Why couldn’t God cleanse us of sin just by snapping his fingers?
What is “sin” anyway, and why can’t sinners go to heaven? Why would the presence of God be experienced as 'torment?" I don’t understand that. Aand why can’t God just snap his fingers and make the torment go away?
He’s waiting for us mortals to find the soap.
My concept of sin is anything that we choose that seperates us from God and each other. The presence of God might be compared to taking off your sunglasses and looking directly at the sun. Ouch.
Who says he couldn’t?
Action, whether volitional or non-volitional, that is not in accord with what we were created to be.
Because if a person who rejects God is in the presence of God, he will be in a state of torment by definition; sin and God cannot coexist.
It’s only torment for a person who rejects God and is full of sin and evil, simply because the nature of God is to destroy that which is sinful. For the repentant sinner, who allows his remaining sin to be destroyed, there will be a period of purification and then the blessed presence of God. For an unrepentant sinner who is continually choosing the sin, the presence of God is an unending torment.
Because to do so would remove the free will of humans to accept or reject God. The only way to make the torment go away would be to cause the person to cease their continual rejection, and to do that would to make them a moral robot.
How do you know what pain he experienced? Jesus went without water in the Negev desert for 40 days if we believe the Bible. That would kill a human being, yet he survived unscathed. Clearly Jesus’ body was not in any respect human. It performed in a manner well beyond what any human body could achieve. We have no idea whether he even felt pain at all much less how much pain he may have felt.
No they didn’t. there were far worse torture available, no least of which was slow disembowelling. The point of crucifixion was that it was slow, fairly painful and publicly humiliating.
Whereas of course there are no nerve endings at all in the groin where professional athletes routinely get injured. And boxers never ever get hit in the temple.
Have you actually read the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion? Jesus was stabbed with a spear after he was dead. That was the whole point of it.
But Jesus never went through that. He turned himself off very quickly to avoid it. It took only a few hours at most for him to die.
What is that based on? Have you ever experienced that pain associated with extreme muscle fatigues, or the cramps afterwards?
Which, as I have said, is precisely what Jesus did. He surrendered. He “gave up the ghost” when the pain got to much. He stopped playing, Instead of enduring the days of pain that crucifixion should have involved he willed himself to die.
That doesn’t even make any sense. The perfection of God necessarily entails omnipotence. If God were not omnipotent he would no longer be perfect by definition. If God were not omnipotent it would be easy to imagine an entity that was better suited to the task, and hence God falls short of the ideal, he is no longer perfect. It’s nonsense to speak of an entity having limitations while being simultaneously omnipotent.
So when Jesus made all those promises about the future he was talking out of his arse? All his predictions could in fact fail to come true could they?
I never said he could turn off pain. I said he could turn off the whole deal. He could and did opt out of the game. Says so right there in the Gospels. Instead of taking days to die Jesus “Gave up the ghost” after just a few hours. He relinquished all pain because he’d had enough. Athletes don’t even get that chance. If they quit half way through the game they still wake up with those injuries in the morning. Jesus didn’t even have that. When he’d had enough he quit and came back a few days later with a new perfect body.
I see. Something occurred that an omnipotent deity didn’t want to happen. That’s also nonsense. The definition of omnipotence is that anything the entity wishes to occur will occur. To suggest that something that the entity didn’t wish to occur also occurred is nonsensical.
But you just said that he wasn’t willing, that he didn’t want it at all. Which is it, was he fully willing or was he partly reluctant? He can’t have been both simultaneously. (Although one more internal contradiction will hardly make much difference at this point).
Can you explain that difference then please, as it applies to an omnipotent entity? I can see normal humans making a decision between two unpleasant choices and willingly doing something unpleasant because the alternative is even more unpleasant or the rewards are great. That’s “short term pain for long term gain” or “lesser of two evils”. But how can those concepts possibly apply to an omnipotent entity?
No it’s not. It’s totally petty and meaningless.
This is fricken’ GOD we’re talking about. An all-powerful, all-knowing entity that has existed for all time and will exist for all time. For such a being to be mocked by humans for a moment is totally trivial. The best comparison I can think of is you being laughed at by a mentally retarded 6 year old death-row inmate who will be executed in the morning. The individual is so pathetic and so far below you that his mocking would be meaningless. At worst you would feel total ambivalence to such mocking, in reality you would feel nothing but sympathy I imagine.
And we are both human. The idea that it’s even possible for God to be mocked by something as pathetic and ephemeral as a man doesn’t even make any sense. It’s certainly not a big deal.
I don’t think anyone is saying he couldn’t. We were asking if he couldn’t. Now that you appear to have conceded that he could, the obvious question is why he didn’t.
God is supposed to be a loving Father. Why did a loving Father allow his son to be tormented needlessly? And if God could have achieved the same ends by snapping his fingers then it was needless suffering wasn’t it? How can you reconcile someone inflicting needless suffering on their child with their claim to be a loving parent?
So you are saying that an omnipotent entity cannot make sin and God co-exist. Doesn’t that mean he isn’t in fact omnipotent?
How should I know? For that matter, I don’t even know if he could or not, but I don’t dismiss either possibility.
The Father and the Son do not have two separate wills, so the suffering wasn’t “inflicted” on Christ by the Father; Christ chose to undergo the suffering to save humanity.
I should have been more specific: sin cannot exist in the direct presence of God. Here on earth, though, where we aren’t in His direct presence, obviously sin does exist.
As for why they can’t coexist, that is simply how God’s nature is, and since there is no higher reality than God, asking why it He couldn’t make it otherwise is a nonsensical question. “Sin can exist in the direct presence of God” is a meaningless statement.
I have to wonder why, since you admit you have no idea, you even responded to the question.
Hmm.
“The Father and the Son do not have two separate wills” and yet the Son “knelt down and prayed, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
How can you reconcile the Son and the Father not having separate wills yet the Son asking that the Father’s will be done and not his own. If the Father and the Son don’t have two separate wills then how could the Father’s will be done and the Son’s will notbe done?
Or are you saying that the Son was asking for something that was impossible? That when the Son asked for the Father’s will to be done and his own will not to be done, that was an impossible request?
What part of “Sin can exist in the direct presence of God” do you not understand the meaning of?
And are you saying that God can’t alter his own nature to allow sin to exist in his presence? That such a task is impossible for an omnipotent entity?
And if God can alter his nature to allow sin to exist in his presence then why is it nonsensical to ask why he doesn’t do so? What part of that question can’t you make sense of?
Well then why DOESN’T he? If he’s all powerful, then no “sacrifice” ought to be necessary.
With all due respect, this is a non-answer. For one thing, there is no evidence we were “created” at all, much less created to “be” anything. But even if we grant those things, we have been given no way to tell what that purpose is and what would thwart it.
Moreover, if the action is non-volitional, then it is unreasonable and unjust for God to hold us accountable.
What do you mean by “rejecting” God? I’ve never been given the option to reject God because God has never shown me that he exists. Is it evil not to believe in the existence of God without evidence? Especially since the book purporting to be his “word” is so riddled with demonstrable falsehood, contradiction, error and fallacy?
Does not believing in God mean a person is “full of sin and evil?” If so, then why doesn’t god show some proof of his own existence? It doesn’t make sense that he should expect belief without evidence.
I still haven’t really gotten a definition of “sin” which I think is very satisfying. Is not believing in God a sin? How about believing in God but not Jesus? Why does God care what anyone believes as long as they’re good people?
I still don’t understand why being a :sinner" makes it hurt to be in the presence of God, either? What sortt of torment are we even talking about? Are we talking about literal physical pain?
True free will cannot involve punishment.
So what?
Also, if this torment is a result of unbelief, then how can God morally justify not providing evidence of his own existence?
Sure it did, and still does. Some are glad it happened; some regret that it did; some don’t care, etc.
Division fallacy. Just because 1 and 3 are parts of 4, that does not mean that 1 and 3 are even numbers.
Nonsense. History is replete with railroaded convictions from kangaroo courts.
How so?
You mean like accused heretics who were kidnapped in the middle of the night, brought to trial without advocacy, and handed off to alternate jurisdictions for quid pro quo resolutions of justice?
Well, there’s John 8:46-47, “Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God”.
What are you talking about?
Honestly, as hostile as you are, I don’t blame Him if He’s hiding from you. You might think He’s being coy, but you’re being as plain as you can be. You clearly want nothing to do with Him. Remember your sword?
Because I wished to show that I don’t believe that God couldn’t have accomplished our salvation another way.
The Son had a divine will, which is identical to that of the Father, and a human will, which was at all times in obedience to the divine will. When He prayed for the “cup to pass” from him, he was indicating that in His humanity, He would prefer to do it another way, but would nevertheless follow the divine will.
I’m saying the statement “God can alter His nature” is nonsensical, in the same way that “1 + 1 = 3” or “My invisible red unicorn are blue” are.
I’ll answer that question when you tell me (accurately!) how many preterite verbs can dance on an integer.
Lib, Jesus wasn’t crucified for “heresy.” According to the gospels, he was crucified by the Romans for claiming to be the King of the Jews, i.e for sedition against Rome. If Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah, or the rightful king of the Jews, then he was indeed guilty of sedition.
The synoptics also claim that Jesus was convicted of “blasphemy” by the Sanhedrin, but the words that Mark claims were called blasphemous were nothing of the sort under Jewish law (claiming to be the Messiah was perfectly legal under JEWISH law, it was only illegal under ROMAN law and it was a political crime, not a religious one). Jesus was not crucified for blasphemy in any case.
Also, I personally didn’t have shit to do with the crucifixion and I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say by blaming me.
And God has been anything but “plain” to me, and I’ve looked. I’ve never been able to find a single reason to believe he exists.
I dunno. It’s not something that’s been revealed to mankind.
The two greatest commandments give a pretty good indication of what our purpose is.
If God has truly never shown you that He exists, then you don’t have anything to worry about.
Not necessarily.
Possibly.
Depends on their reason for not believing in Him.
How do you figure? If I stick my hand in a fire, I will be burned. That doesn’t mean I’m not free to stick my hand in a fire.
Earlier you said “The Father and the Son do not have two separate wills”. Now you are saying that they do have two separate wills, one divine will that they share and one human will that differs.
Can you please clarify this point. Do they have two separate wills or don’t they? This needs to be very clear because your response to my question was that it was meaningless because they had only one will that was always in concordance. If they in fact have two (or more) separate wills that are able to be in conflict then the original question hasn’t in fact been addressed.
So I’ll ask very clearly, do the Father and Son always have exactly the same will, or do they have wills that are capable of being in conflict.
Which seems to be justifying my original point rather than refuting it in any way. His humanity was needlessly suffering inflicted in it by the divine will of the Father. How can you reconcile the claim of loving parenthood with the same parent allowing needless suffering?
OK. Well those statements “1 + 1 = 3” is nonsensical because it contains a provable logical fault. “My invisible red unicorn are blue” is nonsensical because it contains an inherent and provable contradiction.
Since you have claimed that ““God can alter His nature” is nonsensical in the same way I’m going to ask you to show us. Show us where that statement contains either a provable logical fault or a provable contradiction.
Simply saying that a statement is nonsense doesn’t make it nonsense. You have to show what is illogical about it that makes it nonsensical. If you can’t do that then it isn’t nonsensical at all. It’s a perfectly sensible question that you are unable to answer.
Sorry, that won’t cut it in GD either yBeayf.
That is a logical fallacy known as a red herring. Preterite verbs are totally irrelevant to this discussion and as such I don’t require knowledge of them in order to understand that your position has serious flaws. You can’t just avoid embarrassing theological questions by claiming that I can’t name all the kings of England in alphabetical order. That’s just rubbish. It’s a red herring.
So I’ll ask you one more time, what part of my question can’t you make sense of? I’m assuming that you can’t actually answer it. You’ve claimed that it makes no sense but you can’t actually show that any part of it is logically or grammatically flawed.
That’s just argument from assertion yBeayf. Your position is worthless if that’s all it’s based on.
The Father has one will. The Son has two wills, which are always united and never in conflict. The prayer in the garden was not a rejection of the divine will.
The divine will of the Father and the Son is one. The divine will of the Father/Son and the human will of the Son are not and never will be in conflict.
God has revealed Himself to be unchanging and unchangeable. For Him to alter His nature would contradict His unchangeability.
Preterite verbs have nothing to do with the point I was making. I know what a red herring is, and this ain’t one. God by definition is unchangeable, hence asking if God can change is like asking if an invisible dragon can be seen.
If the two wills are never in conflict then why did he ask that one will be done and the other will not be done?
The explain why he prayed “Don’t let my [human] will be done. Let your [divine] will be done instead”. How could that be possible if the two wills are never in conflict?
But God has also revealed Himself to be omnipotent. For him to be unable to change his nature would contradict His omnipotence. Which contradiction trumps the other in this situation. Either way there is appears to be a contradiction.
If it isn’t a red herring then explain the relevance of Preterite verbs. If they have no relevance then you introduced a side-issue of no relevance, and that is the very definition of a red herring.
God by definition is also omnipotent. So isn’t claiming that God is unable to change also like asking if an invisible dragon can be seen?
His human will freely went along with the divine will. I’m not seeing any conflict here.
Dude, the remark had nothing to do with preterite verbs. It was a tongue-in-cheek challenge, intended to be equivalently a question that you would not be able to make sense of. You were evidently whooshed.
But you have to consider His omnipotence in light of His unchangeability. “God changing” is not an ability that one is capable or not capable of, but just two words that when put together don’t refer to anything in reality.
That’s because you are ignoring the issue.
The Gospels clearly state that his human will did NOT go along with divine will. It says in black and white that he asked for one will to be done and the other will not to be done.
It is impossible for one will to be done and the other not to be done if the two wills are in concordance. So how do you explain that he asked for one will to be done and the other will not to be done? Doesn’t that prove that the two wills are not in agreement?
I obviously called it for what it was. A red herring.
Now that we’ve established that can you please answer the question?
But that doesn’t even make any sense grammatically, much lesslogically.
How can you consider omnipotence in light of anything? Omnipotence is all-embracing. This is like saying that we need to consider something’s infiniteness in light of its length. It’s a nonsense.
Clearly grammatically “God changing” is an ability. It is a concept that I can easily imagine and comprehend. I can imagine God changing himself into a swan or a golden shower for that matter. There’s nothing grammatically wrong with “God changing”. So you must be saying that it’s theologically not capable of being.
And all you are doing with that is tying yourself up in increasingly more convoluted knots. You are resolving nothing and so far it looks like turtles all the way down.
What do you mean “God changing” isn’t an ability. Are you saying that “God changing” is not an ability possessed by any entity in this universe? If so then you are saying that God does not possess the ability of God changing. You are saying that there is something that God is not capable of doing.
You are once again forced to put a limitation on an entity that has revealed itself as omnipotent. And yet you’ve said that there can’t be any such contradictions.
Like I said, it’s turtles all the way down. Just saying that it’s meaningless doesn’t make it meaningless. Saying that God can’t do something that has real physical effects because the concept is meaningless doesn’t alter the contradiction. There is a real physical effect that is desired, having a sinner in the presence of God. If God can’t produce that physical effect then he is not omnipotent. There is something that I can imagine that he cannot achieve by any means at all. And this isn’t something inherently self-contradictory like a square circle. This is merely the act of moving an object from point A to point B. And God can’t manage it by any means.
Doesn’t that prove that God isn’t omnipotent?
I would be very carefull of dispensing such advice as this.
You always seem to forget “Some aren’t even convinced it even happened.” It may be easier for your argument to assume that I am somehow mad at a “god” that I have always said I don’t believe in, but it makes no sense.
Huh? I don’t mean “Huh? I’m too stupid to know what division fallacy is”. I mean “Huh? In what way does your reply apply to my statement?”
History is also filled with trials that are fair and verdicts that are, for their time and place, just. Why don’t we talk about this case, though.
Performing a minor miracle during the trial would have been a good start. And don’t give me that nonsense about how they should have taken his word on faith-others were being tried for the same crime and they weren’t believed, and he apparantly had no problems performing miracles before when he was in front of large crowds of people.
Does this mean that everyone else supposedly treated that way was also the son of God?
Was this said to his accusers?
I am obviously talking about a being who is supposedly all powerful and omnipresent but cannot make his presence known to millions of people. Please note that I am not talking about vague feelings of joy and logic problems that supposedly prove his existence-I’m talking about a simple “Sorry to interrupt your meal, but I am God. If you ever wondered whether I exist, well, here I am. Now, I fully understand that you might still have doubts about my existence. I mean, crazy people have heard voices that they claimed came from me since, well, there were crazy people. I’ll tell you what-why don’t you call 20 people at random, have them write down what they heard at this time, and compare notes.”
If I don’t believe that he exists, why would he bother to hide from me, and if he is supposedly all powerful, why would he need to? Do you really think that I’m hostile? Amazing!
“Remember your sword?” WTF??