Created immortal (indestructable)?

[JehovahsWitness]

To my knowledge "immortality" is only spoken of as being a reward for certain faithful. What is the scriptural basis for saying "humans" were originally created immortal*?

- do you believe Satan is immortal?
- do you believe the wicked are immortal?

- do you believe God can destroy them (as in put an end to their existence) but will never choose to do this?

- do you believe God cannot (does not have the ability to) destroy them (put an end to their existence)?

Why?


*by immortal I mean basically "indestructable"

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 189 by Claire Evans]




[center]Still trying to define "beget"[/center]

Yes, but using the word "cause" does not include the father-son relationship God had with Jesus. So beget is a more fitting word.

"Beget" is the word that we HAVE.

You are trying to make a case that it's more "fitting".
I don't think that the Bible actually DEFINED the word "beget"... so that's left up to the readers.

I come back to my wedding party.

The boy is getting married today.
I'm quite proud of the boy.

Now.. when I use the word "beget", do i mean "cause the boy to be a son"?


"If Jesus and God did not have a Son and Father role in this world, then God could not cause the boy to be a son. God can't cause God yet can cause the boy to be a son even though they are one. "


To me, that's identical as saying "Today, my boy, I cause you be a son to me".

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Does "beget" mean "cause to be a son"?
  
  

____________

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 189 by Claire Evans]



[center]
Abandoning logic[/center]

I don't think this really can be explained to a non believer. A non believer, understandably, wants to understand by using logic. Logic cannot be used here.

Logic is off the table in this discussion?
If that's the case, I should really stop demanding that you use it.

Maybe that's why I can't make any sense out of what you write.. you might not even be TRYING to make sense.

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Are you trying to make sense, or something else, instead?
  
  

____________

P.S.

If you REALLY want to abandon logic, Claire, I won't expect that anything you write next is going to be LOGICAL in any way.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 183 by Claire Evans]


[center]4,380,000,000,000 days[/center]

Perhaps there was no such thing as a time before humans.

Yes, perhaps a lot of things, Claire.
We can make an incredible amount of hypotheses about what and why things happened before we even existed. IF there was such a time, we just wouldn't know about it.

And if there was NOT such a time, how would we remember?
I sure don't think you "were there", right?

That's why it is a speculation.

A defeat we know subsequently because of Jesus. No human being can know what happened before humans existed.

We happen to know a lot about what happened before humans existed.
It's just that humans weren't around at the time.

We think that the universe existed 12 billion years before any humans existed. That's 4,380,000,000,000 days. That's about 4 trillion earth days.

All those days.. no humans around.
We know it.

____________

The question was how Satan got his power before humans when he needs human suffering to be sustained. We all know that the earth was forming before human existed.

Questions:

• 
  1. Could you elaborate on how we know what happened before humans existed "because of Jesus"?
  
  
  
  2.If you say that we can know "because of Jesus" that means that we KNOW. So, I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that humans can know or can't?
  
  3.Is there any supporting Bible passage for your claim to know what happened before human existence?
  
  
  

____________




[/center]

When I said "because of Jesus", it meant how Satan got defeated, not to explain what happened before we existed.

John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 189 by Claire Evans]



[center]
Abandoning logic[/center]

I don't think this really can be explained to a non believer. A non believer, understandably, wants to understand by using logic. Logic cannot be used here.

Logic is off the table in this discussion?
If that's the case, I should really stop demanding that you use it.

Maybe that's why I can't make any sense out of what you write.. you might not even be TRYING to make sense.

____________

I definitely am trying but you know the trinity concept is in the Bible and the supernatural will be discussed here. If you expect logic here when it comes to the mystery of faith, you won't find it. I can only explain to you how I understand it.

Question:

• 
  
  Are you trying to make sense, or something else, instead?
  
  

____________

P.S.

If you REALLY want to abandon logic, Claire, I won't expect that anything you write next is going to be LOGICAL in any way.

If the the ways of the Lord can be demonstrated in a logical way, I don't think there would be as many atheists. When they see it is not logical they just say it is fairy tales because it is beyond their understanding as of all of us.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 189 by Claire Evans]



[center]

What does "magic" mean in religious English?[/center]

I think it is the wrong context but each to their own.

I don't understand what " context" you mean.
I'm talking about definitions.. Religious English vs Common English

Magic is a word in both kinds of English.

You are a religious person, I am not.
But we are both using the very same word.

IF we want to be able to understand each other when we USE the word, we need to know how we define it.

When I am having a philosophical discussion, unless I am using a word in a non-standard way, I usually just go by the common usages that are defined in standard English dictionaries.

People are quite free to define words in any way that they want to.
That's perfectly fine.
That's ok.

What is NOT ok is to forget to tell us what they MEAN...

Magic is using witchcraft by getting power from demons to perform things. You know that doesn't apply God.

If God can create an entire universe with a word.. or.. a thought, that's magic to me. IF God created the angels and then some of them rebelled.. and they did evil deeds by using supernatural powers, that's still magic.

I truly don't believe that is what happened.

There might be god magic which is considered good magic or white magic, and then there might be demon magic which is considered bad magic or black magic.

I suppose that some people will ONLY use the word "magic" to mean demon... supernatural powers.. and never use "magic" to mean God's supernatural powers.

That may be that "religious English" again.

When I go to a NON religious dictionary, I find that the definition of the word "magic" agrees with me:

" the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magic

But as I said earlier, that's the common English use of the word.. not the religious one. Religious English seems to be quite different.

One thing is for certain:

If we cannot agree on what words mean.. then we are going to have a heck of a time discussing them.

I would define magic as "supernatural powers".

Magic is supernatural powers but a person who performs magic has received that power from spirits. That doesn't fit the description of God.


____________

Question:

• 
  
  Could you give us your definition of "magic"?
  
  

____________

As mentioned above.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 193 by Claire Evans]



[center]No claims here... speculation instead.[/center]

And if there was NOT such a time, how would we remember?
I sure don't think you "were there", right?

That's why it is a speculation.

Ok, that changes everything.
I thought you were trying to make a claim.

Invent away, then.

The question was how Satan got his power before humans when he needs human suffering to be sustained. We all know that the earth was forming before human existed.

Since all you are doing is speculating, have fun.
That's fine.

When I said "because of Jesus", it meant how Satan got defeated, not to explain what happened before we existed.

You are clearly inventive.

John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome.

Oh, I think I see what you did there...
The "light" could be the good guy, and the "darkness" could be the bad guy.


Cool.
Very inventive.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 195 by Claire Evans]


[center]
Religious English vs. Common English[/center]

Magic is using witchcraft by getting power from demons to perform things. You know that doesn't apply God.

I don't really know if God isn't a demon, Claire.
If "God" really exists, for all I know, he might be.

But by the normal English understanding of the word "God", you are right.

It just seems that you don't use the word "magic" in a common English way.
IF you go by what I find in English dictionaries, they mention the supernatural ... God isn't the only supernatural being out there... Demons are usually considered "supernatural", too.

As I stated earlier, it seems that your religious English isn't the same as common English. Isn't that interesting?

If God can create an entire universe with a word.. or.. a thought, that's magic to me. IF God created the angels and then some of them rebelled.. and they did evil deeds by using supernatural powers, that's still magic.

I truly don't believe that is what happened.

It doesn't matter.

I was trying to explain how I use the word, Claire.
I was just speculating about the events, I could not care less.

Words.. this is about the religious vs the secular definitions of words.

Don't you find it fascinating that they aren't the same?
It's like two different languages that use the same words.

Magic is supernatural powers but a person who performs magic has received that power from spirits. That doesn't fit the description of God.

Some people define "God" as a spirit, Claire.
But maybe you are using that religious English again.

In that dialect, "spirit" is bad.
Except, of course, presumably, for the "Holy Spirit" and the spirit of God.

____________

Questions:

• 
  1. Do you accept other definitions of words like "magic", "spirit" and "supernatural", or can you only accept your particular religious understanding of those words?
  
  2. When someone uses the word "magic" in a way that is different than your own definition, do you think they are making a mistake?
  
  3. Is God a spirit?
  
  4. Are all spirits evil?
  
  5. Does magic come from supernatural beings?
  
  6. Is God a supernatural being?
  
  7. Are all supernatural beings evil?
  
  8. How do you account for our seemingly different uses of the word "magic"?
  
  

____________

[ttruscott]

When I said "because of Jesus", it meant how Satan got defeated, not to explain what happened before we existed.

John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome.

Since you believe that "in the beginning " refers to a time before we existed, may I share some thoughts about this?

JOHN'S BEGINNING
This category has to do with the apostle John's use of the word "beginning" in his first letter. 1 John 1:1 - That which was from the beginning… the Word of life. This introduction is very similar to the one John used in his gospel, which begins with: In the beginning was the Word. I believe that both refer to the same time, and that this time is synonymous with the time in Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning. Thus these three references refer to the time before (or at the front of) the six days of the (re)creation of the world.

1 John 2:7 - I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which YE had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which YE have heard from the beginning. I cannot help but think that John was alluding to Isaiah 40:21- Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told YOU from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded? If he is not alluding to Isaiah, he certainly is referring to the same truth in my opinion.

1 John 2:14 - I have written unto you, fathers, because YE have known Him [that is] from the beginning.
It probably is not necessary, but for the last time, “that is� is not in the Greek text. Therefore, in Greek, it reads, “YE have known Him from the beginning�.

1 John 2:24 - Let that therefore abide in you, which YE have heard from the beginning. If that which YE have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, YE shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. It should be noted that in the Bible, “the beginning� usually refers to all the time and events that happened before Genesis 1:2, that is, the time when the angels were created and the rebellion in Paradise took place.

1 John 3:8 - for the devil sinneth from the beginning.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary(#27) says: “sinneth from the beginning - from the time that sin began; from the time that he became what he is, the devil.� This must be around the same time as In the beginning of Genesis 1:1. At least, it can not be much after.

1 John 3:11 - For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us. 1 John 3:23 - And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment. According to 2:7, WE heard this commandment “from the beginning�.

Conclusion for John's Beginning:
When the word “beginning� has to do with Jesus or the devil, it means around the same time as Genesis 1:1, that is, before or at the beginning of the six day creation (depending how one translates the “was - became� in Genesis 1:2).

Are we really warranted in redefining it whenever it refers to us, to humans?? I know that it has been redefined to fit in with the traditional presuppositions regarding the creation of our spirit, but does this not constitute a twisting or taking Scripture out of context?

According to pre-conception theology, each of these references, by the same author, in the same letter, has the same meaning. To my mind, this is much superior to two definitions of the same word, in the same letter, by the same author. Why did John not use two different words if he meant two different times? I do not think that John was mixed up. In fact, I think he knew very well exactly what he was saying. He seems to be very good at saying it over, and over, and over, and over…

[Tired of the Nonsense]

So God created Satan knowing he would cause ultimate suffering in this world yet chose to make him anyway.

Being ABLE to know everything isn't the same as knowing everything any more than being able to cook anything is the same as cooking everything. If you can do something you still have to chose whether you WILL do it or not. Just because God could know what the angel that became Satan would do, doesnt mean he necessarily chose to.

For example, God can destroy everything and everyone any time he chooses, evidently He has not chosen to USE that power at the present time. So clearly God can have the ablility to do something yet be selective as to if, when and to what extent he will use that ability . In a similar way, God CAN know everything about any of His creation, including what choices we will make in the future; more often than not however, he choses to learn about our choices when they make them, in other words he uses his powers SELECTIVELY.

How can God select what He doesn't want to know?

The above can be likened to buying a book. One can decide to real the conclusing chapter first so you know how the characters turn out, you can scan down the chapters and select the particular portions of interest to know what the character does in a particular circumstance, or you can read the book one page at a time in order from the first page to the last in chronological order. God can "read" how any of His creatures turns out but it seems for the most part he has chosen to find out about their choices 'one page at a time'.

QUESTION Is not such a selective use of foreknowledge putting the lives of others needlessly at risk?

No. An all mighty God can never have things run out of control, meaning there will never be a situation that will ultimately result in irreparable damage. Creating free moral agents would always introduce the possibility that they make bad choices, but if they are to enjoy an honest open relationship, those choices must be dealt with in "real time" as they happen.

• - Would it be considered a fair trial if the judge already knows the accused will be found guilty?
  - How sincere will the witness testimonies be if they know the judge already knows what they will say even before they open their mouths?

CONCLUSION God uses all his abilities in perfect balance with his qualities such as love, wisdom and justice. Though He can forsee every detail in everyone's future His omnipotence is in no way negated by his choice to be selective in its use.

Sideshow: Did God know that Adam & Eve would sin?

How can God select what He doesn't want to know?

The above can be likened to buying a book. One can decide to real the conclusing chapter first so you know how the characters turn out, you can scan down the chapters and select the particular portions of interest to know what the character does in a particular circumstance, or you can read the book one page at a time in order from the first page to the last in chronological order. God can "read" how any of His creatures turns out but it seems for the most part he has chosen to find out about their choices 'one page at a time'.

The problem with this line of illogic, is that it loses sight of the fact that God IS THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK!

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 189 by Claire Evans]




[center]Still trying to define "beget"[/center]

Yes, but using the word "cause" does not include the father-son relationship God had with Jesus. So beget is a more fitting word.

"Beget" is the word that we HAVE.

You are trying to make a case that it's more "fitting".
I don't think that the Bible actually DEFINED the word "beget"... so that's left up to the readers.

I come back to my wedding party.

The boy is getting married today.
I'm quite proud of the boy.

Now.. when I use the word "beget", do i mean "cause the boy to be a son"?


"If Jesus and God did not have a Son and Father role in this world, then God could not cause the boy to be a son. God can't cause God yet can cause the boy to be a son even though they are one. "


To me, that's identical as saying "Today, my boy, I cause you be a son to me".

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Does "beget" mean "cause to be a son"?
  
  

____________

Wow, Blast, this is certainly a good one for your "defining words" issue! Trinitarians take "beget" and do with it like the circus entertainers do with balloons to make animals! All twisted around and into the shape of something else.

Why don't we check out Webster? He's pretty good at defining words.

Whoah, here we go! It looks pretty straightforward to me!

"BEGET: TO PROCREATE AS THE FATHER; SIRE; TO PRODUCE; CAUSE."



Psst everybody.....Jesus was procreated; he was PRODUCED.


.