midniterider said:

Me: Trust is gained when you build a history of caring with someone. Unless you are really insecure, you dont need to 'test' people's loyalty or love or trust. God just shows his insecurity by testing Adam, testing Job, testing Abraham, testing every human being. 

 

Ed: But y'all just said there was no history of understanding, that they were essentially void of understanding. 

I guess I mean "in reality, not in the mythology of the Bible", people build a history of caring and because of that, trust...for someone else. I didnt have to perform some obedience test on my child, like place a syringe full of cyanide on a table in front of them and then say, "Dont shoot yourself up with that...." 

That kind of behavior isn't love. It's abusive parenting and what leads to social workers taking children from their parents. 

But a Christian will cut God slack for that kind of psychotic behavior because...well, I'm not sure why.

 

the editor went haywire.