Let's Talk About True Sacrifice

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Cuervo
I know you are specifically picking the brains of Christians here but, since none of them are actually answering, I figured I'd take a stab at it.

Um...

We answered it. It's a nonsensical question, for Christians. You want to answer it, fine, but by saying that there is an answer, you're demonstrating complete ignorance of Judaic and Christian theology, just like the OP showed.

The Christian God is eternal. He cannot kill himself, he cannot be killed by the universe. Period. Check the definition of the word "eternal" if you don't understand that. You may not agree that God is eternal, not being a Christian, but by positing the question to Christians, it is, necessarily, limited to Christian theology, and is therefore a nonsensical question.

No, I understand what you are saying. But this is like having one of those Superman vs Godzilla type of debates. You need to suspend disbelief temporarily in order to play along. The OP is asking this question out of theoretical curiosity, not for a literal debate (I don't think).

Think about it this way. When you or another Christian posts a serious thread about your god that poses a thoughtful question, some jerk always comes in and says "Well god doesn't exist so nyah-nyah-nyah!" and just tries to shut down the conversation. This is sort of similar. You are just saying it's impossible but I think everybody knows that already (Christians and non-Christians have reasons for not believing the possibilities posed in the OP).

So when somebody says "what if" then that means you shouldn't barge in with "but you can't". I have chastised atheists for bombing Christian thread like that so I'm not just being biased here.

So, for the sake of fun, pretend that the OP's question is possible and then maybe answer again?

ps edit - I want to clarify that I'm not being a jerk here. You're one of the good ones.

Originally posted by Cuervo
So, for the sake of fun, pretend that the OP's question is possible and then maybe answer again?

You're not getting it. You can't "pretend that OP's question is possible" and provide an answer within Christian theology, because Christian theology says that the question is nonsensical. You are asking how to define a square circle.

If you (or the OP) wants to posit a god who is not eternal, that's another matter, but that god is not the Judaic-Christian God, so you're pretty much back in the same place, at least as far as the Christian perspective goes.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Cuervo
So, for the sake of fun, pretend that the OP's question is possible and then maybe answer again?

You're not getting it. You can't "pretend that OP's question is possible" and provide an answer within Christian theology, because Christian theology says that the question is nonsensical. You are asking how to define a square circle.

If you (or the OP) wants to posit a god who is not eternal, that's another matter, but that god is not the Judaic-Christian God, so you're pretty much back in the same place, at least as far as the Christian perspective goes.

If I started a question with "Hey Adjensen, if you were immortal..."

Would you refuse to answer the question because you are not immortal "therefore the question doesn't make sense"?

Honestly, I don't want an argument here. I agree that it is impossible but I pretended it was in order to answer the question. But, really, I don't want to push it any further. You know why I answered and I understand why you don't want to.

reply to post by Cuervo

All right, I give up. The completely impossible, heretical, answer is Number 1.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
The Spirit of God never dies and is eternal.

That would not be God but the idea of an exercise of creation that would never die and so is eternal.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
This question is posed to all practitioners of the Christian faith. Let's say "God" has two choices:

1. Destroy himself to preserve the universe. His death would invoke an eternity of peace and prosperity for all living creatures throughout the universe. In destroying himself, he would never again be able to exist in any form. His only remaining traces would be his creations.

2. Destroy the universe to preserve his own existence. The continued existence of the universe would weaken him until he could no longer do anything but enjoy the agonized slumber of an old man suffering perpetual degeneration, for as long as he also exists. Should he destroy the universe, he would be unable to create a new one.

He should gladly destroy himself because he lives through his creations. But this is a jealous God and would do anything to preserve itself (not realizing its own creator is watching the whole senario and has final say so). Bad plan the 2. choice; its creator killed him before he could destroy anything; parent then takes control of everything and has to answer for the misdeeds of its child (very embarassing). This is trick question, anyone who is not a practicing Christian will feel complelled to answer despite parameters set. Those persons will always have the best answers (nonbiased), the clarion call to athiests, agnostics...why not include them?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


So basically, you're saying "heads I win, tails you lose".

Destroy himself to preserve the universe

Destroy the universe to preserve his own existence.

Such questions attempt to attribute some kind of a weakness to God. In this case, you imply that God can't preserve both Himself and the universe... and he needs to end one to preserve the other.

God can both preserve Himself AND run the universe.

I know of someone who knows a thing or two about sacrifice.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Cuervo
So, for the sake of fun, pretend that the OP's question is possible and then maybe answer again?

You're not getting it. You can't "pretend that OP's question is possible" and provide an answer within Christian theology, because Christian theology says that the question is nonsensical. You are asking how to define a square circle.

If you (or the OP) wants to posit a god who is not eternal, that's another matter, but that god is not the Judaic-Christian God, so you're pretty much back in the same place, at least as far as the Christian perspective goes.

If I started a question with "Hey Adjensen, if you were immortal..."

Would you refuse to answer the question because you are not immortal "therefore the question doesn't make sense"?

No, because that's a reasonable hypothetical question.

Maybe I'm just failing to explain the problem well enough. Wouldn't be the first time, lol.

Being eternal is a characteristic of God. It's part of what he is, what makes him God and, arguably a key aspect of his behaviour. I think that we both agree that, if God is eternal, then neither of the two options presented makes any sense -- he can't kill himself, and he can't be killed by the universe.

So, as I said, posit a god who is not eternal. Unfortunately, we know nothing about such a god, apart from him not being eternal, and that's not enough to provide a valid answer. If you were to say "okay, envision a god who is exactly the same as the Christian God, except that he's mortal," that's closer to being answerable, except that, because being eternal is a core characteristic of God, we have no idea what he would be like without that attribute -- he might be exactly the same; he might be a maniac, killing every perceived threat; he might be a coward, hiding from his own shadow for fear of his demise -- so, once again, I can't really venture a guess as to either option.

If you posed the question as "If you were God, with all the attributes of him, except for an eternal nature, which option would you take?" I'd probably say option 1, but that's solely based on the opinion of me, who isn't God, with the acknowledgement that, if I was, I might well go the other way, because my perspective would be different.

Some wonderful responses in this thread. I would like to take a moment to thank everyone who contributed to this discussion. With that aside, I'd also like to point out something:

It seems the crux of the matter is that, within the Christian universe, their creator is considered to be eternal and therefore incapable of being destroyed. Not only does this put a cap on the omnipotent nature of said deity, it also implies that this deity is capable of creating something that it itself does not possess - mortality.

In the history of the universe, we have seen not a single example of something creating its own opposite. That is to say, no creation in scientific study has ever contradicted the nature of its creator without a third party influence. To do so would defy the laws of the universe. An attribute must come from somewhere, so where did mortality come from? No one has answered this question, to my knowledge. But let's continue.

In essence, one piece of infinity is still infinity. The fact that "God" can apparently create something finite despite being utterly infinite is the same as saying that water can spontaneously burst into flame, or that zero can be divided. A basic nature cannot be altered without interference. Omnipresence would theoretically imply that all of existence contains the same nature as that which is omnipresent, unless an equally powerful force were equally intermingled with the omnipresent force. My basic point is that "God" has proven himself to be a paradox, as there are certain lines even he will not cross, for in order to cross them, he must answer to the laws of logic...and quite simply, his nature is illogical.

So for those of you saying my question is illogical, that is because your belief system is dependent on illogic but has been labeled as logic for faith's sake. Faith, the suspension of reason for emotional security. As a direct result, all else becomes illogical because to admit that anything else is logical is to admit that your religious premise is flawed to the extreme.

Hence, the definition of "cognitive dissonance". I rest my case.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Actually, your error is the belief that if you assign an attribute to God, he necessarily has it. Mortality is not the "opposite" of eternal -- God is not immortal, he is eternal, not the same thing. And it is illogical to say that God cannot create something with characteristics that he himself doesn't have -- what is the basis for that conclusion?

reply to post by jmdewey60


lol.

I do not belong to a specific Church and I have not attended any Church in 6 months,

I love how you assume I get understanding from a cult or group,

My beliefs are directly aligned with Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity and most mainstream Protestant denominations, although I don't really practice any of them actively, I just enjoy reading my Bible and do my best to live a virtuous life (although I'm not doing very good at that right now, I am fighting a diabolic addiction, but that's for another discussion)....

reply to post by adjensen

Actually, your error is the belief that if you assign an attribute to God, he necessarily has it. Mortality is not the "opposite" of eternal -- God is not immortal, he is eternal, not the same thing.

1im·mor·tal
adjective \(ˌ)i-ˈmȯr-təl\
1: exempt from death

2: exempt from oblivion : imperishable

1eter·nal
adjective \i-ˈtər-nəl\

Definition of ETERNAL

1
a : having infinite duration : everlasting

So immortal means imperishable, and eternal means infinite duration. What's the difference, exactly?

And it is illogical to say that God cannot create something with characteristics that he himself doesn't have -- what is the basis for that conclusion?

How do you create something that is intolerable to your own nature?

Also, I have a full and clearly detailed case explaining the why's, how's, and what's of this thread posted in a new thread here.

If the moderators feel one of these threads must be deleted, I would prefer it be this one.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So immortal means imperishable, and eternal means infinite duration. What's the difference, exactly?

Something that is immortal has a beginning, it just doesn't have an end. Something that is eternal doesn't have either. As a result, something that is immortal may be grounded in this reality, something that is eternal cannot be, so there is significant difference between the two.

And it is illogical to say that God cannot create something with characteristics that he himself doesn't have -- what is the basis for that conclusion?

How do you create something that is intolerable to your own nature?

Again, what is the basis for saying that mortality is "intolerable" to God? Just because he isn't mortal doesn't mean that the concept is intolerable to him.

You seem to be saying that a creator can only create something that has all the characteristics that he has -- if you bake a pie, does that mean that you are a pie?

reply to post by adjensen

Something that is immortal has a beginning, it just doesn't have an end. Something that is eternal doesn't have either. As a result, something that is immortal may be grounded in this reality, something that is eternal cannot be, so there is significant difference between the two.

The words were "infinite duration", not "has no beginning and no end". Don't reword the definition of eternal to suit your understanding. Immortal means "imperishable", which is essentially the same thing.

Again, what is the basis for saying that mortality is "intolerable" to God? Just because he isn't mortal doesn't mean that the concept is intolerable to him.

You seem to be saying that a creator can only create something that has all the characteristics that he has -- if you bake a pie, does that mean that you are a pie?

Such a juvenile conclusion. It means that the pie will burn just as well as you do, it means if the pie is exposed to moisture, it will absorb the water just as you do, and if you leave it out long enough...well, bacteria will have just as much fun with it as it does with you.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

It seems the crux of the matter is that, within the Christian universe, their creator is considered to be eternal and therefore incapable of being destroyed.

Hello, I already accepted your #1 choice of the death of God.
Are you now not accepting your own choices you laid out in the OP?
The Old Testament God is dead and will never again exist.
So, choice #1 already happened, and now "creation" is saved.
Hurray!!!

Or you just hate Christianity so that no explanation of it is acceptable?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
The words were "infinite duration", not "has no beginning and no end". Don't reword the definition of eternal to suit your understanding. Immortal means "imperishable", which is essentially the same thing.

No, you just found a convenient definition that fits your claim, because eternal means without beginning or end.

eternal
Use Eternal in a sentence
e·ter·nal [ih-tur-nl] Show IPA
adjective
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal ): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphysics . existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change. (Source)

Eternal and immortal are NOT essentially the same thing.

It means that the pie will burn just as well as you do, it means if the pie is exposed to moisture, it will absorb the water just as you do, and if you leave it out long enough...well, bacteria will have just as much fun with it as it does with you.

Those are effects, not characteristics. You do not necessarily have anything in common with a pie, just because you made one.

But that's not the question -- again, how is mortality "intolerable" to God?

reply to post by adjensen


Wow. You are going to read my reply to his "part 2" of this thread and think I plagiarized you. I swear I didn't; I just now read your response. But on the other hand, it tells me that our belief disparities aren't all that far apart in the end.

reply to post by adjensen


Either way, the essential nature of "God" contradicts every law of physics in the known universe. Not to mention that apparently his acolytes are loathe to give him up, even if it means the end of pain and suffering.