Stop misrepresenting my view!

[quantumfaith]

It was the absence of God, but Satan's "attempt" was also an ACTION -- a verb -- that is "something." You've tried this line of reasoning before and gotten no where with it. Why trot it out again now?

Do you claim that "darkness" is "something?" Do you claim that our "separation from God" is "something?" Please do share!

Is darkness (cold) a nothing?

 

[Skandelon]

It was the absence of God,

The 'intent to become like God' was the absence of God? What does that mean?

Or do you mean the intent originated because God was absent?

Please explain.

but Satan's "attempt" was also an ACTION -- a verb -- that is "something."

Ok, and where did that something originate? In God or Satan? If God then how do you avoid the charge of making God the author/origin of sin? If Satan, then are you admitting God is somehow informed by Satan as to his intent?

Please explain.

You've tried this line of reasoning before and gotten no where with it.

If by 'no where' you mean it lead to Calvinists (like Luke) appealing to mystery, you are right.

Why trot it out again now?

I just like reminding you Cals that you don't have all the answers.

 

[Luke2427]

The 'intent to become like God' was the absence of God? What does that mean?

Or do you mean the intent originated because God was absent?

Please explain.

If I may...

Nothing is but a vacuum of something. The vacuum is defined by whatever vacated that place and caused by its absence that vacuum.

For example, a vaccum of nourishment is called hunger. Hunger is nothing. It has no weight, no mass, etc... it is nothing.

Hunger is just a word we use to label the vacuum of nourishment.

Darkness is nothing. It is just a word we use to label the privation of light.

Cold is nothing. It is just a word we use to label the privation of heat.

Evil is nothing. It is just a word we use to label the privation of good.

The intent to become like God is nothing but the absence of a proper reverence for God.

 

[glfredrick]

Is darkness (cold) a nothing?

You know the answer to that question as well as anyone else here.

What exactly IS darkness and cold? A lack of something else, movement of atoms for cold, lack of photons for darkness.

Both are, however, contained in "something" called our universe -- a contingent creation of God, who is the one who is necessary for a contingent creation to exist.

Sin exists in that same vacuum, and because nature abhors a vacuum (Pascal) "something" rushes in to "fill" that vacuum. In the case of the absence of God, what rushes in is not of God, for if God rushed in to fill the vacuum it would no longer be sin.

 

[glfredrick]

The 'intent to become like God' was the absence of God? What does that mean?

Or do you mean the intent originated because God was absent?

Please explain.

Ok, and where did that something originate? In God or Satan? If God then how do you avoid the charge of making God the author/origin of sin? If Satan, then are you admitting God is somehow informed by Satan as to his intent?

Please explain.

If by 'no where' you mean it lead to Calvinists (like Luke) appealing to mystery, you are right.

I just like reminding you Cals that you don't have all the answers.

Permissive will of God. Do you believe it?

 

[DaChaser1]

Permissive will of God. Do you believe it?

Didn;t the determined and permissive Wills of God reflect in the Cross of Christ?

God had ordained the Cross and death of Jesus to atone for sin condition of people He elected to receive eternal life, but allowed sinful men to do what they desired to have it fulfilled!

 

[Skandelon]

If I may...

Nothing is but a vacuum of something. The vacuum is defined by whatever vacated that place and caused by its absence that vacuum.

For example, a vaccum of nourishment is called hunger. Hunger is nothing. It has no weight, no mass, etc... it is nothing.

Hunger is just a word we use to label the vacuum of nourishment.

Darkness is nothing. It is just a word we use to label the privation of light.

Cold is nothing. It is just a word we use to label the privation of heat.

Evil is nothing. It is just a word we use to label the privation of good.

The intent to become like God is nothing but the absence of a proper reverence for God.

Rebellion is something, Luke. It is something an agent actually does. Now you can argue until you are blue in the face about light/dark; cold/heat; hunger/food; or whatever new analogy using inanimate objects/concepts you want, but that doesn't change the fact that Dahmer's intent to kill existed and happened. That INTENT TO KILL IS something and IT originated somewhere. If with God then you have to defend the idea that God is not the author of evil, if with the creature, then your deterministic constructs are gone.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Rebellion is something, Luke. It is something an agent actually does. Now you can argue until you are blue in the face about light/dark; cold/heat; hunger/food; or whatever new analogy using inanimate objects/concepts you want, but that doesn't change the fact that Dahmer's intent to kill existed and happened. That IS something and IT originated somewhere. If with God then you have to defined the idea that God is not the author of evil, if with creature, then your deterministic constructs are gone.

[snipped - inflammatory]

John

 

[Skandelon]

Permissive will of God. Do you believe it?

I noticed you didn't answer any of the questions my post? :tear:

I answered this question on the other thread...

 

[Skandelon]

Oh, on the subject of 'cold.' I reject the concept that in a vacuum it would be cold. Before God created any matter I don't believe it was 'cold' because there wasn't temperature. Just like there wasn't dark prior to creation. It's like the old tree falling in a forrest question. If no one or thing is around then is a vacuum cold? No, because there is nothing.

Plus, how cold is completely cold? - 10 Centillion? Or can we double that? It never ends? How hot is the hottest heat? See my point? It is created.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

[snipped - please report posts using the red triangular button in the top right corner so as to avoid derailing the thread further] I had already snipped it. Thanks

 

[Luke2427]

Rebellion is something, Luke. It is something an agent actually does. Now you can argue until you are blue in the face about light/dark; cold/heat; hunger/food; or whatever new analogy using inanimate objects/concepts you want, but that doesn't change the fact that Dahmer's intent to kill existed and happened. That INTENT TO KILL IS something and IT originated somewhere. If with God then you have to defend the idea that God is not the author of evil, if with the creature, then your deterministic constructs are gone.

But what you seem to be totally unable to comprehend is that EVENTS, ACTIONS, etc... are not in and of themselves evil.

They BECOME evil only because of the motive behind the one doing them.

Killing is not evil- but murder is. Why? Because murder is nothing but killing with an evil motive.

The ACT of killing itself is not evil.

Rebellion is evil only in the same sense that murder is- it has to do with the motive of the person doing it.

You seem to be unable to realize that EVIL requires personality.

Rebellion is in the heart- not the act.

Murder is in the heart- not the act. The act is only murder if it is the result of AN EVIL MOTIVE in the heart.

Child molestation is in the heart- not the act. The act of taking a child's clothes off and touching them in their private parts is not evil- mothers do it every day as they bathe their little ones. Even stripping a child's clothes off and cutting them up around their private parts is not in itself evil. Surgeons do this every day. MOTIVE. MOTIVE. MOTIVE.

THAT'S all that makes evil, evil and good, good.

 

[quantumfaith]

You know the answer to that question as well as anyone else here.

What exactly IS darkness and cold? A lack of something else, movement of atoms for cold, lack of photons for darkness.

Both are, however, contained in "something" called our universe -- a contingent creation of God, who is the one who is necessary for a contingent creation to exist.

Sin exists in that same vacuum, and because nature abhors a vacuum (Pascal) "something" rushes in to "fill" that vacuum. In the case of the absence of God, what rushes in is not of God, for if God rushed in to fill the vacuum it would no longer be sin.

GL, trying to wrap my brain around this concept, the analogies of cold being the absence of heat and dark the absence of light sound really nice and quite compelling. Does the analogy hold up as Evil being the Absence of God (Good)? We as believers obviously still sin (do and participate in evil), do we become for an instant somehow separated from God when we do? To the physicist, wouldn't cold and dark be the absence of energy (movement of particles)?

 

[Skandelon]

But what you seem to be totally unable to comprehend is that EVENTS, ACTIONS, etc... are not in and of themselves evil.

You are right, I cannot comprehend anyone actually stating that molesting a child (an event/action) is not evil.

Moreover, the INTENT to do so had to come from somewhere Luke. It had to have an origin and its either from God or His creation. We all know why you avoid answering that question.

They BECOME evil only because of the motive behind the one doing them.

Right, and WHERE DID THE EVIL MOTIVE originate. And please don't say "the absence of God" because that is a description of the environment where the evil originates, it doesn't tell us FROM WHERE it originates. Who FIRST thought the evil intent?

Rebellion is in the heart- not the act.

Well, its actually both, but I agree it does start in the heart, but what I'm asking is where the intent originates and you keep avoiding that question for obvious reasons.

Child molestation is in the heart- not the act. The act of taking a child's clothes off and touching them in their private parts is not evil- mothers do it every day as they bathe their little ones. Even stripping a child's clothes off and cutting them up around their private parts is not in itself evil. Surgeons do this every day. MOTIVE. MOTIVE. MOTIVE.

Wow...

What about sodomizing, then cutting up the child and eating him Luke? Is that done every day too? You aren't avoiding anything with this game you play.

And I know that is graphic, but for goodness sake, this kind of unspeakable evil happens in our fallen world all too often and to somehow suggest that the intent to do these evil things originated in anyone other than the individual who does them...and NOT to immediately denounce that God originated the intent to do these things seems absurd to me. I know it creates a problem for your 'system,' but who the HECK cares. Just admit God did NOT come up with this stuff and deal with the implications that imposes on your precious system.

 

[mandym]

Child molestation is in the heart- not the act. The act of taking a child's clothes off and touching them in their private parts is not evil- mothers do it every day as they bathe their little ones. Even stripping a child's clothes off and cutting them up around their private parts is not in itself evil. Surgeons do this every day. MOTIVE. MOTIVE. MOTIVE.

THAT'S all that makes evil, evil and good, good.

The depravity of this post reaches extreme levels.

 

[Amy.G]

They BECOME evil only because of the motive behind the one doing them.

Killing is not evil- but murder is. Why? Because murder is nothing but killing with an evil motive.

The ACT of killing itself is not evil.

Rebellion is evil only in the same sense that murder is- it has to do with the motive of the person doing it.

You seem to be unable to realize that EVIL requires personality.

Rebellion is in the heart- not the act.

Murder is in the heart- not the act. The act is only murder if it is the result of AN EVIL MOTIVE in the heart.

Child molestation is in the heart- not the act. The act of taking a child's clothes off and touching them in their private parts is not evil- mothers do it every day as they bathe their little ones. Even stripping a child's clothes off and cutting them up around their private parts is not in itself evil. Surgeons do this every day. MOTIVE. MOTIVE. MOTIVE.

THAT'S all that makes evil, evil and good, good.

This post actually made me nauseous.

If a person is insane and really believes his "touching" of children is loving them, then it's ok????

All the deaths that Dr. Kavorkian caused were ok because his motive was to end suffering?

Am I in the twilight zone?

 

[slave 4 Christ]

Skandelon;
You are right, I cannot comprehend anyone actually stating that molesting a child (an event/action) is not evil.

Skandelon, This is exacty what you have reprimanded others for doing, putting words or ideals in peoples mouth. You know that is not what Luke said or meant. You know he does not think, at all, that molesting a child is any thing other than evil. Do you molest your child when you remove his or her clothes for a bath? Why not? Same action in a sense, but very different motive!

What about sodomizing, then cutting up the child and eating him Luke? Is that done every day too? You aren't avoiding anything with this game you play.

No it is not done every day! And who may we thank for such restraining Grace? GOD or the lfw of a sinner who keeps himself from such evil.

 

[preacher4truth]

Skandelon, This is exacty what you have reprimanded others for doing, putting words or ideals in peoples mouth. You know that is not what Luke said or meant. You know he does not think, at all, that molesting a child is any thing other than evil. Do you molest your child when you remove his or her clothes for a bath? Why not? Same action in a sense, but very different motive!

No it is not done every day! And who may we thank for such restraining Grace? GOD or the lfw of a sinner who keeps himself from such evil.

Agreed, this is utterly ridiculous misrepresentation and it needs to cease. :thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, This is exacty what you have reprimanded others for doing, putting words or ideals in peoples mouth. You know that is not what Luke said or meant.

Then you tell me what he meant. He is arguing that actions are never evil and he lists all those actions in order to show how they can all be done and NOT be evil. I listed an extreme version of one he brought up to reveal his error. There are some things that are just plain evil, period. Do you not agree?

You know he does not think, at all, that molesting a child is any thing other than evil.

He is actually arguing that the ACT itself isn't evil, but only the motive is evil. I'm arguing that someone can do evil even if they have a 'good' motive.

Do you molest your child when you remove his or her clothes for a bath? Why not? Same action in a sense, but very different motive!

I understand that point, but what I was showing is that this argument doesn't work in every situation. There are some acts that are just EVIL, regardless of motive.

 

[Aaron]

Skandelon, This is exacty what you have reprimanded others for doing . . .

I rightly call him Scandal.