Law of noncontradiction

[sylvius]

That is what you have to prove. Can you prove it from God's word?

"and God saw that it (sin) was good" (Geneis 1:12)

Without sin and death no resurrected one (Messiah).

[David M]

Hello Sylvius

"and God saw that it (sin) was good" (Genesis 1:12)

I suspect not even you really believe that "it" refers to sin. As you know, the phrase is used six times in that chapter and every time, "it" refers to what has gone before in the verse.

Without sin and death no resurrected one (Messiah).

God has set it up such that man is capable of sin, but equally capable under the correct guidance to not sin. That is why the perfectly righteous man, Jesus, vindicates God against those who think it is impossible.

It is good, that we have Jesus, and he has paid the penalty for the sins of man, and redeems man. How much better it would be for the world if man had not sinned at all.

If no man had sinned, we would all be like Jesus and be the perfect sons of God.

David

[sylvius]

Hello Sylvius


I suspect not even you really believe that "it" refers to sin. As you know, the phrase is used six times in that chapter and every time, "it" refers to what has gone before in the verse.


God has set it up such that man is capable of sin, but equally capable under the correct guidance to not sin. That is why the perfectly righteous man, Jesus, vindicates God against those who think it is impossible.

It is good, that we have Jesus, and he has paid the penalty for the sins of man, and redeems man. How much better it would be for the world if man had not sinned at all.

If no man had sinned, we would all be like Jesus and be the perfect sons of God.

David

Genesis 1:11, And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.

v.12: And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

Rashi:

fruit trees: That the taste of the tree should be like the taste of the fruit. It [the earth] did not do so, however, but“the earth gave forth, etc., trees producing fruit,” but the trees themselves were not fruit. Therefore, when man was cursed because of his iniquity, it [the earth] too was punished for its iniquity (and was cursed-not in all editions). - [from Gen. Rabbah 5:9]

Moreover, the Hebrew word "tov" (= good) in Genesis 1:12, is the 153rd word from the beginning (of the Hebrew bible).

Gematria of "tov" being 17, and 153 being triangle 17.

If the earth had brought forth "fruit trees producing fruit" instead of "trees producing fruit" then the "tov" in Genesis 1:12 would have been the 154th word, which wouldn't have been good at all.

It's the big secret of creation, even Satan doesn't know.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Excellent. Please explain the "ambiguity" in this statement:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

Thanks!

Richard

Please state your proposition.

My proposition is P = God's Will is done in heaven.

By definition: There would be a contradiction if P and yet Not P.

Now define Q = God's Angels in heaven could sin.

If God's Angels in heaven could sin, then God's will would not be done. This means that Q implies Not P and we can substitute it into my formulation:

There would be a contradiction if P and yet Q.

Substituting the definitions back in, we arrive at my original formulation:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

I have explained this to you many time in minute detail. E.g. last year on October 26, 2013 in post #272 of the Can God's Angels in Heaven sin? thread.

Please explain the ambiguity in proposition P.

Thanks!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"and God saw that it (sin) was good" (Geneis 1:12)

Without sin and death no resurrected one (Messiah).

That's a classic Christian understanding of the Fall. It goes back all the way to Augustine.

Here's how the wiki explains it:

Felix culpa is a Latin phrase that comes from the words felix (meaning "happy," "lucky," or "blessed") and culpa (meaning "fault" or "fall"), and in the Catholic tradition is most often translated "happy fault," as in the Paschal Vigil Mass Exsultet O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem, "O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer."
The Latin expression felix culpa derives from the writings of St. Augustine regarding the Fall of Man, the source of original sin: “For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist.” (in Latin: Melius enim iudicavit de malis benefacere, quam mala nulla esse permittere.)^[1] The phrase appears in lyric form sung annually in the Exsultet of the Easter Vigil: "O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem," "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer." The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas^[2] cited this line when he explained how the principle that "God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom" underlies the causal relation between original sin and the Divine Redeemer's Incarnation, thus concluding that a higher state is not inhibited by sin. The Catholic saint Ambrose also speaks of the fortunate ruin of Adam in the Garden of Eden in that his sin brought more good to humanity than if he had stayed perfectly innocent.^[3] In the appendix to Leibniz'sTheodicy, he answers the objection concerning he who does not choose the best course must lack either power, knowledge, or goodness, and in doing so he refers to the felix culpa.

[Rose]

Hello Sylvius


I suspect not even you really believe that "it" refers to sin. As you know, the phrase is used six times in that chapter and every time, "it" refers to what has gone before in the verse.


God has set it up such that man is capable of sin, but equally capable under the correct guidance to not sin. That is why the perfectly righteous man, Jesus, vindicates God against those who think it is impossible.

It is good, that we have Jesus, and he has paid the penalty for the sins of man, and redeems man. How much better it would be for the world if man had not sinned at all.

If no man had sinned, we would all be like Jesus and be the perfect sons of God.

David

Good morning David,

Using your reasoning, just think how much better it would have been if your god would have created man without the ability to sin. According to the Bible there has not been one man (aside from Jesus) who has not sinned, so from the very beginning your god knew that his creation was flawed and he would have to send a redeemer to save them. So, under your belief system the whole creation thing has been one BIG colossal waste of life! And Revelation doesn't give any hope of things getting better before they get much, much worse ...

Kind regards,
Rose

[David M]

Hello Rose

Good morning David,

Using your reasoning, just think how much better it would have been if your god would have created man without the ability to sin.

You might think so. It is a hypothetical situation, which we cannot test. How else could God test man? God needed to find out if man would be obedient out of choice and love.

I have been saying that God's Angels are sinless. Besides that, they are immortal, and possibly sexless. That is why it does not make sense for Angels to sin and for God to have created two sets of beings both sinful. Angels do God's will, and are his ministering spirits. Man on the other hand has been given a freedom Angels did not have. There is no rebellion from God's Angels.

According to the Bible there has not been one man (aside from Jesus) who has not sinned, so from the very beginning your god knew that his creation was flawed and he would have to send a redeemer to save them.

That is correct and that is why Jesus was in the mind of God from the beginning he thought of creating man. It was inevitable, that at some time, man would sin.
It is God's judgment whereby he selects according to the benchmark that is Jesus. God will accept some and reject the rest. Reprobates will not be saved.
The creation of man was exactly as God planned it, and so it is untrue to say that God's creation was flawed. His creation was all "very good" as he wanted it to be.

So, under your belief system the whole creation thing has been one BIG colossal waste of life! And Revelation doesn't give any hope of things getting better before they get much, much worse ...

There has been a great loss of life and more loss to come as those who are figuratively destroyed for eternity in the Lake of Fire. That is when Satan/Devil/Serpent also are finally done away with in the Lake of Fire and you are left with immortal humans that can no longer sin. Eventually, what you propose God could have done from the beginning, he will accomplish by a selection process. That is a wonderful time to come, when all you accuse God of not doing, you would have no complaints in the Kingdom of God.

Here is something to think about. If God created men and women sinless and to procreate, no-one would die and maybe we would be overcrowded more than we are. You could end up in situation of having limitless numbers of men and women forever procreating. God would have to plan things differently, if that were the case. Again, you can have your ideas, but as the late Jim Rohn would say; "when you can create your own planet, you can do things your way".

All the best
David

[David M]

My proposition is P = God's Will is done in heaven.

By definition: There would be a contradiction if P and yet Not P.

Now define Q = God's Angels in heaven could sin.

If God's Angels in heaven could sin, then God's will would not be done. This means that Q implies Not P and we can substitute it into my formulation:

There would be a contradiction if P and yet Q.

Substituting the definitions back in, we arrive at my original formulation:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

I have explained this to you many time in minute detail. E.g. last year on October 26, 2013 in post #272 of the Can God's Angels in Heaven sin? thread.

Please explain the ambiguity in proposition P.

Thanks!

.
There is no ambiguity in your proposition P. Why keep inserting the "and yet"? The proposition Q can be simply written. God's Angels sin.

Now proposition Q contradicts proposition P.

Why complicate matters by adding superfluous words that also introduce ambiguity? Also, why use the auxiliary verb "could" when it is not necessary?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Excellent. Please explain the "ambiguity" in this statement:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

Thanks!

Richard

There is no ambiguity in your proposition P. Why keep inserting the "and yet"? The proposition Q can be simply written. God's Angels sin.

Now proposition Q contradicts proposition P.

Why complicate matters by adding superfluous words that also introduce ambiguity? Also, why use the auxiliary verb "could" when it is not necessary?

You have not shown any ambiguity in my statement.

Please explain the "ambiguity" in this statement:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

Thanks!

Shine on!



Richard

[Rose]

Hello Rose
You might think so. It is a hypothetical situation, which we cannot test. How else could God test man? God needed to find out if man would be obedient out of choice and love.

I have been saying that God's Angels are sinless. Besides that, they are immortal, and possibly sexless. That is why it does not make sense for Angels to sin and for God to have created two sets of beings both sinful. Angels do God's will, and are his ministering spirits. Man on the other hand has been given a freedom Angels did not have. There is no rebellion from God's Angels.

Hello David

What do you mean "How else could god test man?" ... the Bible says that god ordained the sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of man, from the foundation of the world, so no testing was needed. According to the Bible god already knew that man would sin when he created him, and he did it anyway ...

That is correct and that is why Jesus was in the mind of God from the beginning he thought of creating man. It was inevitable, that at some time, man would sin.
It is God's judgment whereby he selects according to the benchmark that is Jesus. God will accept some and reject the rest. Reprobates will not be saved.
The creation of man was exactly as God planned it, and so it is untrue to say that God's creation was flawed. His creation was all "very good" as he wanted it to be.

Not only did god know that his creation would sin, but he knew every single human that ever lived would sin ... he even knew that after destroying all life on the whole planet because of sin, wickedness would return in full force as bad or worse then it was before ... !

If the creation of sinful man was exactly as god planned, then of course it was flawed! If I create a robot knowing that it will go against what I created it for, then I am the one guilty of creating a flawed product.

There has been a great loss of life and more loss to come as those who are figuratively destroyed for eternity in the Lake of Fire. That is when Satan/Devil/Serpent also are finally done away with in the Lake of Fire and you are left with immortal humans that can no longer sin. Eventually, what you propose God could have done from the beginning, he will accomplish by a selection process. That is a wonderful time to come, when all you accuse God of not doing, you would have no complaints in the Kingdom of God.

Like I said: the whole Bible from beginning to end is one great big colossal waste of life. Why did god even bother creating life in the first place if all he was going to do is destroy it in one way or another? If god isn't killing life, then people are killing each other, or diseases or natural disasters ... it's just one big bloody mess!

Now, if you believe in naturalism like I do, it's all perfectly understandable why there is killing and death, but to think that a deity intentionally created things that way is pretty hard to swallow.

Here is something to think about. If God created men and women sinless and to procreate, no-one would die and maybe we would be overcrowded more than we are. You could end up in situation of having limitless numbers of men and women forever procreating. God would have to plan things differently, if that were the case. Again, you can have your ideas, but as the late Jim Rohn would say; "when you can create your own planet, you can do things your way".

All the best
David

The Garden story seems to be saying that god created the first couple in a pristine environment with no sin, and there is no talk of offspring at all ... it is only after they are kicked out of the Garden that the idea of having offspring is introduced. So, if Adam and Eve had stayed in the Garden they may have never had any offspring ...

Kind regards,
Rose