Prayer in the Senate disrupted

[The_Professor]

I was only attempting to explain their rationale. I do not agree with their actions.

You should bring people to your faith by not only your words, but by your actions.

[gipper]

Professor, in my book your views are reprehensible, and stupid.

[The_Professor]

It is okay, gipper. I understand your position. After all, some people like you have to inhabit the lower IQ ranges so others like, well, almost everyone else, can exhibit normal and high IQs. I'll pray for wisdom for you.

[gipper]

Bring it on, poser.  :-)

[Xavier_Onassis]

Demons. All the "untrue gods" are demons.

This sounds really enlightened. Like the bit where Jesus comes upon the insane man, casts the demons that were troubling him into a herd of swine (One can only suppose that a manful of demons would not fit into a single piggie), and the pigs jump into the water and drown. 

An enlightened view of mental illness. Surely there cannot be too many  people in this modern age who believe such nonsense.

Monotheism is the last word in theology, but somehow one devil is just not enough. There must be bunches of them, and some clever enough to attract worshippers, like Baal and Ishtar.

The idea that an omniscient and perfect god would actually create angels so defective that they would turn against him is laughable. An omniscient God would be able to forsee the rebellion and design less defective angels. I mean, being able to see into the future is a tremendous boon to research and development. It eliminates test models and experimentation.

There appears to have been a lot of really shoddy thinking going on in the realm of theology.

[The_Professor]

I respect your view, XO, even though I do not happen to agree. Diversity of thought and discussion of diverse ideas are what Debategate is all all about.

[Xavier_Onassis]

How do you explain that a perfect and omniscient God, with the ability to see into the future, would design defective angels?
This would have to be an intentional act, I suppose. Such a God could not a actually make mistakes as you and I do. Think about it.

Do you believe that mental illness can be caused by demon infestation? Wouldl that be all mental illness, or just some?


So you can disagree, but surely you are capable of a better explanation than "the Bible tells me so", don't you think?

[Amianthus]

How do you explain that a perfect and omniscient God, with the ability to see into the future, would design defective angels?

Giving them free will is not a "design defect."

[Xavier_Onassis]

Giving them free will is not a "design defect."
=====================================
Oh please. If God knows what one will do before one does it, then there is no free will.

If a deity knows that he can build a Michael, and knows that Micheal will not rebel, will build a second Michael rather than a Lucifer, else he is a foolish deity indeed. Think about it.


A deity that creates angels who rebel is either incompetent at building angels, or he does not have the ability to forsee the future, and therefore is not omnipotent.

A deity that creates imperfect beings cannot be perfect.

[Amianthus]

A deity that creates imperfect beings cannot be perfect.

Only if God is limited to your arguments.

I propose that God, if he exists, knows more than you do and might have a perfectly valid reason for His actions.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is not my argument. It is just plain logic.

If God knows everything that can happen, then there is no free will. One can only do what God knows what will happen.

You may propose a God that knows more than I or anyone, but that does not mean that logic can be violated. One plus one will ever be two.

[Amianthus]

If God knows everything that can happen, then there is no free will. One can only do what God knows what will happen.

I suggest your logic is faulty.

Just because he knows what choice you're going to make does not mean there is no free will.

If he FORCES you to make a choice, then there is no free will.

Just because I predicted that something would happen does not mean that I caused it to happen.

[gipper]

The doctrine of predstination, to the extent it encompasses all intermediate "choices," which are foreordained and immutable viewed from a standpoint where an omniscient being can "see," pretty much negates "free will," at least from the deity's perspective but also from the perspective of the human who believes this doctrine. The human's activitiy thus becomes not free-will choice but acting out a pre-set script, however unconscious or nonconscious the exercise might be.

[Amianthus]

The doctrine of predstination, to the extent it encompasses all intermediate "choices," which are foreordained and immutable viewed from a standpoint where an omniscient being can "see," pretty much negates "free will," at least from the deity's perspective but also from the perspective of the human who believes this doctrine. The human's activitiy thus becomes not free-will choice but acting out a pre-set script, however unconscious or nonconscious the exercise might be.

"In the Mishnah (Ethics of the Fathers 3:15), Rabbi Akiva says it straight out: 'Everything is foreseen, and free choice is granted.' The classic commentaries don't have a problem with that. Allow me to paraphrase their very simple explanation:

"If I see a child in front of an ice cream and tell you he's going to eat it, does that mean I made him eat it? Let's say a psychologist predicts that a certain criminal, if released, will murder again. And it happens. Do we lock up the psychologist or the criminal? Of course not. The psychologist's knowledge had no involvement in the criminal's act of murder.

"Similarly, if someone came back from the future in a time machine and told you what was going to happen to the world, does that mean he is responsible for all that happens from that point on? G-d knows what you are going to do because He is beyond time. For Him, it all happened already. So, how does that imply that He denies us free choice to make those decisions?

"In other words, knowledge of the future is a result of the events of the future, not their cause. In G-d's super-temporal realm, the result can exist before the cause. But it's still a result and not a cause."
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=3019

[The_Professor]

Superb analysis, Ami. Kosh could not have said it any better.