a very long thread

[jesusfreak]

How does man know?  Man partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Our eyes are opened.  

The problem with discussing this idea of Plato's is that it is infinitely simplistic and can therefore be adapted to *any* circumstance.  In example, I can just as easily say that "our eyes opening" means that we have experienced *something* that is not completely "good".   Ie, a lower level of "goodness", the lack of which can be described as "evil".    I can argue this point all day, simply because it has very few limiting constraints.  Obviously, we would not get anywhere doing this, so I won't.

However, the problem with Plato's thought actually resides in its ambiguity.  It relies on a determination as to the exact Nature of God, an assumption we as Man have no grounds to properly make.  

What is sin?  A person making the choice to persue his lust for evil.  
What is good?  That which comes from God.

Conclusion.  Evil is in the world.  Man is sinful in that he knows good and evil yet chooses evil because he wants and prefers it to good. Good is in the world and comes from God alone.

Evil is in the world by conclusion of Man's ability to choose "less" amounts of "good".   Did God create Evil?  Something that is inherently contrary to His exact Nature?  Can a Creation be greater than the Creator?  

I don't want to leave it there, of course we know that God, in his goodness, has given us a Redeemer.   Sin is no longer the master of the redeemed, regenerated man, who now can and wishes to choose good rather than evil.

Sin no longer presents an insurmountable obstacle between Man and God, true.  But let me ask you this, does Man truly understand Good and Evil?  

I was quoting the idea expressed in Plato's Republic.  I find it quite the convienent basis to use in this consideration.

Basically, how do you prove to me something is evil?  Is it through contradiction with something that is "good"?

--
lucas

Indeed, Lucas!   Socrates also had some insightful comments on the subject.    

Verne

I must say, I dislike Socrates  immensely

--
lucas

[jesusfreak]

Indeed, Lucas!   Socrates also had some insightful comments on the subject.    

Verne


I must say, I dislike Socrates  immensely

--
lucas

His refutation of the Platonic notion that knowing is doing (so far as "good" is concerned) is unassailable.
Socrates is right that the evidence life provides supports no such notion. The Bible happens to agree with him.  
Verne

I beg to differ.  I suppose you therefore claim that Man has full knowledge of Good?  This is what you you are leading to by saying the Bible agrees with him    

I mean, if Man does not know *everything* how can we even talk about being able to distinguish Good from Evil?  

Due to this "end behavior" (ie, there is always something greater regarding the topic of God that Man simply does not know), I hold Socrates to be redundant and irrelevant.

--
lucas

[Oscar]

Verne,

You said

"My you are full of surprises Tom. Just when I think I have made my point as clear as mud you throw another curve ball!
This does call for some thought.
Although I will admit my view of the creation does subscribe to the notion that something was lost with regard to Adam's God-given authority over creation when he sinned (I don't believe the curse was localised as you suggest), there is also a larger cosmoligcal viewpoint that suggests a pre-Adamic cataclysm ( which resulted in darkness on the face of the deep), and that what we know as the seven day creation record was really a work of restoration  by God.
This has of course, as you correctly point out, significant entropic implications but I do not think needs to be invoked to argue that creation is indeed in a state of decline. There is a phenomenal space-time decay argument in Hebrews that envisions the Lord rolling up the heavens like an old garment. I do not expect the new earth to witness destructive hurricanes, earthquakes and sunamis. Great food for thought!"

When you say, "I do not believe the curse was localized as you suggest" you raise the following question:

What reason do you have to believe it was universal?

Regarding the "pre-adamic cataclysm" where the earth becomes "formless and void" KJV.

This is called the gap theory.  It has serious problems.  It is based on the "tohu wabohu" phrase in Genesis 1:2.  The word "haya" before it is usually translated "was".  Some folks in the 19th century decided that it meant "became".  I am not aware of any modern Hebrew scholar that accepts this.

The entire theory is based on this, a mistranslation of one word.  All the rest, about the pre-adamic creation, the people whose spirits supposedly became the demons, and the big monsters that supplied the dinosaur fossils...is nothing more than speculation.
(at best)


Not much of a basis for a view of reality.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Curve Ball Specialist

[Suzie Trockman]

I occasionally go on yhe SWTE site out of curiosity, only to leave feeling attacked on the "forgiveness" thread. But today something caught my attention.  It was on the "Wipe the dust" or something like that thread.  Affirming wrote,"I do not believe that God knows how we are going to choose......."

 I was taught God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. This seems like a scary statement to me.  Anyone want to weigh in?

Suzie

P.s.  I know a well respected geologist professor  who is a godly man and he ascribes to the gap theory . When he explains it, it makes a lot of sense especially in explaining scientific things.

[M2]

I occasionally go on yhe SWTE site out of curiosity, only to leave feeling attacked on the "forgiveness" thread. But today something caught my attention.  It was on the "Wipe the dust" or something like that thread.  Affirming wrote,"I do not believe that God knows how we are going to choose......."

 I was taught God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. This seems like a scary statement to me.  Anyone want to weigh in?

Suzie

P.s.  I know a well respected geologist professor  who is a godly man and he ascribes to the gap theory . When he explains it, it makes a lot of sense especially in explaining scientific things.

I might not be 'connected' this weekend, hence I will cotribute my .02 on this now.

Suzie I agree with you that God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, hence our free will to choose does not limit His knowledge of how we are going to choose.

Re. gap theory ascribed by a well respected godly geologist professor.  I assume he ascribes to it mainly because of carbon dating with the verse that Verne referred to to support his belief. Is it possible that the flood contibuted to what would appear to be premature aging?

Lord bless,
Marcia

[jesusfreak]

I am afraid you have lost me Lucas. Socrates is simply saying that experience shows that mere knowledge of what is good does not necessarily result in its embrace and or performance. I trust that is self-evident??
Put simply another way, Plato taught that evil resulted from ignorance.
The Bible clearly disagrees with that postulate. See Romans 1.
Verne
p.s James admits of the possibility of knowing what is right and good to do yet not doing it. In fact this is how he defines sin. To argue that a complete knowledge of all good is required for doing any good sounds like sophistry to me.

First off, I never argued that "total knowledge" of good was required for "any good" to exist.  I simply stated that for "complete good" to exist, "total knowledge" must be had.   The point I was attempting to make was that Man has an inherent limit to the amount of knowledge we are able to know "about" what is good.  Therefore, there must be a point where we can no longer "know" good but instead become tainted by "lack of good" (evil).  This is a moot point, however, as I was assuming you were referring to a different holding of Socrates’.

As for your point concerning Socrates, there is a vital flaw to this thought.   In Socrates' view, can God do wrong?    I would hold that knowledge dictates action - if a Man has knowledge regarding the consequences of an action, that Man would not do that action if the repercussions were ultimately detrimental.  If a Man were to "know" right and still do wrong, I would claim that that Man truly did not "know" right in the first place.

Indeed, ignorance is *not* an option in respect to God and sin, as the knowledge and guidance is freely available.

Anyway, my mind is rather muddled at this late hour (awake for 31 hours and going!  ), so hopefully what I am attempting to get at makes sense.    More than likely, I will revise this (to make it more clear) when I get a chance tommorow  

--
lucas

[Kimberley Tobin]

As for your point concerning Socrates, there is a vital flaw to this thought.   In Socrates' view, can God do wrong?    I would hold that knowledge dictates action - if a Man has knowledge regarding the consequences of an action, that Man would not do that action if the repercussions were ultimately detrimental.  If a Man were to "know" right and still do wrong, I would claim that that Man truly did not "know" right in the first place.

lucas

Perhaps the lack of sleep is to be blamed for this belief you posted.  (I sure hope so!)

Do you really believe that "Man would not do that action if the repercussions were ultimately detrimental"?  Without even looking to any other example than my own life, this is poppycock!  (But I still love you Lucas!)     While I knew that having sex outside of wedlock could produce an unwanted pregnancy and the "repercussions" would be OBVIOUSLY detrimental, I did it anyway.  While I knew that doing drugs could have detrimental "repercussions", I did them anyway (and became addicted in the process, one of those "detrimental repercussions" I knew could happen!)  


You said, "If a Man were to 'know' right and still do wrong, I would claim that that Man truly did not 'know' right in the first place."   To take my example to it's logical conclusion with this statement, I did not really "know" right in the first place.  WRONG!  I ABSOLUTELY knew doing drugs was wrong.  I ABSOLUTELY knew having sex outside of marriage was wrong and there could be dire consequences for both actions (and there were.)  

I think you need to re-think your thesis.  What do you think?

[Oscar]

I occasionally go on yhe SWTE site out of curiosity, only to leave feeling attacked on the "forgiveness" thread. But today something caught my attention.  It was on the "Wipe the dust" or something like that thread.  Affirming wrote,"I do not believe that God knows how we are going to choose......."

 I was taught God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. This seems like a scary statement to me.  Anyone want to weigh in?

Suzie

P.s.  I know a well respected geologist professor  who is a godly man and he ascribes to the gap theory . When he explains it, it makes a lot of sense especially in explaining scientific things.

Suzie,

There is a theological movement today called "process theology" in which it is taught that God doesn't know the future, or at least some of the future.  It has to do with trying to deal with the difficult issue of God's benevolence and the existence of evil.

The way some of them talk, it becomes a denial of the Biblical God.

Others use this idea in a more qualified sense.  One idea is that God doesn't know what people will do, because if they haven't done it yet...there isn't anything for God to know.  

I don't buy it.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

I occasionally go on yhe SWTE site out of curiosity, only to leave feeling attacked on the "forgiveness" thread. But today something caught my attention.  It was on the "Wipe the dust" or something like that thread.  Affirming wrote,"I do not believe that God knows how we are going to choose......."

 I was taught God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. This seems like a scary statement to me.  Anyone want to weigh in?

Suzie

P.s.  I know a well respected geologist professor  who is a godly man and he ascribes to the gap theory . When he explains it, it makes a lot of sense especially in explaining scientific things.

Suzie,

Regarding the geology professor.  

Where does he teach?  

The gap theory allows a person to be a six day creationist without being a six day creationist.  What I suspect is that he knows very well that there is no way to reconcile the geological evidence with a six or ten thousand year old earth...so the gap theory works as an "out".

But, IMHO, not a very good one.

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

What is sometimes referred to as the "Gap" theory is the belief by many Biblical scholars that the events of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are not necessarily immediately continuous and that a "gap" as it were exists between the events recorded in these verses. I am limiiting my argument to the specific question of the reasonalbleness of the theory that we are seeing a work of restoration in the Genesis record.
Without going into great detail, there are some sound reasons for this position.
It is likely that the Biblical record of Satan's fall predates man's creation. Milton makes some very interesting references to this in "Paradise Lost".
Although it is somewhat speculative to assume that the event of Satan's rebellion had cosmic consequences as the Bible does not give many details, it is not unreasonable:

The writer to the Hebrews clearly tells us that the blood of Christ was necessary for the cleansing of heavenly places.
If you argue that the curse resulting from Adam's sin was localised, then you have to attribute the defiling of heavenly places to some other event.

 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Hebrews 9:23,24

Arguing for a merely local consequence to sin is I think rather interesting. It requires us to put a whole new meaning on the Biblical concept of  "death". When we look at the world, can we in any way argue for its localisation? Death is the consequence of sin. We clearly cannot argue that the consequence was localised to Adam as he affected all his progeny. Are you arguing then that the only place affected by what he did was the garden of Eden? If I were able to fly to Mars and set up shop would the effects of Adam's choice not follow me there? What if I took a few folk with me? Remember God stated that the conduct of the Canaanites defiled and polluted the very land  in which they dwelled.

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
 Leviticus 10:24,25

You would also be limited to a very narrow interpretation of Paul's observation that by one man sin entered the "world".

  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 5:12


The "formless and void" agument does not stand on an isolated exegesis of the Genesis 1 text, but on a concommitant reading of Isaiah and Jeremiah's statement that God did not create the world "formless and void".

For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in VAIN,  




Paul's use of God's powerful command to let the light shine in the creation record as a metaphor for the rebirth is also in my view very suggestive.

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts,
2 cOR 4:6  

There are other good reasons but in a bit of a rush now.
I generally do no like to invoke tautological or typological concepts when discussing Biblical truth and it's always safer to stay with what the text actually says. The creation is one area in which there is room for broad interpretation of the events of cosmological history. Clearly no one has all the answers.

Verne "Curve-ball hitter" Carty  
(and occasional strike-out king...)
 

Verne,

1. Satan's fall predates Adam's.  OK

2. Milton as an argument.  Huh?  

3. On the cleansing of the "heavenly places".  You are confusing the celestial heavens with the spiritual realm.  Christ is seated in the "heavenly places" (Eph. 1:20) and we are seated with him, (Eph 2:6).  But this is a name for the spiritual realm, Heaven" not for the universe.  Satan has been there (in the heavenlies), after his fall, (Job 1:6), but it seems to me that he has been cast out.  This might yet be a future even.  Not sure.

Anyway, you can't establish a universal effect of the fall on the physical universe by pointing to sin in the heavenlies.  They are two different things.  Genesis 1:1 is referring to the creation of the universe, not the heavenlies.

Otherwise, all we would need to visit God would be a suitable vehicle.

4. The verses you quote about the Canaanites defiling the land are exactly that.  The land was defiled by the Canaanites thousands of years after Adam.  Not the same thing.

5. Regarding the argument against "localization of death".

a. Death obviously existed in the earth before Adam fell. 1. There are species with life cycles less than 24 hours, 2. plants die when they are eaten and digested. 3. Even if you think Genesis1: 29-30 means that all animals and birds were vegetarians, as some do, (not I), you must answer the question, "What did sharks eat?"
Not to mention baracudas, killer whales, pike, octopi, starfish and on and on.

There was death on the earth before Adam fell.  

b. Romans 5:12 clearly says that "death through sin" entered the world through Adam.  It also clearly says that it spread to all men. It is "in Adam that all die" as far as this death goes. (I Cor. 15:21).  It doesn't say that it spread to all penguins.  Penguins can't sin.
Nor can frogs, apples, flies, hippopotomi, or, according to him, GG.

No help there for a universal effect of the fall.

c. As to the effect of sin spreading on your trip to Mars.  There aren't any people on Mars.  It would spread in you...and in any of your offspring wherever you might be.  They are all born, "in Adam".

It is man who bears this death, not the universe.

6. On the formless and void issue.  I am not disagreeing with the fact that it was formless and void.  The problem is with the translation of the word "was".  Some have translated it "became".  That is the problem, not "tohu wabohu".

7. There is a big difference in creating "in vain" and creating formless and void.  If you try to do something "in vain" it means without the desired effect, not the condition of the results.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Change up pitcher

[Oscar]

Verne,

1. Satan's fall predates Adam's.  OK

2. Milton as an argument.  Huh?  

Clearly prarenthetical

3. On the cleansing of the "heavenly places".  You are confusing the celestial heavens with the spiritual realm.  Christ is seated in the "heavenly places" (Eph. 1:20) and we are seated with him, (Eph 2:6).  But this is a name for the spiritual realm, Heaven" not for the universe.  Satan has been there (in the heavenlies), after his fall, (Job 1:6), but it seems to me that he has been cast out.  This might yet be a future even.  Not sure.

Anyway, you can't establish a universal effect of the fall on the physical universe by pointing to sin in the heavenlies.  They are two different things.  Genesis 1:1 is referring to the creation of the universe, not the heavenlies.

Otherwise, all we would need to visit God would be a suitable vehicle.

Perhaps. I would argue that all of the physical creation mirrors spiritual reality. Just as with the Mosaic symbols of redemtion, we are dealing with  patterns of the true I believe.
We understand the reality, by looking at the pattern. No confusion in my view. More later

4. The verses you quote about the Canaanites defiling the land are exactly that.  The land was defiled by the Canaanites thousands of years after Adam.  Not the same thing.

Fair point. I would still argue there is nowhere on earth that the ground yeilds its produce without being tilled, a specifice hallmark of the curse, with work being the necessary consequence. I will check the Hebrew on the word "ground".

5. Regarding the argument against "localization of death".

a. Death obviously existed in the earth before Adam fell. 1. There are species with life cycles less than 24 hours, 2. plants die when they are eaten and digested. 3. Even if you think Genesis1: 29-30 means that all animals and birds were vegetarians, as some do, (not I), you must answer the question, "What did sharks eat?"
Not to mention baracudas, killer whales, pike, octopi, starfish and on and on.

What will lions eat in the new Jerusalem?

There was death on the earth before Adam fell.  

b. Romans 5:12 clearly says that "death through sin" entered the world through Adam.  It also clearly says that it spread to all men. It is "in Adam that all die" as far as this death goes. (I Cor. 15:21).  It doesn't say that it spread to all penguins.  Penguins can't sin.
Nor can frogs, apples, flies, hippopotomi, or, according to him, GG.

No help there for a universal effect of the fall.

c. As to the effect of sin spreading on your trip to Mars.  There aren't any people on Mars.  It would spread in you...and in any of your offspring wherever you might be.  They are all born, "in Adam".

It is man who bears this death, not the universe .

There was sin in the universe before Adam fell. That there was also death is self-evident as that is sin's consequence according to Scripture.

Question reagading the death of the universe: How would you describe the cessation of time?
(we know this will happen).

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in the which the heavnes shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up

Seems a bit extreme don't you think? Why all the fireworks?  

6. On the formless and void issue.  I am not disagreeing with the fact that it was formless and void.  The problem is with the translation of the word "was".  Some have translated it "became".  That is the problem, not "tohu wabohu".

7. There is a big difference in creating "in vain" and creating formless and void.  If you try to do something "in vain" it means without the desired effect, not the condition of the results.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Change up pitcher

Assume Genesis 1:2  text reads:

The earth was formless;  ( formless = tohuw ;   Strong's 8414)

Isaiah  45:18 says:

He hath established it, He created it not tohuw (rendered " in vain")


The conclusion is the same...if the earth was in a state other than He created it, it necessarily follows that it became that way, hence that rendering in some translations...

Verne

p.s    

Thomas Maddux
Change up pitcher  

 Did I go down swinging??  

Hi Verne,

1. Regarding your idea that physical creation mirrors the spiritual world.  Remember you are arguing that the universe is fallen.  Heaven is fallen?  The dwelling place of God is full of evil?

You need to give an argument for your position to establish at least a level of plausibility before you use it to draw conclusions from.

2. Regarding the tilling of the ground.  Having to work the ground was a condition that existed before the fall, in the Garden of Eden. (Genesis 2:5, 15).  The ground had to be cultivated before the fall.  Man just had to work harder after he fell.  In part, this was to keep him out of trouble.  

I didn't say the ground wasn't cursed.  I said the universe wasn't cursed.  

3. Regarding your question, "What will lions eat in the New Jerusalem.
a. I see no reason the believe that there will be any lions in the NJ.
b. The NJ comes down into a new creation.  The old will have been destroyed.  It will apparently be located between the earth and the sky in the new creation.  There will be no sea.  Therefore no water cycle.  It will not be lit by the sun.  We don't even know if there will be a sun.  
The physics of the new creation are going to be different.  Cities in the shape of a cube, suspended in the air, can't exist in this universe, unless God were to change the rules, but then it wouldn't really be this universe.
An astronomer friend told me that any physical object over 100 K's in diameter will crush down to a spherical shape because of gravity. This has been seen in asteroids and moons.  The odd shaped ones are all smaller.

Anyway, under our current laws of physics, a city that is a cube that measures 1500 miles on a side can't exist.  Ergo, different physics.

4. Regarding the "cessation of time".  I am not sure what you are asking me.  Do mean Rev. 10:5-6 where the KJV says, "time shall be no more"?  In the NASV it is rendered "there will be delay no longer".

However, when this universe is destroyed, its time must necessarily be destroyed as well, since it is part of this creation.  That doesn't rule out a new timeline in a new creation though.  Any state of being where things happen sequentially will necessarily have time.
According to Rev. 21:22 there will be a river.  A river is the result of a series of events at the atomic level, so there has to be time.

5. Regarding Isa 45:18.  This reminds me of a time in the 70's when I was pitching to a very athletic 6th grade boy one afternoon.  (I used to run a softball league with another teacher at my school).

I pitched my (not very) fast ball and the kid hit it right back at my face.  I instinctively threw up my glove hand in front of my face, and the ball went right into the glove.  He never knew it was a complete accident.  

Anyway, you are forgetting that the creation was a process.  Not a "poof" and there it is.  Check out Genesis 2:1-2.

" Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. (This harks back to 1:1) By the seventh day God completed his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done."

and 2:4 says, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.  This, again, is a reference to Gen. 1:1, the original creation.

Just one creation so far.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
gunshy pitcher

[jesusfreak]

Do you really believe that "Man would not do that action if the repercussions were ultimately detrimental"?  Without even looking to any other example than my own life, this is poppycock!  (But I still love you Lucas!)     While I knew that having sex outside of wedlock could produce an unwanted pregnancy and the "repercussions" would be OBVIOUSLY detrimental, I did it anyway.  While I knew that doing drugs could have detrimental "repercussions", I did them anyway (and became addicted in the process, one of those "detrimental repercussions" I knew could happen!)  

Humm, I think I know what I was trying to say....but I truly do not see the value as to *why* I would bother saying it  

Basically, I think I was referring to the fact (using your example) that the action to have the pre-marital sex would never have been done if the persons involved *knew* a pregnancy would result.    There is an important difference between "knowledge something *could* happen" and "knowledge that something *will* happen".  

Can a Man *know* Right if the outcomes of the action were not known prior to the action being done?   This is the basis of my holding that *complete* knowledge of what is Right will inherently lead to "correct" decisions.  Why would a Man do something contrary to the best possible outcome?  Connecting it to Socrates, I would still hold that Knowledge is all that is needed (because actions are derived from this).

At least, this is the only reasonable thing I can imagine myself attempting to state based on what I wrote....

--
lucas

[moonflower2]

  This is the basis of my holding that *complete* knowledge of what is Right will inherently lead to "correct" decisions.  Why would a Man do something contrary to the best possible outcome?  --
lucas

 Who KNOWING the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Romans 1:32
Verne

Hi Lucas,

It's why we can't bypass the need for a new nature; one that we can't create for or by ourselves by such means as "education".  
Calvin called it Total Depravity.

Moonflower2

[jesusfreak]

  This is the basis of my holding that *complete* knowledge of what is Right will inherently lead to "correct" decisions.  Why would a Man do something contrary to the best possible outcome?  --
lucas

 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Romans 1:32
Verne

I still maintain that they cannot possibly and fully know what they are doing, thereby lacking "complete knowledge", as they perform actions inherently detrimental to themselves.    Surely this is magnified by the common grace of God?  Why else would God bother influencing us as to what is Right and what is Wrong?    I find your use of this verse to be rather out of context, exemplifying a phrase of the scripture rather than a truth of the scripture.  

As for Calvin, I never said that Man was able to ever reach "total knowledge".  Therefore, Man is completely unable to contribute to the act of salvation.  In this facet, I agree with Calvin.

--
lucas

[jesusfreak]

Really? And exactly how do you distinguish the two?  

I think the only 'truth" of Scriptue missing is an understanding of the power and deceitfulness of sin Lucas. That condition has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of knowledge. One only has to consider personal decisions made, even after we are saved, to realise and accept the truth of this. Christians of all people should be intimately familiar with this principle. Failure to understand it is why so many remain in spiritual infancy.  

Ahh yes, but we have suddenly switched between my original contention that Knowledge of what is good (Plato) is enough to determine action, to a direct Christian application where we are inherently tainted by Sin.

 Basically, here is what I have put forth:  If a Man were to know everything about everything, that Man would only do Good.  

Therefore, Plato is correct and Socrates is stupid  

Do you agree with this?  
--
lucas