If God hates sin, why would he create humans with a propensity to sin?

Faith & Science Conversation
117

No it is not. The actual wording is φέρων which means “brought.”

I reject your interpretation twisting the words in one passage which is really about how Jesus is greater than the angels and certainly not about explaining God’s relationship to His creation.

If God’s creations cannot even exist on their own then it is not a creation at all. It is exactly like a carpenter who has to hold up a table because it cannot stand on its own. It is incompetence in a creator. It is not even what I can do. It is NOTHING. It is what a child does when he dreams. I am not impressed. Such a ridiculous god does not interest me in the slightest. Atheism is preferable.

Frankly I think this is the invention of religionists to exaggerate their own importance, and to make nothing of the work of scientists who are the ones really listening to what God is saying in the earth and sky. It certainly doesn’t make God great. In my eyes is makes God nothing at all.

118

So why are you not acknowledging it? You claim to be a scientist?

Yes. Not evolution. TOE,The scientific explanation that you keep extolling.

No, not in TOE! FCOL what is wrong with you?

Correct. But, that is not what the atheist sees. The Atheist sees an explanation that does not include God and there fore concludes that God is not needed.
If TOE works then God is not needed. That is what Dawkins (et al) claim. They do not care whether they are mixing science with Theology. It is not a crime.

No, they know it already. But as you cannot see it you are not helping God at all.

It is not what you think you say that matters, it is what people hear.

If people hear you defending and promoting TOE they hear you say that God is not needed.

No, that is a false analogy. All it shows is your misconception of what I am saying. It might illustrate what you are saying, bit that is not how you are trying to use it. (stick to science)

And that is the crux here. You refuse to believe that Theology and science have any connection.
You understand negative space? Well science is the equivalent of negative space in theology. It still affect everything and still has to be taken into account.

Richard

119

φέρων is a participle and does not mean “brought”; it would have to be “bringing”, which makes no sense in the context – “bringing all things”?

φέρω is the actual verb, and it indicates “to bear, carry”, as in bearing a burden or carrying a load, or “bear/bring forth”.

This is a common mistake: setting aside a plain clause by appealing to the overall statement. It’s a sort of reverse cherry-picking, a way to ignore unwanted points.

Verse 3 is a subclause of a statement about who the Son is that begins in 2b and continues through the end of 3. φέρων links back to ὃν, οὗ, and ὃς of the preceding subclauses and in that context is not about the relationship between Jesus and angels but about Who the Son is.

Reducing God to human limitations is always dangerous.
In the context of ancient thought, it would be more accurate to say that if God’s creations could exist on their own then they would themselves be gods because they would no longer be contingent but self-existent.

I don’t know where your prejudice on this comes from, but it is a flaw that makes you ignore the glory of God as continuous Creator Who holds all things together, maintaining them in existence. It reduces God to being nothing but a super-man with human limitations. It results in you forcing human definitions onto the scriptures rather than hearing the message the Spirit put into those scriptures.
When you make something it is not dependent on your constant attention because you are not a creator, only a shaper – when you can command things into existence by giving an order, then the comparison between you and God could be valid, but as it is you are making a category error because you are using things you did not create whereas God is calling into existence things which did not exist. It is certainly not anything like what a dreaming child does because the child can only dream of things he has not created because God is the Creator.

Saying that God should make things which would then not depend on Him for existence is just deism warmed over – at best. It is also a denial of the apostle’s declaration that in Christ all things hold together, which tells us that if He stopped holding them they would cease to exist – really the same point the writer to the Hebrews makes, and is also made elsewhere by John.

There’s that prejudice of yours showing again. What did someone do to you that you warp everything through this filter about religious oppression?
If it’s an “invention”, its an invention of the Holy Spirit since it is a theme than shows up in at least four different writers/sources.

How is that even possible? All that scientist do is tell us what God is up to, and they can only do that because of the foundation that the scriptures describe, that God is faithful and not whimsical, and thus He runs Creation according to rules He selected. If He didn’t hold everything together it would cease to exist, but He does hold everything together and does so in a dependable manner, thus making science possible.

2 Likes
120

I just stated it. Why do you refuse to read what people have actually said, instead assigning people to boxes you have invented?

I don’t extoll TOE, I just correct errors about it. If it didn’t show God’s glory, I wouldn’t care about it in the least. What I “extoll” is getting things right.

So why do you follow the atheists? Essentially on this board you are declaring that the atheists are right!

That makes the same error someone else here makes on a distinct topic, basically saying that once God created everything He is no longer needed. It’s a serious error in either case!

No, that’s what you hear. It’s really the same position that YECists hold. Both you and they seem to think that the atheists are correct.

Besides which, I haven’t defended or promoted TOE – you’re confusing insisting that you get it right when you talk about something with affirming that something. I also energetically correct people who get things wrong about Marx, and about Aristotle, but I am neither a Marxist nor an Aristotelian, I just think that if people are going to talk about something they should understand it correctly first.

Sorry, but you’re the one who keeps insisting that we have to put God into evolution or else we’re saying God doesn’t exist. What I and others keep trying to get across to you is that there is no need to put God into evolution because science can’t exclude Him.

That’s your issue – you insist on mixing the two rather than applying clear thinking. It;s the exact same thing the YECists do, requiring theology to need science and mutilating science by inserting theology, and thus ending up with some mix that ruins both.

The difference is like saying that fuel and cars are connected and using that to insist on pouring gasoline all over the entire vehicle including the seats and the steering wheel versus insisting that fuel goes in the gas tank. The first is what you’re doing while the second is what people are trying to explain to you.

1 Like
121

Paul “God is the Ground of All Being” Tillich must be one of those religionists.

122

Shall we talk about meteorology. :woozy_face:

I’m hopeful that Mr. T.W. Rogers understood implicitly what I was getting at:

123

@Dale regarding the original question for the thread, this extended quote from Lewis’ Screwtape Letters in Widder’s commentary on Daniel seemed particularly fitting:

You must have often wondered why the Enemy does not make more use of His power to be sensibly present to human souls in any degree He chooses and at any moment. But you now see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to over-ride a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. For His ignoble idea is to eat the cake and have it; the creatures are to be one with Him, but yet themselves; merely to cancel them, or assimilate them, will not serve. He is prepared to do a little overriding at the beginning. He will set them off with communications of His presence which, though faint, seem great to them, with emotional sweetness, and easy conquest over temptation. But He never allows this state of affairs to last long. Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from their conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs — to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish. It is during such trough periods, much more than during the peak periods, that it is growing into the sort of creature He wants it to be. Hence the prayers offered in the state of dryness are those which please Him best. We can drag our patients along by continual tempting, because we design them only for the table, and the more their will is interfered with the better. He cannot “tempt” to virtue as we do to vice. He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger, than when a human, no longer desiring, but intending, to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.

He is such an amazing God. I am listening to this song in my head from the morning, So Will I (100 Billion X). The worship leader sang it with such a beauty, and dare I say anointing, that it was if he was telling the story for the first time.

1 Like
124

So you don’t think there are any biological influences on human behavior? Do you think its just co-incidence that the vast majority of violent criminals throughout history in every culture just happen to be male?

125

Hi Tom, thanks for responding. I did start reading the links you posted but then I saw McAuthur rejects evolution. His views are therefore not relevant to my question

126

You make sure that the scientific view is understood.

So where is God’s glory in TOE?

TOE says nothing about God!

Richard

127

Hi Roger, Thanks for your note and for looking into those links. Yes, MacArthur rejects evolution but only because nowhere in the Biblical record is evolution mentioned or remotely described as any creative mechanism. Your question is still crucial and demands an answer as to how and why “sin” or evil exists and the God of the Bible answers those questions. I’ll close by referencing Romans chapter 5:12-21 for you to consider as you look for answers to your question. Thanks, Tom

128

So where is God’s glory in majestic clouds and brilliant sunsets? Meteorology says nothing about God! (Over and out. :grin: :face_with_hand_over_mouth: :zipper_mouth_face:)

129

Where is any ‘creative mechanism’ described?

130

You haven’t answered the question.

I am not talking about anything other than TOE

Richard

131

I addressed that question using analogical reasoning.

132

No you avoided it.

If they are the same.

Where is God’s glory in

Meteorology, TOE, Cosmology…

God’s qualities are supposed to be visible in His works. Show me God’s qualities in TOE

Richard

133

No, it appears that analogical reasoning doesn’t work for you…

The theory of evolution is not ‘His works’, it’s about how his works work physically, as is meteorology. There is no theology involved.

There is glory in majestic clouds and brilliant sunsets that reflect God’s beauty and glory – it is not in meteorology. The science of meteorology says nothing about God.

Likewise, analogically, there is majesty in God’s majestic and brilliant creatures, but it is not because of evolution nor is it in the theory of evolution. The science of the ToE says nothing about God.

If the process of evolution is understood correctly, God’s brilliance in another sense can be seen in it though, that he created such a marvelous system to produce such diversity. But that is not itself part of the ToE – the science itself says nothing about God.

1 Like
134

This may or may not help, but another example would be to look at a Lamborghini, if someone is an exotic sports car aficionado. There is ‘glory’ in the car itself, not in the technical manual about the car. The latter is the ‘science’ about the car – the beauty of the car is not in the science.

Or, at this time of year, we see God’s glory reflected in his creation in the magnificent autumn colors. The beauty we see and awe we feel in an overwhelming landscape is in the trees and their hilly or mountainous environs – it is not in the science about how and why the colors change, although that is cool enough in its own right.

135

But according to TOE He had no part in making them!

How can God take credit? All He did was start the process. He had no part at all in the construction. The fact that any of it is of beauty is seconndary at best. What mattered was that it sufvived.

Why can’t you see? It is not the mechanics, it is the principles. The way it is done.

Hitler was known by the fact he used war to get what he wanted. It was the method that defined him. Ghandi used passivity. It was this that defined him.
If God used TOE then it is that methodology that defined him, not whether is a scientific explanation or not.
TOE shows no care for shape or form. TOE shows no care for the individual. TOE actively works against the weak. TOE encourages strength and dominance. IS that how you see God? There is no providence in TOE. It is self making. Any glory is reflected at best. All God can be congratulated on is making a successful system.

Your analogies just show that you have no idea what I am driving at.

Richard

136

Science1 says nothing, pro or con, about God. Did God make the beauty of the clouds and the autumn leaves? Don’t look to science for an answer.

Likewise the failure to understand them. Why is it only evolution that is upsetting? It should be all science.
 

1 All science (which just happens to include biology), is methodological naturalism, not the philosophical naturalism that YECs and at least one other person we know of try to force it to be. Some atheists make the same mistake, e.g. R.Dawkins – Christians should not.

1 Like