|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:38 pm
Lethkhar Fushigi na Butterfly Lethkhar Fushigi na Butterfly Why does that necessarily have to be the case? That a perfect Creator would make perfect creations? Did it never occur to you that He wanted something less than perfect? In so many respects we are flawed, broken, and imperfect. In one respect, the perfect Creator did make perfect creations: we are created in His image. Only God can create something that is both flawed and perfect. Nonetheless; in saying that God created us as flawed beings, you are unconciously acknowledging the fact that Adam and Eve had very little control over whether they sinned or not. If the absence of sin is perfection (e.g. Jesus), then the presence of sin is imperfection. And if God created humans as imperfect (which we clearly are, given that we sin), then Adam and Eve did not actually have any choice in whether they sinned or not, as they were created to sin. This, of course, completely removes any possibility of "free will" actually being defined, much less existing. I'm saying that humans, because they're defined as imperfect, do not actually have the capacity to not sin. If perfection is not sinning, and we are imperfect, then we must sin. Anyway, we need to take this to a new thread, because we definitely aren't talking about Satanism anymore. zz1000zz Lethkhar Nonetheless; in saying that God created us as flawed beings, you are unconciously acknowledging the fact that Adam and Eve had very little control over whether they sinned or not. If the absence of sin is perfection (e.g. Jesus), then the presence of sin is imperfection. And if God created humans as imperfect (which we clearly are, given that we sin), then Adam and Eve did not actually have any choice in whether they sinned or not, as they were created to sin. This, of course, completely removes any possibility of "free will" actually being defined, much less existing. There is a rather serious logical fallacy here. Lethkhar If the absence of sin is perfection (e.g. Jesus), then the presence of sin is imperfection. Define "absence of sin" as A, "perfection" as B. This statement would translate into: Quote: If A than B. If not A than not B. This is a logical fallacy. To demonstrate, define "is a square" as A, "has four sides" as B. Your logical fallacy would translate into: Quote: If it is a square, it has four sides. If it is not a square, it does not have four sides. The second statement does not necessarily follow from the first. Your posts routinely rely on this logical fallacy, and until it is fixed they are rendered unacceptable. Edit: I noticed the exact same logical fallacy applied in reverse in a later post. Lethkhar If perfection is not sinning, and we are imperfect, then we must sin. The inconsistency makes your definitions impossible to accept as it is. Clarification is necessary. Are you saying one is a trait of another, or are you saying the terms are synonymous? Each of your posts are worded as the former, but when combined the latter seems to be what you intend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:09 pm
Fushigi na Butterfly Lethkhar Fushigi na Butterfly Lethkhar Fushigi na Butterfly Why does that necessarily have to be the case? That a perfect Creator would make perfect creations? Did it never occur to you that He wanted something less than perfect? In so many respects we are flawed, broken, and imperfect. In one respect, the perfect Creator did make perfect creations: we are created in His image. Only God can create something that is both flawed and perfect. Nonetheless; in saying that God created us as flawed beings, you are unconciously acknowledging the fact that Adam and Eve had very little control over whether they sinned or not. If the absence of sin is perfection (e.g. Jesus), then the presence of sin is imperfection. And if God created humans as imperfect (which we clearly are, given that we sin), then Adam and Eve did not actually have any choice in whether they sinned or not, as they were created to sin. This, of course, completely removes any possibility of "free will" actually being defined, much less existing. I'm saying that humans, because they're defined as imperfect, do not actually have the capacity to not sin. If perfection is not sinning, and we are imperfect, then we must sin. Anyway, we need to take this to a new thread, because we definitely aren't talking about Satanism anymore. zz1000zz Lethkhar Nonetheless; in saying that God created us as flawed beings, you are unconciously acknowledging the fact that Adam and Eve had very little control over whether they sinned or not. If the absence of sin is perfection (e.g. Jesus), then the presence of sin is imperfection. And if God created humans as imperfect (which we clearly are, given that we sin), then Adam and Eve did not actually have any choice in whether they sinned or not, as they were created to sin. This, of course, completely removes any possibility of "free will" actually being defined, much less existing. There is a rather serious logical fallacy here. Lethkhar If the absence of sin is perfection (e.g. Jesus), then the presence of sin is imperfection. Define "absence of sin" as A, "perfection" as B. This statement would translate into: Quote: If A than B. If not A than not B. This is a logical fallacy. You're right. I made an unsupported jump. The inference was incomplete because I didn't include any actual logical language. Let me rephrase in full: We start with the proof of my own proposition: 1. A perfect being is a being who does not sin. (Jesus) 2. If a being is an imperfect being, then it is a being who sins. Then we move on to the main argument: 1. If a being is an imperfect being, then it is a being who sins. (This can be supported by the previous argument) 2. If Adam and Eve were imperfect beings, then they would be beings who sinned. 4. If God willed that Adam and Eve were imperfect beings, then Adam and Eve would be imperfect beings. (My opponent's proposition) 5. If God willed that Adam and Eve were imperfect beings, then Adam and Eve would be beings who sinned. 6. God willed that Adam and Eve were imperfect beings. (My opponent's proposition) 7. Therefore, God willed that Adam and Eve would be beings who sinned. Of course, you could argue whether God actually willed that consequence of His actions, but I can negate that argument via His omniscience and omnipotence. I just omitted that part of the argument because it gets really long and messy. I prefer to address that on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:14 pm
Lethkhar 1. A perfect being is a being who does not sin. (Jesus) 2. If a being is an imperfect being, then it is a being who sins. You actually just restated the logical fallacy, which accomplishes nothing. However, it is ultimately a minor issue which is far less important than another. Lethkhar 5. If God willed that Adam and Eve were imperfect beings, then Adam and Eve would be beings who sinned. 6. God willed that Adam and Eve were imperfect beings. (My opponent's proposition) 7. Therefore, God willed that Adam and Eve would be beings who sinned. This does not follow, and your attributing it to your "opponent's proposition" is false. By your definitions, God did not create Adam and Eve as imperfect beings. Your definition states a being is perfect if it does not sin. Adam and Eve had not sinned at the time of their creation (a trivial concept I assume you would stipulate). As beings who had not sinned, by your definition they were perfect. Nothing in your definition would say Adam and Eve were created imperfectly. That they possessed the ability to sin does not make them imperfect, given your definition. Indeed, the ability to sin if so chosen is an inherent aspect of perfection (as even Jesus possessed the potential to sin).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:53 pm
zz1000zz That they possessed the ability to sin does not make them imperfect, given your definition. Indeed, the ability to sin if so chosen is an inherent aspect of perfection (as even Jesus possessed the potential to sin).
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:49 pm
zz1000zz Lethkhar 1. A perfect being is a being who does not sin. (Jesus) 2. If a being is an imperfect being, then it is a being who sins. You actually just restated the logical fallacy, which accomplishes nothing. However, it is ultimately a minor issue which is far less important than another. Let's run through it via letters, shall we? Here's the argument: 1. A = B 2. If not A, then not B Or numbers: 1. 2 = 2 2. If =/= 2, then =/= 2 I fail to see the logical fallacy. Quote: Lethkhar 5. If God willed that Adam and Eve were imperfect beings, then Adam and Eve would be beings who sinned. 6. God willed that Adam and Eve were imperfect beings. (My opponent's proposition) 7. Therefore, God willed that Adam and Eve would be beings who sinned. This does not follow, and your attributing it to your "opponent's proposition" is false. Actually, it's true. She said that Adam and Eve were created imperfect by God, not me. Quote: By your definitions, God did not create Adam and Eve as imperfect beings. Your definition states a being is perfect if it does not sin. Adam and Eve had not sinned at the time of their creation (a trivial concept I assume you would stipulate). As beings who had not sinned, by your definition they were perfect. My definition says,"A perfect being is a being who does not sin", not one who has not sinned. A minor difference, but certainly conciously made. Quote: Nothing in your definition would say Adam and Eve were created imperfectly. That they possessed the ability to sin does not make them imperfect, given your definition. Indeed, the ability to sin if so chosen is an inherent aspect of perfection (as even Jesus possessed the potential to sin). We agree. The difference between Jesus and Adam and Eve, however, is that Jesus did not sin and Adam and Eve did. Adam and Eve were created as imperfect beings who did sin. Jesus was a perfect being who did not sin. They were both created having not sinned, but that's irrelevant. God, as an omniscient being, created Adam and Eve as imperfect beings who sinned. This is not their fault. God created them as themselves; He also created the environment they were raised in. Being omnipotent, He had complete control over what they were and what they became, and He had complete knowledge of it. Blaming it on them is reasonable, but for someone who knew of the crime beforehand and who was in complete control over what the criminals did to be the judge is completely absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:51 pm
Lethkhar zz1000zz Lethkhar 1. A perfect being is a being who does not sin. (Jesus) 2. If a being is an imperfect being, then it is a being who sins. You actually just restated the logical fallacy, which accomplishes nothing. However, it is ultimately a minor issue which is far less important than another. Let's run through it via letters, shall we? Here's the argument: 1. A = B 2. If not A, then not B Or numbers: 1. 2 = 2 2. If =/= 2, then =/= 2 I fail to see the logical fallacy. The logical fallacy is your wording was not A = B, but rather A -> B. Rather than defining one as a trait of another, you meant to define one as the other. Your wording did not do this. Lethkhar Quote: Lethkhar 5. If God willed that Adam and Eve were imperfect beings, then Adam and Eve would be beings who sinned. 6. God willed that Adam and Eve were imperfect beings. (My opponent's proposition) 7. Therefore, God willed that Adam and Eve would be beings who sinned. This does not follow, and your attributing it to your "opponent's proposition" is false. Actually, it's true. She said that Adam and Eve were created imperfect by God, not me. No she did not. Her exact words were: Fushigi na Butterfly Why does that necessarily have to be the case? That a perfect Creator would make perfect creations? Did it never occur to you that He wanted something less than perfect? In so many respects we are flawed, broken, and imperfect. In one respect, the perfect Creator did make perfect creations: we are created in His image. Only God can create something that is both flawed and perfect. Nothing in this says Adam and Ever were originally created as imperfect beings. Lethkhar Quote: By your definitions, God did not create Adam and Eve as imperfect beings. Your definition states a being is perfect if it does not sin. Adam and Eve had not sinned at the time of their creation (a trivial concept I assume you would stipulate). As beings who had not sinned, by your definition they were perfect. My definition says,"A perfect being is a being who does not sin", not one who has not sinned. A minor difference, but certainly conciously made. "Has not" is past tense. "Does not" is current tense. Neither is future tense, nor is your definition. Your definition cannot incorporate future actions; therefore, it does not say Adam and Eve were created as imperfect beings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:53 am
zz1000zz Lethkhar zz1000zz Lethkhar 1. A perfect being is a being who does not sin. (Jesus) 2. If a being is an imperfect being, then it is a being who sins. You actually just restated the logical fallacy, which accomplishes nothing. However, it is ultimately a minor issue which is far less important than another. Let's run through it via letters, shall we? Here's the argument: 1. A = B 2. If not A, then not B Or numbers: 1. 2 = 2 2. If =/= 2, then =/= 2 I fail to see the logical fallacy. The logical fallacy is your wording was not A = B, but rather A -> B. Rather than defining one as a trait of another, you meant to define one as the other. Your wording did not do this. Actually, I expressly made sure that it did: Lethkhar 1. A perfect being is a being who does not sin. A perfect being = A being who does not sin. I personally think that you just weren't paying attention. I will agree that my original wording, before I rephrased it, could have confused you to believe that I was using an "if-then" statement. Quote: Lethkhar Quote: Lethkhar 5. If God willed that Adam and Eve were imperfect beings, then Adam and Eve would be beings who sinned. 6. God willed that Adam and Eve were imperfect beings. (My opponent's proposition) 7. Therefore, God willed that Adam and Eve would be beings who sinned. This does not follow, and your attributing it to your "opponent's proposition" is false. Actually, it's true. She said that Adam and Eve were created imperfect by God, not me. No she did not. Her exact words were: Fushigi na Butterfly Why does that necessarily have to be the case? That a perfect Creator would make perfect creations? Did it never occur to you that He wanted something less than perfect? In so many respects we are flawed, broken, and imperfect. In one respect, the perfect Creator did make perfect creations: we are created in His image. Only God can create something that is both flawed and perfect. Nothing in this says Adam and Ever were originally created as imperfect beings. Sorry...I guess I just assumed that when she said "we" she was including the actual topic of discussion: Adam and Eve. stare Quote: Lethkhar Quote: By your definitions, God did not create Adam and Eve as imperfect beings. Your definition states a being is perfect if it does not sin. Adam and Eve had not sinned at the time of their creation (a trivial concept I assume you would stipulate). As beings who had not sinned, by your definition they were perfect. My definition says,"A perfect being is a being who does not sin", not one who has not sinned. A minor difference, but certainly conciously made. "Has not" is past tense. "Does not" is current tense. Neither is future tense, nor is your definition. Your definition cannot incorporate future actions; therefore, it does not say Adam and Eve were created as imperfect beings. Actually, simple present tense encapsulates any action that is repeated or done regularly; past, present, and future. I was using the phrase "does sin" to imply that it was an tendency inherent in imperfect beings, not a single action at a single moment in time. Language is confusing, and it would have been impossible for you to just know what I meant since the form you interpreted it as uses the exact same tense. http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplepresent.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:22 am
Lethkhar zz1000zz Lethkhar zz1000zz Lethkhar 1. A perfect being is a being who does not sin. (Jesus) 2. If a being is an imperfect being, then it is a being who sins. You actually just restated the logical fallacy, which accomplishes nothing. However, it is ultimately a minor issue which is far less important than another. Let's run through it via letters, shall we? Here's the argument: 1. A = B 2. If not A, then not B Or numbers: 1. 2 = 2 2. If =/= 2, then =/= 2 I fail to see the logical fallacy. The logical fallacy is your wording was not A = B, but rather A -> B. Rather than defining one as a trait of another, you meant to define one as the other. Your wording did not do this. Actually, I expressly made sure that it did: Lethkhar 1. A perfect being is a being who does not sin. A perfect being = A being who does not sin. I personally think that you just weren't paying attention. I will agree that my original wording, before I rephrased it, could have confused you to believe that I was using an "if-then" statement. By this definition, a perfect being is a being who does not sin. This does not say a being who does not sin is perfect. Consequently, it does not rule out the possibility of an imperfect being who does not sin. Rather than assume I am not paying attention it might help if you drew a Venn diagram for yourself. It should demonstrate the problem for you. Lethkhar Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly Why does that necessarily have to be the case? That a perfect Creator would make perfect creations? Did it never occur to you that He wanted something less than perfect? In so many respects we are flawed, broken, and imperfect. In one respect, the perfect Creator did make perfect creations: we are created in His image. Only God can create something that is both flawed and perfect. Nothing in this says Adam and Ever were originally created as imperfect beings. Sorry...I guess I just assumed that when she said "we" she was including the actual topic of discussion: Adam and Eve. stare Apparently your assumption allowed you to translate "we are" to "our ancient ancestors were." While this may be a possible interpretation, it is inappropriate to simply assume it is the intended meaning. Her post was far too vague to be taken as a statement of position Lethkhar Quote: Lethkhar Quote: By your definitions, God did not create Adam and Eve as imperfect beings. Your definition states a being is perfect if it does not sin. Adam and Eve had not sinned at the time of their creation (a trivial concept I assume you would stipulate). As beings who had not sinned, by your definition they were perfect. My definition says,"A perfect being is a being who does not sin", not one who has not sinned. A minor difference, but certainly conciously made. "Has not" is past tense. "Does not" is current tense. Neither is future tense, nor is your definition. Your definition cannot incorporate future actions; therefore, it does not say Adam and Eve were created as imperfect beings. Actually, simple present tense encapsulates any action that is repeated or done regularly; past, present, and future. I was using the phrase "does sin" to imply that it was an tendency inherent in imperfect beings, not a single action at a single moment in time. Language is confusing, and it would have been impossible for you to just know what I meant since the form you interpreted it as uses the exact same tense. http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplepresent.html I am quite aware of what the simple present tense is. It at most implies things about the future; it can never say with certainty. For example, "He does not live in Florida" can only be accepted in reference to the present. It cannot be interpreted into the future as you are attempting. Simple present can make implications about the future, but it cannot make claims about it. By saying, "A perfect being is a being who does not sin," you only say "A perfect being currently has no trend of sinning." This does not even say the person has not sinned in the past (your definition implies it would be possible to alternate between perfection and imperfection multiple times). Quote: He does not eat meat. He ate meat last Thanksgiving. He will eat meat this Thanksgiving. None of these statements are contradictory. You can replace "eat meat" with "sin" to demonstrate the failure of your definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:10 am
To stop this ridiculousness over the logical fallacy from continuing, allow me to explain in a little more detail. The "proof" used to demonstrate the fallacy: Lethkhar 1. A perfect being is a being who does not sin. (Jesus) 2. If a being is an imperfect being, then it is a being who sins. Point one is A -> B. A perfect being (A) is (->) a being who does not sin (B). Point two is Not A -> Not B. A imperfect being (Not A) is (->) a being who sins (Not B). Saying point two follows from point one is a logical fallacy as discussed previously. With two binary variables there are four possibilities. They are: Quote: 1) A is true, B is true. 2) A is true, B is false. 3) A is false, B is true. 4) A is false, B is false. By your definition, a perfect being (A) is a being who does not sin (B). Point one is obviously true. Point two contradicts this, making it false. This is trivial. You hold point four is true as well. However, point four is no more valid than point three, meaning it cannot be proven by your definition. If you wish only point four to be true you would have to broaden your definition. Defining two objects as synonymous requires two parts. First, A -> B. Second, B -> A. If only one of these relations exists you are defining a trait of the object, not a synonym (definition). This is the case with your definition Lethkhar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:49 pm
Lethkhar ...The difference between Jesus and Adam and Eve, however, is that Jesus did not sin and Adam and Eve did. Adam and Eve were created as imperfect beings who did sin. Jesus was a perfect being who did not sin... Indeed! This argument must not be avoided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:05 pm
Reformed Baptist Lethkhar ...The difference between Jesus and Adam and Eve, however, is that Jesus did not sin and Adam and Eve did. Adam and Eve were created as imperfect beings who did sin. Jesus was a perfect being who did not sin... Indeed! This argument must not be avoided. All three had the potential to sin. Only one managed not to. Jesus had the same potential to sin as Adam and Eve. What is the argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:32 pm
zz1000zz Lethkhar zz1000zz Lethkhar zz1000zz You actually just restated the logical fallacy, which accomplishes nothing. However, it is ultimately a minor issue which is far less important than another. Let's run through it via letters, shall we? Here's the argument: 1. A = B 2. If not A, then not B Or numbers: 1. 2 = 2 2. If =/= 2, then =/= 2 I fail to see the logical fallacy. The logical fallacy is your wording was not A = B, but rather A -> B. Rather than defining one as a trait of another, you meant to define one as the other. Your wording did not do this. Actually, I expressly made sure that it did: Lethkhar 1. A perfect being is a being who does not sin. A perfect being = A being who does not sin. I personally think that you just weren't paying attention. I will agree that my original wording, before I rephrased it, could have confused you to believe that I was using an "if-then" statement. By this definition, a perfect being is a being who does not sin. This does not say a being who does not sin is perfect. Consequently, it does not rule out the possibility of an imperfect being who does not sin. Rather than assume I am not paying attention it might help if you drew a Venn diagram for yourself. It should demonstrate the problem for you. A Venn diagram of this situation would just be a single circle. There is no possibility of an imperfect being who does not sin, as "Imperfect being/Being who does sin" is everything outside the "Perfect being/Being who does not sin" circle. You keep insisting that perfection and lack of sin can be exclusive when in fact I expressly made it clear that my proposition implies that a perfect being is a being who does not sin and vice versa. "A being who does not sin" is my proposed definition of "a perfect being". Therefore, saying "a being who does not sin" and "a perfect being" means exact same thing. I don't know how else to get this across to you. Quote: Lethkhar Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly Why does that necessarily have to be the case? That a perfect Creator would make perfect creations? Did it never occur to you that He wanted something less than perfect? In so many respects we are flawed, broken, and imperfect. In one respect, the perfect Creator did make perfect creations: we are created in His image. Only God can create something that is both flawed and perfect. Nothing in this says Adam and Ever were originally created as imperfect beings. Sorry...I guess I just assumed that when she said "we" she was including the actual topic of discussion: Adam and Eve. stare Apparently your assumption allowed you to translate "we are" to "our ancient ancestors were." While this may be a possible interpretation, it is inappropriate to simply assume it is the intended meaning. Her post was far too vague to be taken as a statement of position Considering the fact that the topic of discussion was Adam and Eve, I believe that it was perfectly appropriate to assume that that was the intended meaning. Also, because Adam and Eve were also creations of God the statement can be assumed to also apply to them. Or we could ask Fushigi if Adam and Eve were perfect beings who did not sin. Quote: Lethkhar Quote: Lethkhar Quote: By your definitions, God did not create Adam and Eve as imperfect beings. Your definition states a being is perfect if it does not sin. Adam and Eve had not sinned at the time of their creation (a trivial concept I assume you would stipulate). As beings who had not sinned, by your definition they were perfect. My definition says,"A perfect being is a being who does not sin", not one who has not sinned. A minor difference, but certainly conciously made. "Has not" is past tense. "Does not" is current tense. Neither is future tense, nor is your definition. Your definition cannot incorporate future actions; therefore, it does not say Adam and Eve were created as imperfect beings. Actually, simple present tense encapsulates any action that is repeated or done regularly; past, present, and future. I was using the phrase "does sin" to imply that it was an tendency inherent in imperfect beings, not a single action at a single moment in time. Language is confusing, and it would have been impossible for you to just know what I meant since the form you interpreted it as uses the exact same tense. http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplepresent.html I am quite aware of what the simple present tense is. It at most implies things about the future; it can never say with certainty. For example, "He does not live in Florida" can only be accepted in reference to the present. It cannot be interpreted into the future as you are attempting. Simple present can make implications about the future, but it cannot make claims about it. By saying, "A perfect being is a being who does not sin," you only say "A perfect being currently has no trend of sinning." This does not even say the person has not sinned in the past (your definition implies it would be possible to alternate between perfection and imperfection multiple times). If I say "a being who sins", and that being has not sinned yet, as in the case of Adam and Eve, then it must be implied that that being must sin in the future. After all, how can a being be a being who sins if it never sins? That would be an oxymoron, as you've pointed out. We can't logically have oxymorons, so that being must sin in the future in order to fufill its destiny as an imperfect being who sins. Quote: Quote: He does not eat meat. He ate meat last Thanksgiving. He will eat meat this Thanksgiving. None of these statements are contradictory. You can replace "eat meat" with "sin" to demonstrate the failure of your definition. Ah, but we are talking about beings who "do sin", not "do not sin". Not that your example isn't usable; but not eating meat would have to be a more instantaneous ocurrence. For simplicity's sake, a more correct analogy would be: "He eats meat. He did not eat meat last Thanksgiving. He will not eat meat this Thanksgiving." Now, in order to be said to eat meat, "he" must eat meat at some point in time. If we know that "he" has never eaten meat in the past, and "he" is not eating meat in the present, then we know that "he" must eat meat in the future, in order to be said to eat meat. I'm enjoying this. It's a good mind-stretch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:09 pm
Lethkhar You keep insisting that perfection and lack of sin can be exclusive when in fact I expressly made it clear that my proposition implies that a perfect being is a being who does not sin and vice versa. "A being who does not sin" is my proposed definition of "a perfect being". Therefore, saying "a being who does not sin" and "a perfect being" means exact same thing. I don't know how else to get this across to you. I have already explained why this is not true. I explained how you defined a trait, not a definition. I also explained what you would need to do to accomplish what you intended. Read what I said. Then either show how it was wrong (which you cannot), ask for clarification or agree. You have now made it clear what you intended to say, and it is not what you had said. Lethkhar If I say "a being who sins", and that being has not sinned yet, as in the case of Adam and Eve, then it must be implied that that being must sin in the future. After all, how can a being be a being who sins if it never sins? That would be an oxymoron, as you've pointed out. We can't logically have oxymorons, so that being must sin in the future in order to fufill its destiny as an imperfect being who sins. Lethkhar Ah, but we are talking about beings who "do sin", not "do not sin". No we are not. This entire fork has been discussing the phrase "does not sin." I suspect the reason you "don't know how else to get this across" to me is you are not actually reading what I say. You call this a "mind-stretch" but you have just ignored what I have said. Also, you apparently need to look up what an oxymoron is. Your use of it is completely invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:40 pm
Wow. Just .... wow, you guys.
Does it help to put things into more specific (and somehow, at the same time, broader) categories? Like, human beings are imperfect and Jesus is perfect. The only thing setting them apart is that human beings sin and Jesus never sinned. Or is that a logical fallacy too?
And for the record, when I said "we" I meant humans in general. You can use that to incorporate whoever you want, so long as they were human (and not Jesus, as He was perfect).
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:41 pm
zz1000zz Reformed Baptist Lethkhar ...The difference between Jesus and Adam and Eve, however, is that Jesus did not sin and Adam and Eve did. Adam and Eve were created as imperfect beings who did sin. Jesus was a perfect being who did not sin... Indeed! This argument must not be avoided. All three had the potential to sin. Only one managed not to. Jesus had the same potential to sin as Adam and Eve. That's where you are wrong because you are dealing with the nature of God! If you say that Jesus had the potential to sin then you would be saying that the spirit of God has the ability to sin. The problem is that God does not have that the ability or nature to sin which makes him perfect. That would make Adam and Eve imperfect when they were created because they had that ability or freedom to sin. Let's all face it, God knew Adam and Eve will fail, even before creation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
