Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
If God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin, why did He create them?
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
tycho wrote:digitek1 wrote:tycho wrote: And what's a number then, @digitek?
if you are a pragmatic mathematician then it is a number..but then you @tycho are a philosopher..so zero is not a number Lol. I actually thought about it differently. Though you came very close. That is, for zero to be a symbol, there must be different kinds of zero in the zero. Like a zero of numbers within the 'ultimate zero'. Surprisingly, @wilyum's question becomes even more prominent in the 'zero domain'. Which leads me to the thought that since the Prophets were philosophers, and even scientists, they could have based their religious language on existing scientific thoughts and that to answer religious questions we should find their 'scientific equivalents' first then translate insights found there into religious language.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
AlphDoti wrote:AlphDoti wrote:wilyum wrote:am wondering,anyone can explain this? @wilyum if you look at Satan and Adam, both of them disobeyed Allah. Adam disobeyed Allah and ate from the tree. Satan disobeyed Allah and didn't bow in honour before Adam. So if you say why did Allah crate Satan yet he would rebel, what about Adam? So you would have to say why did Allah create Adam also. Having provoked your mind a bit, let me give you an analogy. Assume you're an employee who works for a company, and you have a boss. One day the boss comes to you, his subordinate, the employee and says: look, I'm going to observe you closely for one week, paying attention to everything you do. Then after this one week, there are one of two things I will do. Either I will promote you, double your salary and give you a two month vacation, or I will fire you. One of these two. Now, when he does that, either he has a hidden agenda, maybe he already wants to promote the employee and give these priviledges but wants him to work hard. Or he already intends to fire him because he wants to get rid of him, and he knows even if he works hard for one week he won't be able to meet the standars. So what do you do as the employee?If you are that employee, you would go and think about it. So as the employee, you would say you know what? Who cares? You go 2 hours late to work in your pajamas. You walk in there with your hair unkept. And you just don't care about anything in the work place. You sit down on your desk and put your feet up on the table. You turn on the computer and watch some videos on youtube. Other employees walk in, they look at youand they wonder what you are doing, you crazy? You tell them you know I'm not crazy, but my boss told me he's goint to give me one week where he'll observe me. And you tell them that the boss furthersay he'll either promote me or fire me. You say that's not fair. What if he fires me after working hard for one week, what is the benefit? What do we say to this individual?Is that a correct approach? We say no. First, why were you hired? To work. Are they going to pay you for that? Yes. So either way you are expected to work. Second, now that you act like this, the boss will definitely fire you. If there was a chance he would promote you, you have killed it. So a rational person, will do his best to the best of his ability. And if the boss fires him, he has to brave him. The point is we don't know what the boss has in mind. But we know what is good and what is right, so we do it. To prevent the post being too long... I'll give you my point in the next post... So, Allah created the creation. He knows who is going to go where. But he did not tell us. All He told us is you do this and you'll go to paradice. Or you do that and you'll go to hell. And He didn't tell us what we will do, nor did he impose it on us. He gave us the free will. Allah says in the Quran 18:29 The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)"He give him the will. So now that you don't know where you are going, do you say: - men that's not fair. - May be I'm going to work hard and I'll go to the hell fire. No, don't think this way. And if your boss did that, Allah will never do it. The human being boss may oppress you even when you deserved a promotion, but Allah will never put you in the hellfire if you try to do good and earn paradice. So it is illogical for anyone to dwell on this too much because you simply don't know the future. You don't know what is decreed. But you know the bad. You work hard to go to paradice, trust me you will be put right there. Because Allah will never opress anyone ever. So that is the answer.No one here knows what has been written for satan. It is unknown. But we were told do good and don't do bad. You just do the good and leave the rest to Allah. If you do good, you have no risk and no betrayal no treachury. You will be getting exactly what you are striving for. Everybody should work towards paradiceAnd if they do the job, they will end up there inshallah.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:wilyum wrote:am wondering,anyone can explain this? Mythically speaking, so that He could exact obedience from Man and all 'creation'. Moses was learned in the Egyptian ways, as it's said. This meant that he was educated and socialized in a 'polytheistic' world, but this world couldn't sustain his political ambition. A monotheistic world born of polytheism could only exact strict obedience. Am wondering, Yes Moses was learned in Egyptian polytheistic ways, but have you considered that for the first decade or so of his life he got a different, monotheistic education? An education that polytheistic eduction and socialization and proximity to political power could not erase? Therefore I think monotheism was not born of polytheism after all. Or how do you see it? The assumption that lessons that were learnt in early childhood can't be unlearned isn't true. Otherwise there'd be nothing like freedom. For example, how would one explain Mohammed's move to monotheism in a largely polytheistic world? St. Ignatius Loyola is alleged to have said "Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man." The impact of information fed to a tabula rasa must not be underestimated at all costs. All information is retained and it creates the person. For example, one can get religious instruction when young but end up being atheist as an adult. The latter condition of being atheist was contributed to by the information he received earlier. Now how he interpreted and understood the information is what should be discussed. It's true that one can condition another to the effect of controlling or dominating. But this doesn't need a 'tabula rasa'. It needs the creation of an average set of conditions and ensuring most people adhere to them. And the first seven years are good for this because there's too much hunger for data then. The world is new and full of questions. It's easy to corrupt, or brainwash a person then. But authority can't really control everything. Or even anything. As you go microscopic you start meeting the Heisenberg principle. You make assumptions. Not bad but they tend not to let you be objective. For example: We are talking about a new born. How much data has it got? And Corrupt, brainwash are easy terms especially when used in connection to beliefs. But have you considered reverse psychology? Reactance? Now you see the assumptions you are making? So what is the validity of the statement you made that "lessons that were learnt in early childhood can't be unlearned isn't true?" Authority does indeed control everything. It just has to apply and or release pressure at the right time, right place and in the right manner with the point being that monotheism was not born of polytheism after all.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote: 'Logic' is a tool used to actualize human power, and is under constant transformation. And the challenge we are facing is that of understanding how logic has evolved and designing a new logic to meet our present challenges.
What is human power? I don't think logic really changes.Logic is hinged on the first reference which is the emotion/sensation spectrum.If there is one thing we can safely assume is that emotions have remained the same.Thus the prevailing emotional atmosphere will change the 'logic' of the day.It's a beautiful symphony.Words themselves are first interpreted as logic then as emotion because whatever stimuli an individual receives,it has to be interpreted(on a very subconscious level) from a "what's that got to do with me(self)" perspective.It's not from a selfish perspective but an inherit function of being conscious/receivers. Symbols, Why have you got (a depiction of) ouroboros there?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 12/9/2009 Posts: 6,592 Location: Nairobi
|
God's idea I believe was not to create robots. Ask any scientist what they'd prefer to create, a robot or a life being. First you have to believe in God for it to make sense. People have free will and when we sin we have a way back to God through Jesus. Think about it, does your life have purpose outside God? If it does then you will realise soon that it was not fulfilling. BBI will solve it :)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote:
Akhenaton also sublimated polytheism. But the general citizen couldn't handle the weight, hence their reaction.
Not even Muslims have escaped sublimated polytheism. Not even Solomon could escape it, despite his wisdom.
Tycho, I don't claim to understand these things. But if I was a betting man I would wagger that God is polytheistic. I can's see how an inclusive God could be anything else. Regrading your pint, re: Christianity and polytheism, their is historical evidence to support your take - especially if you consider that the Christian faith owes its early rapid growth to politics, not religion. Christianity originally accommodated polytheism as you say, through the trinity etc. Then the faith reached Rome and as so often happens, was co-opted as a tool of politics. Emperor Constantine et al seized on the unifying potential of a 'one God' system to keep diverse, often hostile, subjects of an expansive empire in line, similar to how Kenyatta/Moi sold Kanu to Kenyans as a unifying creed. People forget that the practice of Emperor worship, which had started when Julius Ceaser destroyed the Roman republic survived until the days of Jesus and beyond. Finding a parallel belief system, albeit one focused on worshiping an unnamed God, not the Emperor, (invented in one of the Roman Provinces, no less) and adapting it to reinforce belief in the Emperor as a divine head must have been a no brainier for Constantine. His investment in it was so great that apparently he sponsored the Nicean conference where a unified dogma Bible (dogma) was created, casting away any writings that deviated from the monotheistic belief desired to keep the Roman Empire united. He also set the structure in Place that created the powerful edifice of the Catholic Church. The rest as they say, is history. The political Roman empire collapsed and was simply replaced by the Catholic Empire with the Pope as the new Emperor, the infallible (divine) head, later morphing in the present fractious Christian Empire.... "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:
Akhenaton also sublimated polytheism. But the general citizen couldn't handle the weight, hence their reaction.
Not even Muslims have escaped sublimated polytheism. Not even Solomon could escape it, despite his wisdom.
Tycho, I don't claim to understand these things. But if I was a betting man I would wagger that God is polytheistic. I can's see how an inclusive God could be anything else. Regrading your pint, re: Christianity and polytheism, their is historical evidence to support your take - especially if you consider that the Christian faith owes its early rapid growth to politics, not religion. Christianity originally accommodated polytheism as you say, through the trinity etc. Then the faith reached Rome and as so often happens, was co-opted as a tool of politics. Emperor Constantine et al seized on the unifying potential of a 'one God' system to keep diverse, often hostile, subjects of an expansive empire in line, similar to how Kenyatta/Moi sold Kanu to Kenyans as a unifying creed. People forget that the practice of Emperor worship, which had started when Julius Ceaser destroyed the Roman republic survived until the days of Jesus and beyond. Finding a parallel belief system, albeit one focused on worshiping an unnamed God, not the Emperor, (invented in one of the Roman Provinces, no less) and adapting it to reinforce belief in the Emperor as a divine head must have been a no brainier for Constantine. His investment in it was so great that apparently he sponsored the Nicean conference where a unified dogma Bible (dogma) was created, casting away any writings that deviated from the monotheistic belief desired to keep the Roman Empire united. He also set the structure in Place that created the powerful edifice of the Catholic Church. The rest as they say, is history. The political Roman empire collapsed and was simply replaced by the Catholic Empire with the Pope as the new Emperor, the infallible (divine) head, later morphing in the present fractious Christian Empire.... Wakanyugi, you have raised a point I want to explore a bit more. History, it is said, is written by the victors. But there is still some mention of those who were of the opinion that this rapid 'growth' of 'christianity' as pushed by the Romans was not really 'christianity' but something else. This is cross checked by admissions that indeed the Roman empire is still in existence today as we speak for example as you have concluded your submission. That there were some individuals who through the centuries opposed this depiction of 'christianity' losing their lives in the process should be taken into account when using this 'Roman christianity' to describe its God. What have those peoples said about their God? If the romans had a polytheistic school of thought, how this polytheism ends up rubbing off on a different, an opposing school of thought, a school of thought they sought to exterminate in the first instance is just, well, strange.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote: Akhenaton also sublimated polytheism. But the general citizen couldn't handle the weight, hence their reaction.
Not even Muslims have escaped sublimated polytheism. Not even Solomon could escape it, despite his wisdom.
Tycho, I don't claim to understand these things. But if I was a betting man I would wagger that God is polytheistic. I can's see how an inclusive God could be anything else. Regrading your pint, re: Christianity and polytheism, their is historical evidence to support your take - especially if you consider that the Christian faith owes its early rapid growth to politics, not religion. Christianity originally accommodated polytheism as you say, through the trinity etc. Then the faith reached Rome and as so often happens, was co-opted as a tool of politics. Emperor Constantine et al seized on the unifying potential of a 'one God' system to keep diverse, often hostile, subjects of an expansive empire in line, similar to how Kenyatta/Moi sold Kanu to Kenyans as a unifying creed. People forget that the practice of Emperor worship, which had started when Julius Ceaser destroyed the Roman republic survived until the days of Jesus and beyond. Finding a parallel belief system, albeit one focused on worshiping an unnamed God, not the Emperor, (invented in one of the Roman Provinces, no less) and adapting it to reinforce belief in the Emperor as a divine head must have been a no brainier for Constantine. His investment in it was so great that apparently he sponsored the Nicean conference where a unified dogma Bible (dogma) was created, casting away any writings that deviated from the monotheistic belief desired to keep the Roman Empire united. He also set the structure in Place that created the powerful edifice of the Catholic Church. The rest as they say, is history. The political Roman empire collapsed and was simply replaced by the Catholic Empire with the Pope as the new Emperor, the infallible (divine) head, later morphing in the present fractious Christian Empire.. Wakanyugi, you have raised a point I want to explore a bit more. History, it is said, is written by the victors. But there is still some mention of those who were of the opinion that this rapid 'growth' of 'christianity' as pushed by the Romans was not really 'christianity' but something else. This is cross checked by admissions that indeed the Roman empire is still in existence today as we speak for example as you have concluded your submission. That there were some individuals who through the centuries opposed this depiction of 'christianity' losing their lives in the process should be taken into account when using this 'Roman christianity' to describe its God. What have those peoples said about their God? If the romans had a polytheistic school of thought, how this polytheism ends up rubbing off on a different, an opposing school of thought, a school of thought they sought to exterminate in the first instance is just, well, strange. @Wakanyugi you have written in a way that is best and most gracious. I wish I could write just like you. Very softly and yet bringing out the point. This is exactly the history, which sometimes I highlight to some people. But I guess when I use the evidence, it is a bit hard to swallow to some people. Here is some information about Saul alias Paul: From Grolier Encyclopedia 1996The Apostle Paul, one of the most successful early Christian missionaries, is chiefly known for his letters to various churches, which are preserved in the New Testament of the Bible and had a major influence on later Christian theology. Of Jewish origin, Paul became a leading champion of Gentile CHRISTIANITY, denying the need for Christians to observe Jewish law. His lifePaul is actually an unknown character. There is no history of a man called Paul or Saul. Nobody can actually confirm who Paul was. Nobody has actually identified Paul or Saul for that matter. We don’t even know his full name. Therefore, we do not know whether Paul was an actual person or simply a fictitious character in a story like Harry Porter written by an unknown author who takes on the name Paul. For example: Harry Porter was written by J.K. Rowling. If J.K. Rowling took on the name Harry Porter, we would never have known who the author was, and we would assume that Harry Porter was an actual person writing his own story.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:@symbols, who are 'we', and in what sense are we 'unique'?
And what do you mean by saying 'Jesus' was/is 'special'? Let's defer it to a later time. Muriel wrote: Symbols,
Why have you got (a depiction of) ouroboros there?
It's a now loading icon.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 1/16/2007 Posts: 1,320
|
Hmm some thread this.. My view is from a Biblical Stand point. I believe it is not possible for the human mind to have the remotest chance of a conclusive answer to @Wilyum's question. Not from philosophical analysis or logical reason..no.. we have to refer to an authoritative source which cannot be me individually or us collectively.(Thats me waxing philosophical) Thats why people look to the Bible for light and clarity about such questions as evidenced by philosophers, agnostics and others in this thread. To my point Consider the words of Jesus while teaching and preaching in Galilee. Mathew 11 Quote:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little .children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do God as revealed in Scripture is Sovereign. Consider the words of King Nebuchadnezzar after being restored by God as King Daniel 4 Quote:35all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?” Consider the words of the Prophet Isaiah Speaking of Cyrus a Gentile King who would be raised by God to rule over his people after Nebuchadnezzar Quote: 5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, 6 so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other. 7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.
Consider this.... Romans 11 Quote:34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”[a] 35 “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?” 36 [b]For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. Proverbs 16: Quote:4 The Lord works out everything to its proper end— even the wicked for a day of disaster. The question of "free will" comes up. In an honest analysis of scripture you come to an inescapable conclusion... The only free will available to humanity (After Adams Fall)is the Free will to choose which expressions of Evil to participate in.. from religious self righteousness to more vile and pervert abominations. We cannot choose God, he chooses us. (needs its own thread i think) Consider the words of Paul (This may be the definitive scripture on Gods Sovereignty in Salvation) Romans 9 (Read the whole chapter...) Quote:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”[c]
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? Finally, Deuteronomy Quote:29 The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.
Iam persuaded that the topic of this thread is one of these "things revealed"
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
If God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin, why did He create them?
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|