Joz said:
Please tell me how you arrived at this.
Perfect means to be entirely without fault or defect. If Lucifer, the remining third of the Angels that are fallen, Adam, and Eve were
entirely without fault or defect, then they lack the capacity for fault or defect. Being perfect, is much more than being pretty. It also means they were intellectually, spiritually and morally perfect. If you insist they were all perfect, then you must abide by that which necessarily comes of such perfection--which is continued perfection.
As their respective disobediance is not at issue being a matter of record, one must conclude that if Lucifer, the remining third of the Angels that are fallen, Adam and Eve were entirely without fault or defect--were perfect--then their disobediance, conforming to their perfection, was entirely intellectually, spiritually and morally without fault or defect as well.
I would like to point out to you that nowhere in the Bible is it stated that Adam and Eve were perfect--you've been told that, and you've been told that to a purpose. I question that purpose.
Joz said:
You are are correct that you & I aren't perfect. We've had years & years of sin make us into what we are. I don't think you want to believe that tho' God created man perfect, he was still fooled and chose wrong, because of freewill.
I would like to point out to you also that God, being the author of all things, is also the author of free-will. As such, your implication that free-will is bad is in direct contradiction to the Bible. I would suspect that the purpose of asserting Adam and Eve were perfect except for the "flaw" of free-will is to cast dispersions at free-will. The people most likely to do so are those for whom free-will is anathema--namely authoritarians. Folks who want nothing at all to do with you except tell you exactly what to do in every facet of you life hold a particularly virulent dislike for free-will.
Joz said:
Sort of makes hope for us pale in the light. You don't want to believe that God would STILL create such a being knowing that this would happen, that Jesus would have to make the choice to come here & die as a price to buy back this world.
This is why it is important to examine our assumptions, Joz. This is why I have been questioning them. And this is why in these discussions, I refuse to practice favoritism for assumptions, even those that I hold and agree with myself.
Phaedrus said:
LOki said:
On what basis is it reasonable then to assert that Adam and Eve knew, before eating the Fruit, that disobeying God was wrong?
The basis of the distintion I made between the knowledge of right/wrong vs. Good/Evil.
Is this the distinction you speak of?<blockquote>
"Biblical knowledge of Good and Evil, as far as I understand it, is not knowledge of right and wrong. IMHO it points more to a Freudian Super Ego being revealed. Whether or not we have that Super Ego, we can still determine right from wrong."</blockquote>If so, it's a rather self referential means of asserting the reason Eve was first to fall. And, if Freud's assertions are correct, and the Bible factual, Adam could never have an Oedipus complex leaving Adam's super-ego to be God, unfettered and unopposed--a situation not only logically contradictory, but also Biblically inconsistent.
Secondly, and more important to the discussion, your "distinction" makes no distinction between Right and Wrong vs. Good and Evil--it only asserts it.
Phaedrus said:
LOki said:
Is the possibility that sin could subjectively be the right thing to do the basis of moral relativisim? If you have no idea what the Truth is, upon what basis can we assert a person other than ourselves has sinned?
To the first aspect of the question, certainley. As to the second, it is not our purpose to assert whether another has sinned. However, people do judge, and generally use the Bible to determine God's will.
First part first then: If one's criteria for morality was based solely on the distinction of right over wrong, rather than obediance vs sin, would that person be validly able to judge as good or evil particular obediances to God?
Second part: If it is not our purpose to assert whether another has sinned, is it not true then that we cannot judge one and other on the basis of sin? Doesn't the Bible assert that God is the sole judge of sin? If so, what business do people have, using the Bible to determine "God's will" if it is not to do so beyond their legitimate capacity, but rather to exert their own will over their fellows in God's name?
Phaedrus said:
Phaedrus said:
God, on the other hand, is purely good.
LOki said:
Upon what basis is it appropriate for you to judge God?
Phaedrus said:
He created existence knowing the bad would add to the good.
LOki said:
Upon what basis do you claim to know what God knows?
Phaedrus said:
His intentions were always pure.
LOki said:
Upon what basis do you claim to know God's intentions, and upon what basis is it appropriate for you to judge them?
My basis is my own. As far as I know, I only have 1 life to live, and in it I will judge and make decisions to the best of my abilities. This is how I view God, and beliefs don't need to be justified. Feel free to question them however
I will, and I am. My questions were not rhetorical. You appear to be rather confident that depite not needing to be justified in your beliefs, you indeed feel justified in your belief that it is appropriate for you to judge God, that you know what He knows and His intentions. I'd like to know how that comes about. Perhaps I also am justified in judging God, and know what He knows, and know His intentions--or at least *can* if I exercise those capacities.
