PDA

View Full Version : God, man, and the nature of sin


Sabretooth
10-16-2007, 08:36 AM
split from God video games: sacrilegious? (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=183122)



*barges into discussion with banana*

Yaargh!!

Banana: Hi.

So, let us commence my post.

The very concept of God is rather vague, the way I say it. Every religion ascribes different levels of power to their God, some being limited to certain forces and emotions (polytheism) while others going to full all-controlling, all-doing, all-mighty Gods (Christianity and what-not).

Also, I don't think thy Christian lord will be offended if you make another God in a game. After all, this is entertainment/art and all is forgiven in entertainment/art.

And as for the title question, that's one thing I use to counter theists. If God exists and is really so damned powerful, why the hell does he need us for? I mean, just what freaking reason is the universe for? And why is he playing an elaborate game of The Sims with us? All that makes no sense. And don't give me that "he was bored and lonely" crap. Just don't.

Gargoyle King
10-16-2007, 06:15 PM
And don't give me that "he was bored and lonely" crap. Just don't.God made everything cause he was bored and lonely! :lol:
I doubt anyone would have a problem with a game like this anyways, and people who are really into religion perhaps wouldn't play videogames as much as other people would; the game would be pure entertainment, nothing more (it would be really fun to play as an all-controlling God, perhaps it would work best as an RTS game?).

Emperor Devon
10-17-2007, 02:59 AM
I never said that you had to take my opinion and beleive it to be true. We all get to choose what we believe in, and this just happens to be what I believe in.

I'm glad to hear that you've found something you believe in. Unfortunately, however, it still hasn't gotten rid of that annoying question of mine. :( I could say, for instance, "It is sinful to wear blue pants." Most people's reaction to this would be "Why do you think it is sinful to wear blue pants?" were my response to be "I believe it is sinful to wear blue pants. You do not have to believe the same," it probably wouldn't be very satisfactory to whoever asked, namely because it doesn't answer the question. I guess that's what comes with believing in Absolute Truth.

You've stated numerous times I don't have to believe your opinion. Good to know you think so, but not terribly relevant. If you would claim to have a valid opinion on a matter you should at least be able to explain why you believe as you do. Nothing is right simply 'because it is'.

Uh, ED, opinons are just that, opinons. They don't need to be justified.

My opinion is that they do. And don't tell me I'm wrong, it's an unjustifiable opinion. You've admitted so yourself. :p

Rev7
10-17-2007, 08:03 PM
I'm glad to hear that you've found something you believe in. Unfortunately, however, it still hasn't gotten rid of that annoying question of mine. :( I could say, for instance, "It is sinful to wear blue pants." Most people's reaction to this would be "Why do you think it is sinful to wear blue pants?" were my response to be "I believe it is sinful to wear blue pants. You do not have to believe the same," it probably wouldn't be very satisfactory to whoever asked, namely because it doesn't answer the question. I guess that's what comes with believing in Absolute Truth.

You've stated numerous times I don't have to believe your opinion. Good to know you think so, but not terribly relevant. If you would claim to have a valid opinion on a matter you should at least be able to explain why you believe as you do. Nothing is right simply 'because it is'.

Christianity is based on faith, ED. Generally the only proof is the Bible, and your own personal experiences. That is really all that I can think of. Besides, I have NEVER stated that it "is right simply because it is". Not once. I am also very glad that you finally "get" my opinion now. :)

Emperor Devon
10-18-2007, 04:32 AM
Different genre with different kinds of characters! :p :D

I cite Revenge of the Sith and any other SW game that involves playing powerful Jedi from the start, touche Prime! :P

Christianity is based on faith, ED. Generally the only proof is the Bible, and your own personal experiences.

Since your case about sinful deified video game characters appears to have been drawn entirely from the bible's word we can discount the latter.

While I'm glad you've been able to tell me 'because the bible says so' rather than 'because this is what I believe', I'm afraid you've still not provided a sufficient answer. :( If you could explain that answer further (whether it's because you think the bible presents a sound argument against deified video game characters or because you think everything in it is true simply because it's the bible) that would go a long way in explaining your position.

I have NEVER stated that it "is right simply because it is".

The foundation of your argument relies upon it being wrong because the bible says so, in other words an appeal to authority. Until you explain further your reasoning for taking what it says for granted (or in your case, taking your extrapolation of what it has said for granted) you are basically saying 'it's right because <unarguable person/idea/thing> says it's right.' However, that can be augmented with what I mentioned in the above paragraph.

I think.

You don't, otherwise you wouldn't have started this thread. :p If you'd like me to argue those points with you as if they were your opinion, however, just give the heads up and I'd be glad to.

Sabretooth
10-18-2007, 05:44 AM
You will do something that the real God won't like, and besides, to pretend to be God and do what God would do is an act of hubris.

The question is: Why would God dislike something humans do? Since the human intellect is so negligibly miniscule, God would hardly care about what humans do, and instead think of our wars and inventions as real cute (I can imagine him posting 'lolhumans' pictures all over 4chan). Besides, since God is in control, he can just avert us from doing something wrong.

Once again, something in religion that makes no sense!

Ray Jones
10-18-2007, 07:29 AM
Once again, something in religion that makes no sense!Once again, something in religion that is caught with phrases like "god moves in mysterious ways".

Ray Jones
10-20-2007, 05:08 AM
I wonder where do you all know from what god likes and dislikes, and that he condemns killings in real life but does not care about killings or violence in a "real life simulation"?

Corinthian
10-20-2007, 06:18 AM
See, we're 'targeting' you, because your views make no sense. They're not supported in the Bible, you've made no real arguments in favor of them, instead essentially saying "This is how I feel." then declaring it a sin. People get irritated when you declare that things they enjoy doing are sins. Did you know that? I doubt it.

Emperor Devon
10-20-2007, 10:02 AM
I don't read books chuck full of gore, violence, sex ; ect.

I suppose that scratches the bible off your list? Some pretty bloody/sexual scenes in there from the parts I've bothered to read.

Unless you'd like to stick to Winnie the Pooh-Bear for the rest of your life, that's going to severely limit the amount of reading you can do. All great literature involves violence to some extent.

BTW-- I am not quite sure what to think quite yet on the killing in video games.

There goes KotOR too? Your call, I hope you enjoy games made for <10-year old children.

I'm curious as to the extent of your abstinence from media violence... In addition to games do you want to stop watching movies/TV shows that involve killing people too?

I only think that playing a video games when you play as a god is not right, and one reason that I think this because I don't play any sort of game along those lines. Secondly, I feel that it is not right to do so.

Oh dear. I'd been hoping you were making progress in avoiding 'it's right because it's right' arguments. :(

Really, all you've got to do is say why rather than restate your opinion...

By no means am I saying that you, or anybody else, should believe in what I believe.

You have informed us of that fact no less than three or more times. :) It's fairly irrelevant in any case. Just because someone doesn't force me to eat coconuts doesn't mean I can't dislike them. The same applies to opinions.

I personally do not see where you draw the line for what level of deification constitutes being sinful. D&D is a good example of this - would you draw the line for what's sinful to the gods of the gods/greater gods/minor gods, demi-gods/half-gods/very powerful immortals...? It's not as if there's a black and white line for "this is a totally supreme infinite being and this is not" in all fantasy genres.

Ray Jones
10-20-2007, 10:09 AM
People get irritated when you declare that things they enjoy doing are sins.To the opposite, people who declare things sins get irritated when those who "sin" say they don't.

Corinthian
10-20-2007, 10:27 AM
Everybody sins. But you're right there, too. It's one thing to declare stuff that is clearly a sin, either by your conscience or the Bible itself. I don't think anyone would say that murder is not sinful. This kind of thing, on the other hand, is basically this guy passing judgment on his own merit.

tk102
10-20-2007, 04:26 PM
Hey everyone let's try to keep our eyes on the prize, that is, keeping focus on the topic rather than any individual.

Okay let me see if I can revive the argument from Rev7's side. Video games exercise the imagination. If we partake in activities in a video game that would otherwise be consider sinful in real life, we are at least indulging the fantasy of committing sin. I remember one Bible passage (Matthew 5:28) "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Catholic boys like myself years ago would go to confession and confess "impure thoughts". In a sense, using your imagination to indulge in the pleasure of a sinful act, is itself sinful.

(Personally, I prefer not to thought-police myself too much and see a game as only a game. Acts of goodness towards real people far outweigh acts of evil towards imaginary people, IMO.)

Sabretooth
10-21-2007, 02:51 AM
It's pretty easy really.

"Thou shalt not murder" != "Thou shalt not simulate murder"

Moses didn't say that. Jesus didn't say that. The Bible don't say that. The thousand million Popes didn't say that. Just goes to prove that religion is a strong faith without a constitution, which makes for tons of confusion and subversion. Really, if the bestselling author of the Bible had written a constitution, things would have been much more in order than they are today (considering that he didn't give into the Church's theocratical-ish rule back then).

(Was too lazy to read the rest of the discussion so I don't know what you guys are blabbering about. I'm reading now.)

Edit starts here:

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
**** that's creepy. But anyways, science has proved that "lust" is only a slightly aggravated natural sense of attraction. Attraction, love, lust, everything is just an excuse for mating, in varying degrees. The only reason that passage is in the Bible, the way I see it, is to counter rape, abuse and such by controlling lust. We reach a moral paradox here. By accepting this statement, we block off scientific and free thought, not to mention sexual urges. By denying it, we are at risk of letting lust control us. Which is the better option?

In a sense, using your imagination to indulge in the pleasure of a sinful act, is itself sinful.
But since said sinful act has never occurred in real-life, no sin has been committed and other than this individual's mind, nothing has changed at all. I do not see why this becomes a sin, until a sinful act is physically executed. The reason being, that nobody has been affected by this guys thinking. Nobody even knows. And quite frankly, it is impossible to stop thinking and to control thinking. The mind drifts everywhere. Example:

Statement 1: "omg monica bellucci is so hot."
St. 2: "no. I must not lust."

Here, even if he denies it, individual has lusted and acknowledges the lust. Even as he denies it, he lusts. Why must you go to hell for something you can't control. Is God really that sadistic? Is God the same as Satan?

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 03:13 AM
You really don't get it. There's a difference between acknowledging a woman's attractiveness being attracted to her and lusting after her. Lust can be controlled. It's not easy, but few things worthwhile are. Jesus didn't promise us forgiveness because we wouldn't need it, you know. He also promises his aid.

And let's face it, you know it's true. The whole concept of lust is the desire to have sex with a person. And really, do you think your spouse would see it any differently if you told her "I'm not having sex with her, I just want to?"? I doubt it.

Samuel Dravis
10-21-2007, 04:52 AM
But since said sinful act has never occurred in real-life, no sin has been committed and other than this individual's mind, nothing has changed at all. I do not see why this becomes a sin, until a sinful act is physically executed. The reason being, that nobody has been affected by this guys thinking. Nobody even knows.An interesting way to look at this might be the views of older Christian theologians like Thomas Aquinas. Mr. Aquinas was rather deterministic in his worldview, and (at least given the way I read it), he seems to have thought that all matter was caused by something else, etc etc, to finally a cause created by God. AKA - matter does what God wants it to do, and nothing more. This leaves the responsibility of the individual in a strange place; if you don't have control over what your body does, how can you be responsible for it? You can't, apparently. Your soul doesn't seem to be held to this restriction, however, and so while you may not be wholly responsible for doing acts of violence, you would be responsible for your soul's reaction to them - i.e., do you agree with the actions your body is taking now? In this view, morality is based on intent, not action.

If that is true, then that definitely makes lusting (even if you do nothing physically) a sin.

Here, even if he denies it, individual has lusted and acknowledges the lust. Even as he denies it, he lusts. Why must you go to hell for something you can't control. Is God really that sadistic? Is God the same as Satan?Like the above, it's just letting things go without trying to control them that gets you sent to hell, not simply having the thoughts. You can only be responsible for what you are capable of controlling (an interesting side question to this is, what is God not capable of controlling?).

Also, God can't be evil, as he is defined as having maximally perfect goodness. :p

tk102
10-21-2007, 06:10 AM
Moses didn't say that. Jesus didn't say that. The Bible don't say that. Um, no, I said it. I was explaining that simulation of killing is not prohibited by the 6th commandment. Your 1st paragraph makes no sense to me. :confused:

Also, God can't be evil, as he is defined as having maximally perfect goodness.So goodness=godness? Didn't God make the devil? Doesn't that make him the ultimate source of evil? Does goodness have meaning without its opposite?

Ray Jones
10-21-2007, 06:12 AM
And let's face it, you know it's true. The whole concept of lust is the desire to have sex with a person.Nope. The whole concept of lust is to ensure reproduction.

And really, do you think your spouse would see it any differently if you told her "I'm not having sex with her, I just want to?"? I doubt it.Not everybody has spouses, and basically it's not "I want to have" but "I could have, but don't want to", what happens to a lot of 'spouses'.

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 06:16 AM
Wh...what? To reproduce, you have to have sex. Didn't your parents tell you about that?

And the thing about spouses was to make a point. Please don't deliberately be stupid, it's very irritating.

Sabretooth
10-21-2007, 06:20 AM
You really don't get it. There's a difference between acknowledging a woman's attractiveness being attracted to her and lusting after her. Lust can be controlled. It's not easy, but few things worthwhile are. Jesus didn't promise us forgiveness because we wouldn't need it, you know. He also promises his aid.

And let's face it, you know it's true. The whole concept of lust is the desire to have sex with a person. And really, do you think your spouse would see it any differently if you told her "I'm not having sex with her, I just want to?"? I doubt it.

Quite true, but if one were capable of controlling lust, there would be very little chance of him lusting the first place, as he has control over his mind. And lust drives to sex - not rape. The two terms have significantly different meanings. Imagining to have sex with someone, which is what lust is, is not wrong in my books, but rape is damned wrong.

I believe lust to be equal to sexual attraction, and that is natural. But lust's manifestation is wrong, and that needs to be controlled.

As for the spouse thingie, it really depends from person to person. You are looking at the stereotypical wife here. I'd get a more understanding spouse, myself - one with a open mind and understanding.

@Sam Dravis: That's an interesting way to look at things, but that's a theory and a philosophy, in the end. Like all others, it cannot be proved or disproved, but I like it, personally. Better than other religious theories, at least.

Um, no, I said it. I was explaining that simulation of killing is not prohibited by the 6th commandment. Your 1st paragraph makes no sense to me. :confused:
Never mind, I just entered the place, was trying to find a place and warm up. Forget it. :xp:

So goodness=godness? Didn't God make the devil? Doesn't that make him the ultimate source of evil? Does goodness have meaning without its opposite?
Note the :p at the end of that statement, tk. He was probably half-sarcastic. But you're right in that. If God created all, if he is source of everything, how does evil exist, and how is sin against God?

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 06:32 AM
Yes, God did make the Devil. Incidentally, he also made humanity, and he gave us the gift of choice. Why is this concept so difficult to comprehend? It's only made worse by the people who have no clue of what Christianity means talking like they're theologians.

Sabretooth
10-21-2007, 06:36 AM
Yes, God did make the Devil. Incidentally, he also made humanity, and he gave us the gift of choice. Why is this concept so difficult to comprehend? It's only made worse by the people who have no clue of what Christianity means talking like they're theologians.
LOL, I'm agnostic, my friend - I'd never become a Theologian in my life! I just attack common notions of religion that I believe to be wrong or unreasonable. The reason the concept is so difficult to comprehend is that it still does not answer the fundamental question of religion: Why? Also, if God made the Devil, he must have had some source of Evil prior to the creation, or could have had evil inside Him. Also, where did God come from? How did he come into existence? Difficult to comprehend, certainly!

Ray Jones
10-21-2007, 07:05 AM
Or, is he alone or are there others?

Wh...what? To reproduce, you have to have sex. Didn't your parents tell you about that?

And the thing about spouses was to make a point. Please don't deliberately be stupid, it's very irritating.Watch you attitude, and stop being irritated, please.

To reproduce you have to have sex, yes. I did not deny that. However, the concept of lust was 'invented' to ensure reproduction under all circumstances and against all odds, not solely to make us engage in sexual activities for the sheer fun of it. It's a totally different thing.

And as for my 'deliberate stupidity', I was making a point too, namely that one pointing out that your 'example' to bring your point across has flaws. Plus, I tried to point out that the train of thought isn't necessarily that of "I want to have sex with someone else".

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 07:12 AM
Not really. I'm sure you'll scoff, but here's the answers to those allegedly unexplainable mysteries.

Why? I have no idea. I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze God. The only thing I can say is because he wanted to. I mean, I can say it's not because he was lonely, but maybe he enjoys creating things. The Bible says we're created in his image, and we enjoy being creative and building stuff, which is as close to creation as we can get.

God made the Devil, yes. Also known as Lucifer and Satan. Originally, Lucifer was God's chief angel, but he wanted God's power so he attempted to overthrow God. There's not a lot of record of what happened, since it's beyond human comprehension and doesn't really have a lot of bearing on what the Bible says, but suffice to say, Satan lost and was banished from heaven along with one third of Heaven's Host of Angels, the ones who had rebelled along with Satan. God did not create Evil. In a sense, Satan created evil, much like Cain created murder.

God didn't come from anywhere. He's always been. He existed before time began. The logical thing for a human to do is to look for a beginning and try to find the end. This is natural, as we are mortal and everything has a beginning and an end. God, however, is the opposite. As we are bound to time, we cannot understand eternity, and as we are bound to limits, we can't really understand infinity.

Ray Jones
10-21-2007, 07:24 AM
God made the Devil, yes. Also known as Lucifer and Satan.God did not create Evil. In a sense, Satan created evil
From the mathematical aspect, that logic fails.

Sabretooth
10-21-2007, 07:51 AM
Not really. I'm sure you'll scoff, but here's the answers to those allegedly unexplainable mysteries.

Why? I have no idea. I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze God. The only thing I can say is because he wanted to. I mean, I can say it's not because he was lonely, but maybe he enjoys creating things. The Bible says we're created in his image, and we enjoy being creative and building stuff, which is as close to creation as we can get.

God made the Devil, yes. Also known as Lucifer and Satan. Originally, Lucifer was God's chief angel, but he wanted God's power so he attempted to overthrow God. There's not a lot of record of what happened, since it's beyond human comprehension and doesn't really have a lot of bearing on what the Bible says, but suffice to say, Satan lost and was banished from heaven along with one third of Heaven's Host of Angels, the ones who had rebelled along with Satan. God did not create Evil. In a sense, Satan created evil, much like Cain created murder.

God didn't come from anywhere. He's always been. He existed before time began. The logical thing for a human to do is to look for a beginning and try to find the end. This is natural, as we are mortal and everything has a beginning and an end. God, however, is the opposite. As we are bound to time, we cannot understand eternity, and as we are bound to limits, we can't really understand infinity.

Ah, so you're saying is that everything related to God is beyond our comprehension and that we're just some guys God made because that's his summer hobby and that he possesses the rights to twist the laws of physics because that's a human invention and doesn't really exist. While I respect the theory, it's just too muddled up and "out-there" sort of idea.

As for the topic of Satan, I haven't read very much about it, so I'm fairly uneducated in that field, but what the heck. Satan rebelled against God because he wanted God's power. That's a hint that he was evil, as he wanted power. Where did he inherit or gain this desire from, if God was completely, purely goodness? Where did evil originate? Since God is the origin of everything, I don't see why He is not the answer. Also, if God is really so good, why did he condemn Lucifer rather than forgiving him? Oh wait, I know the answer: We can't comprehend it. Only God can, because our heads are frikkin small, we can't even guess the meaning of life.

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 10:38 AM
You do a good job of trying to make Christians angry, Sabretooth, and nice way to reinterpret what I said. I'll deal with you first..

Starting from the top,

Yes, God is beyond human comprehension, in a similar way that objects from the seventh dimension defy human comprehension. What's so complex about that?

I suppose you could call creation God's summer hobby. I wouldn't, but you might. Yes, you're right. And yes, God can twist the Laws of Physics. He's God. He created the laws of physics. Do I need to start explaining the concept of omnipotence to you?

God created everything, yes. But everything that he created has the potential to be abused, from abstract concepts to the more material things. Among the many things God created, he created pride. Satan abused that creation, and in so doing, in a sense, he created Evil. That's the core of Evil: Perverting God's creation.

As for why God did not forgive Lucifer, why should God forgive Lucifer if Lucifer doesn't want to be forgiven?

Rev7
10-21-2007, 01:28 PM
You do a good job of trying to make Christians angry, Sabretooth, and nice way to reinterpret what I said. I'll deal with you first..

Starting from the top,

Yes, God is beyond human comprehension, in a similar way that objects from the seventh dimension defy human comprehension. What's so complex about that?

I suppose you could call creation God's summer hobby. I wouldn't, but you might. Yes, you're right. And yes, God can twist the Laws of Physics. He's God. He created the laws of physics. Do I need to start explaining the concept of omnipotence to you?

God created everything, yes. But everything that he created has the potential to be abused, from abstract concepts to the more material things. Among the many things God created, he created pride. Satan abused that creation, and in so doing, in a sense, he created Evil. That's the core of Evil: Perverting God's creation.

As for why God did not forgive Lucifer, why should God forgive Lucifer if Lucifer doesn't want to be forgiven?
That is a very good way of putting that. :) Lucifer WAS an archangel cast out of heaven, or in star wars terms, exiled, and not able to come back because of the choices that he himself made when he had been in God's Kingdom. He made his bad choice and has to live with that for well, eternity.

Sabretooth
10-21-2007, 01:34 PM
You do a good job of trying to make Christians angry, Sabretooth, and nice way to reinterpret what I said.

That, good sir, is one of the finest compliments I have gotten. I thank ye!

Yes, God is beyond human comprehension, in a similar way that objects from the seventh dimension defy human comprehension. What's so complex about that?

I suppose you could call creation God's summer hobby. I wouldn't, but you might. Yes, you're right. And yes, God can twist the Laws of Physics. He's God. He created the laws of physics.
Did I not mention that I respect the theory and choose not to believe in it?

Do I need to start explaining the concept of omnipotence to you?
From your perspective, yes please.

God created everything, yes. But everything that he created has the potential to be abused, from abstract concepts to the more material things. Among the many things God created, he created pride. Satan abused that creation, and in so doing, in a sense, he created Evil. That's the core of Evil: Perverting God's creation.
But if evil perverts God's creation, it is a threat to God - why doesn't God stop it? Why does he allow this senseless, sadistic slaughter that goes on in earth by evil? If everyone went to hell, what would God do? Also, since pride is bad (which is fairly obvious), that would constitute that God "invented" a sin. Again, my friend, Why? More questions that religion answers with "God is mysterious."
As for why God did not forgive Lucifer, why should God forgive Lucifer if Lucifer doesn't want to be forgiven?
But then that would be an act of apathy, which is a sin. Compare it to watching a man murder someone and not do absolutely anything about it, while acknowledging the murder.

tk102
10-21-2007, 01:52 PM
If God can make the devil, God can unmake the devil. But then what do you have? No opposing concept for the idea of goodness. And I'll return to the question: what is goodness if it has no opposite?

If God is omnipresent and omnipotent, does it not mean that if we represented God as a circle, then the circles of you and me and the devil would all be inside that circle? All acts of goodness and evil also? Isn't His Word in all things? Doesn't the Mystery of the Trinity lie in the union of many?

Edit:
@Darth Insidious: yes this spinoff thread is probably in need of another split

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 03:42 PM
I've heard these arguments before, Sabretooth.

Pride is not inherently evil. Would you consider it to be wrong to say "I'm proud of you, son." Of course not. God created love, but it has been corrupted into, among other things, narcissism. God created pleasure, but that has been perverted into hedonism.

How is it apathetic for God not to forgive someone who doesn't want to be forgiven? It's not that he doesn't care. He does. But he's not going to forgive someone's sins if they don't desire to have that taken from them. He gave us free will, he's not going to snatch the sin that we cling so dearly to away from us. If we ask him to, he will.

God allows the senseless slaughter on Earth because we've brought it upon ourselves by rejecting God as a people. It's all tied back to Adam and Eve, inevitably. Our fathers and mothers sullied the world with their sin. They turned away from God. God placed a fairly simple boundary on our ancestors - don't eat the fruit of this tree. And what do they do? They eat the fruit.

The fact is, God is far more patient and merciful than can be expected of anyone and anything. He sacrificed his son, put his only son through the most terrible torment imaginable. Beyond the physical pain of having nails driven into your hands and feet and hoisted off the ground to slowly suffocate over three hours, he took the burden of every sin in the world, a pain that is unimaginable, and you accuse him of apathy!?

Ray Jones
10-21-2007, 05:00 PM
No, but of making things unnecessary complex.

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 05:41 PM
Huh?

Ray Jones
10-21-2007, 06:21 PM
God allows the senseless slaughter on Earth because we've brought it upon ourselves by rejecting God as a people. It's all tied back to Adam and Eve, inevitably. Our fathers and mothers sullied the world with their sin. They turned away from God. God placed a fairly simple boundary on our ancestors - don't eat the fruit of this tree. And what do they do? They eat the fruit.Why bother us with what 'our ancestors' 'did wrong'? Can the child of a murderer be hold responsible for what his father did wrong? Who would allow senseless slaughter if he could ultimately stop it?

The fact is, God is far more patient and merciful than can be expected of anyone and anything. He sacrificed his son, put his only son through the most terrible torment imaginable. Beyond the physical pain of having nails driven into your hands and feet and hoisted off the ground to slowly suffocate over three hours, he took the burden of every sin in the world, a pain that is unimaginable, and you accuse him of apathy!?How very noble of him. A useless, and immoral act, nonetheless. What father would put his son through this if he is able to solve the problem without harming anyone?



Hence "unnecessary complex".

Samuel Dravis
10-21-2007, 06:22 PM
So goodness=godness? Didn't God make the devil? Doesn't that make him the ultimate source of evil? Does goodness have meaning without its opposite?

... {later quote merged - sam}

If God can make the devil, God can unmake the devil. But then what do you have? No opposing concept for the idea of goodness. And I'll return to the question: what is goodness if it has no opposite?

If God is omnipresent and omnipotent, does it not mean that if we represented God as a circle, then the circles of you and me and the devil would all be inside that circle? All acts of goodness and evil also? Isn't His Word in all things? Doesn't the Mystery of the Trinity lie in the union of many?This is a fun topic, tk! :D


Godness=Goodness: yes, that's about it. The concept is called Divine Simplicity, and it's a way to escape the Euthyphro dilemma: is something good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good? Neither option being very palatable, this was a way to sidestep the question. By making Goodness, Justice, etc., part of god, it means these ideas flow from the nature of god and are not a declaration on his part.

So, did God create evil? I actually just discussed this very subject the other day. If you've read Descartes (specifically, his Meditations on First Philosophy), he treats this in an interesting way. He says that what we call evil is simply a lack of the good. It is not a "real" thing in the same way that good is considered. Using Plato's theory of forms, you could say that God is/has the form of the Good, and anything which is not of God does not have this form and is called evil.

In response to the idea of good not being able to exist without evil (I made this argument as well :D): In a sense, it's similar to the relationship between order and chaos. If you arranged all the books you have in your house in alphabetical order, it would be perfectly ordered (i.e., maximally perfect). That doesn't mean that the idea of chaos couldn't be conceived; it simply means that the actuality of chaos is not present.

But how can God not be responsible for evil, especially when he created everything? He's supposed to be perfectly good, right? We're told that in the beginning, there was no evil - God looked at his creation and saw that it was (perfectly) good. But there's an idea here we don't want to miss: maximally perfect in the sense of limited beings is not maximally perfect in an absolute sense. Now, here I presuppose that God can't do logically impossible things, like making a REAL married bachelor and the like (I'm sure some would like to say he could but I'm going to ignore them). Anyway, created beings are by definition limited, so God is in a difficult situation - he can't create a being that's not limited, because doing so would break the definition of creation. He's left with beings that are limited, and being so limited they are capable of error (and thus sin).

Was it better to create than not? I suppose it must have been, because here we are. :D

As for the topic of Satan, I haven't read very much about it, so I'm fairly uneducated in that field, but what the heck. Satan rebelled against God because he wanted God's power. That's a hint that he was evil, as he wanted power. Where did he inherit or gain this desire from, if God was completely, purely goodness? Where did evil originate? Since God is the origin of everything, I don't see why He is not the answer. Also, if God is really so good, why did he condemn Lucifer rather than forgiving him? Oh wait, I know the answer: We can't comprehend it. Only God can, because our heads are frikkin small, we can't even guess the meaning of life.This is probably more easily understood when we define condemned. From what I understand, being "condemned to hell" is NOT something done by God, willed by God, or condoned by God. The default state is supposed to be acceptance and forgiveness. Being condemned in this sense means that you simply choose not to be in God's presence. You are not tortured for eternity, you are not forced to do anything, you are not burning in a lake of fire. While the lack of God's presence may indeed feel like torture (and thus give rise to the burning hell concept), it is not something that is done by God. God may forgive Lucifer... but Lucifer might not forgive himself, or let himself be forgiven. The other questions you had were sorta answered in the response to tk above this.

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 06:37 PM
Exactly, Ray. Now you're getting it. We're held accountable of the sins of our fathers. Besides which, even discarding original sin, every human has sinned. So, if you like, just ignore original sin. It doesn't really matter.

The Crucifixion isn't that simple. Someone had to pay the price for the sins of humanity. Lewis explained this very well in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. God laid down a set of laws. Sin was to be punished. God is merciful, but he is also Just. It's not a matter of a lack of power, but a matter of the Law. Someone had to pay the price for the sins of humanity. It's not just right, it's logical. Why do we have a criminal justice system? Several reasons. One is to punish the crime, one is to deter people from committing the crime, and one is to protect society from further crimes by the same person. Only the first one really applies here. If we started pardoning criminals for no reason, even with them not even asking for forgiveness and pardon, then the justice system would have no teeth.

Ray Jones
10-21-2007, 06:54 PM
Exactly, Ray. Now you're getting it. We're held accountable of the sins of our fathers. Besides which, even discarding original sin, every human has sinned. So, if you like, just ignore original sin. It doesn't really matter.That doesn't answer the question. Why? It makes no sense. There is no point in punishing a child for what its parents did.

The Crucifixion isn't that simple. Someone had to pay the price for the sins of humanity.Why?

God laid down a set of laws. Sin was to be punished. God is merciful, but he is also Just. It's not a matter of a lack of power, but a matter of the Law.Why didn't he just make a 'law' that takes 'sin' out of the equation once for all. When his ways are mysterious and he can do thing we can't comprehend, why doesn't he do something not imaginable and makes sin go away just like *poof*.

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 06:58 PM
Because he gave us our choice. We chose Sin over God ten thousand years ago, and he's given us a chance to recant our mistake. Yes, hypothetically, he could strip out our free will and thought and make us robots, but if he wanted automatons, he would have made automatons in the first place.

Ray Jones
10-21-2007, 07:04 PM
Because he gave us our choice. We chose Sin over God ten thousand years agoOh, really? We chose sin ten thousand years ago? Did you chose sin ten thousand years ago? I didn't chose sin ten thousand years ago.

Yes, hypothetically, he could strip out our free will and thought and make us robots, but if he wanted automatons, he would have made automatons in the first place.Yes, yes, of course! But who said something about "strip out our free will and thought and make us robots"? I didn't. This was about "bye bye sin".

tk102
10-21-2007, 07:12 PM
What father would put his son through this if he is able to solve the problem without harming anyone?
I think one explanation for this is that Jesus was divine, and is part of God if identical to God. From that viewpoint, you could argue that Jesus' death was a simulation of death (like in a video game :ninja2:) but his true nature did not die. Thus no one was harmed and no immorality occurred.
[Descartes] says that what we call evil is simply a lack of the good.That is certainly one good way to escape the God<=>good dilemma and the dualistic nature of good/evil. Instead of a dualism, actions are just various degrees of good. I'm glad you brought that up. I remember the analogy of the goodness of God overflows out from the Him like the water from the fountain and the farther you move from the source, the thirstier you become.

Another way to escape the dilemma is to say that good/evil are two sides of the same coin. Heads=bearded guy in the clouds, Tails=devil with pitchfork. The coin itself is the complete and impersonal Godhead.

Anyway, created beings are by definition limited, so God is in a difficult situation - he can't create a being that's not limited, because doing so would break the definition of creation. He's left with beings that are limited, and being so limited they are capable of error (and thus sin).Indeed, even if God created each of us to be perfect within ourselves, the world is greater than ourselves. Our interactions with the world and others are outside of our spheres of perfection and thus cannot occur perfectly. "There are no perfect men in this world, only perfect intentions" to quote the Robin Hood movie (:p). Since God set us into a world of imperfect interactions, sin is inevitable.

Of course if evil has no in-and-of-itself existence, then the fear of hellfire can't be used as a driving force for being obedient to God.

Likewise, if evil and good are part of the same thing, then the fear of hell vanishes as does the reward of heaven. Instead the best you hope for is dissolution of the finite and return to the infinite.

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 07:19 PM
Of course you didn't. But let's face it, you would have. Adam and Eve were the only sinless humans, the most pure humans to ever live, except Jesus, and they couldn't resist the lure of the Apple. Besides, you've sinned in your lifetime, so it doesn't really matter.

And removing sin from existence is denying free will, or at least placing limits on it. "You're free to do whatever you please, as long as it doesn't displease me." That's essentially what you believe God should have done. That's not Freedom. God doesn't want our slavish devotion like cattle. God isn't looking to become the Lord of slaves. He wants our devotion by choice, not by being denied any options.

Ray Jones
10-21-2007, 07:33 PM
I think one explanation for this is that Jesus was divine, and is part of God if identical to God. From that viewpoint, you could argue that Jesus' death was a simulation of death (like in a video game :ninja2:) but his true nature did not die. Thus no one was harmed and no immorality occurred.i consider putting someone through massive pain as 'doing harm' to that person. He died in our world, this reality, in pain.

Of course you didn't. But let's face it, you would have.I would have what?
Adam and Eve were the only sinless humans, the most pure humans to ever live, except Jesus, and they couldn't resist the lure of the Apple.Gee it's food. Why didn't god put that apple somewhere else if he's so fancy with it?

Besides, you've sinned in your lifetime, so it doesn't really matter.Yeah, what does it matter? *I* didn't eat that apple.

And removing sin from existence is denying free willHow is it? I fail to see that.

"You're free to do whatever you please, as long as it doesn't displease me." That's essentially what you believe God should have done.Nope. I said "take sin out of the equation".

That's not Freedom. God doesn't want our slavish devotion like cattle. God isn't looking to become the Lord of slaves. He wants our devotion by choice, not by being denied any options."Oh, of course, you can cross that line any time! .. But then you'll get shot." That's not freedom, either.

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 07:52 PM
You would have eaten the apple. Stop trying to aggravate me. And they had all the food they wanted in the Garden. It's not like God was starving them and dangling a carrot in front of them.

Taking sin out of the equation is removing what displeases God. Sin displeases God. Would you please at least stop making this more difficult? You're deliberately misunderstanding, I think.

Ray Jones
10-21-2007, 08:13 PM
You would have eaten the apple.Nope. I'd have gone for the fish.
And they had all the food they wanted in the Garden. It's not like God was starving them and dangling a carrot in front of them.Yeah, why the fuss about a small apple then?

Taking sin out of the equation is removing what displeases God. Sin displeases God. Would you please at least stop making this more difficult? You're deliberately misunderstanding, I think.Yes, so why doesn't he just make sin go away, if it displeases him? It's a simple question, not making it difficult, nor deliberate misunderstanding.

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 08:25 PM
Nope. I'd have gone for the fish.

And you seriously tell me you're not trying to annoy me?

Yeah, why the fuss about a small apple then?

Apple of the tree of knowledge. If you know this little about the subject matter, why are you even participating in the debate?

Yes, so why doesn't he just make sin go away, if it displeases him? It's a simple question, not making it difficult, nor deliberate misunderstanding.

I've already explained this. Because our forebears made a decision a long time ago that they wanted sin. How do you remove sin from existence, anyway? Make it impossible? I'm getting tired of this.

Ray Jones
10-21-2007, 08:32 PM
And you seriously tell me you're not trying to annoy me?Sure.

Apple of the tree of knowledge. If you know this little about the subject matter, why are you even participating in the debate?So you can answer my questions so I can improve my knowledge. The question stands: why this way?

I've already explained this. Because our forebears made a decision a long time ago that they wanted sin.Again, 'they', not you, not me.

How do you remove sin from existence, anyway? Make it impossible?What do I know? But do you doubt but one second god would find a way to remove sin from existence?

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 08:40 PM
Yeah, I do doubt God would. He COULD, sure, but the only way that I can logically see to totally reform the hearts of humanity so that we never sinned again was to make it impossible by some means, basically disabling our brains and making us a step down from an Asimov Robot.

Ray Jones
10-21-2007, 08:45 PM
Yeah, I do doubt God would. He COULD, sureAnd why doesn't he?

but the only way that I can logically see to totally reform the hearts of humanity so that we never sinned again was to make it impossible by some means, basically disabling our brains and making us a step down from an Asimov Robot.Yeah, that's what you can logically imagine. But god is above that, correct? So it's not relevant what you can logically see and comprehend.

Corinthian
10-21-2007, 08:52 PM
I'm getting tired of this. I've probably told you more in this one thread over the past ten post than you've known of Christianity in the past, and I'm hardly a theologian. I'll answer this one last time, then I'm going to roll my eyes and do something more fun, like get teeth pulled.

Yes, God can do things I can't even imagine. What's your point? Even if he did do this, humanity still would need to pay for it's crimes. Now, the payment for this has already been paid by Christ, but there would still be the need for repenting. If sin was destroyed, we would never recognize our need for Christ, thus damning us all.

Ray Jones
10-21-2007, 09:04 PM
Yes, God can do things I can't even imagine. What's your point?It not our part to think of a method to get rid of sin. It's god's. Even more if he so much dislikes it.

Even if he did do this, humanity still would need to pay for it's crimes.Really? Do you pay for the crimes of let's say, a raper and murderer?

Now, the payment for this has already been paid by Christ, but there would still be the need for repenting.Ah-ha. Why?

If sin was destroyed, we would never recognize our need for Christ, thus damning us all.Cannot see any logic here. Does that mean Christ is the reason for sin to exist, so we can see our need for him so we won't be damned? Why must we see Christ? Isn't this about god?

Samuel Dravis
10-21-2007, 09:14 PM
That is certainly one good way to escape the God<=>good dilemma and the dualistic nature of good/evil. Instead of a dualism, actions are just various degrees of good. I'm glad you brought that up. I remember the analogy of the goodness of God overflows out from the Him like the water from the fountain and the farther you move from the source, the thirstier you become.

Another way to escape the dilemma is to say that good/evil are two sides of the same coin. Heads=bearded guy in the clouds, Tails=devil with pitchfork. The coin itself is the complete and impersonal Godhead. Right, that would work too. That would be hard to fit into a Christian worldview, as usually God is not seen remotely like that, but it's definitely possible. I honestly don't know too much about Eastern philosophies or religions, so I don't think I can intelligibly talk on the subject. Perhaps you could explain in a general way how this view works in relation to responsibilities (how to live your life, etc)?

Indeed, even if God created each of us to be perfect within ourselves, the world is greater than ourselves. Our interactions with the world and others are outside of our spheres of perfection and thus cannot occur perfectly. "There are no perfect men in this world, only perfect intentions" to quote the Robin Hood movie (:p). Since God set us into a world of imperfect interactions, sin is inevitable.Right, that probably would be an accurate representation of it. Still, if we accepted the idea of Aquinas about intentions being the determiner of sin, then while evil may occur, sin is an option, not an inevitability.

Of course if evil has no in-and-of-itself existence, then the fear of hellfire can't be used as a driving force for being obedient to God.I agree... but wanting something can be quite the powerful force as well. :)

Likewise, if evil and good are part of the same thing, then the fear of hell vanishes as does the reward of heaven. Instead the best you hope for is dissolution of the finite and return to the infinite.Your vile pagan ways are REPREHENSIBLE TK! :D

Sabretooth
10-22-2007, 01:50 AM
Hello guys, missed me? :p

Apple of the tree of knowledge. If you know this little about the subject matter, why are you even participating in the debate?
That raises two questions: How is it logical for God, who did not want Humans to be knowledgeable to put a tree of knowledge on Earth, that too right by Adam and Eve? Don't tell me trusted humanity's damnation over a naked couple in a garden who can talk with serpents.
Secondly, why are humans allowed the capacity of knowledge, without the right to accumulate it? That's like the government telling people you can have your own house, but living inside is illegal. And while we're on it, if knowledge was sin, Adam and Eve committed sin as soon as arrived on Earth - they gained knowledge of themselves, their surroundings, of food, hell - of the tree of knowledge, of speech and countless other things.

Also, I don't see reason in letting children suffer for their parents' sin. Remember that parents and children have completely different wills. Then there is the question of Jesus, if he paid the price of mankind's sin, sin has virtually lost meaning. Think of it like this: a man has been given the murder of all of the world's crimes. If that is so, then crime has lost meaning and anyone and everyone can go killing and raping and pillaging and sinning, because said man is the victim anyways.
Your vile pagan ways are REPREHENSIBLE TK!
May the Moon God of Superior Beauty and Strength punish your treachery! :D
If sin was destroyed, we would never recognize our need for Christ, thus damning us all.
Ah, so we take this to the pre-christ era, God could have removed sin and not let his son suffer, as well. BTW, I don't know this so just answer for me, will you? Christ is the son of God, so who is his mother, a.k.a God's "wife"? Not an argument, that's a simple question.

Now, I don't think you caught mine and Ray's argument correctly. We're thinking along a computer programmer's lines:
1. God created everything - that means everything.
2. Satan rebelled against God - that is, God encountered a bug.
3. God condemned Satan - he squashed the bug and proceeded with release.
4. Satan forms Evil, which corrupts the program and harms the data. And this is where God co. starts facing legal issues. Now, since Evil is part of the system God created, he should be able to destroy it, one way or another, since God controls all and is the supreme majesty as far as programming is concerned!
You refer to free will, but this free will has elements of sin in it, at least potentially. That means that if the very nature of sin is traced absolutely and completely traced, it leads to God. This is where tk's theory comes into the picture: Good and Evil are two sides of the same coin - God is Satan (something like Mr. Jekyll is Dr. Hyde).

Rev7
10-22-2007, 02:26 AM
God doesn't need a "wife" Sabre. :) God is a spirit, not a man, not a woman. Have you ever heard of the Trinity, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit?

Right, that probably would be an accurate representation of it. Still, if we accepted the idea of Aquinas about intentions being the determiner of sin, then while evil may occur, sin is an option, not an inevitability.
I disagree that sin is an option, and not an inevitability. Certain sin is an option, yes, and we can be the determiner of certain sin, but it IS inevitable that we humans will sin. It is in the human nature to sin; and I will explain myself further on in my reply. Please answer this question, say, have you ever had anything that was yours and was extremely expensive or really close to your heart, and was stolen from you? You would probably want revenge on that person, right? That could be considered a sin.

It was Eve's choice to eat the apple, she was given orders to eat anything in the garden she wanted to, EXEPT the apple of the tree of knowledge. She was manipulated by Satan, yes, but she still made the choice to eat the apple. Because of that choice, Adam and Eve were exiled from the garden of Eden. As I said before, certain sin is an option, BUT because of Adam's and Eve's choice to eat of the tree of knowledge, which was indeed a sin, it is in our nature, (you, I , and the human race) to sin because of Adam's and Eve's decision at the Garden of Eden.

Sabretooth
10-22-2007, 02:46 AM
It was Eve's choice to eat the apple, she was given orders to eat anything in the garden she wanted to, EXEPT the apple of the tree of knowledge. She was manipulated by Satan, yes, but she still made the choice to eat the apple. Because of that choice, Adam and Eve were exiled from the garden of Eden. As I said before, certain sin is an option, BUT because of Adam's and Eve's choice to eat of the tree of knowledge, which was indeed a sin, it is in our nature, (you, I , and the human race) to sin because of Adam's and Eve's decision at the Garden of Eden.
But that isn't fair. :( Especially if you consider that there are many, thousands, if not millions who would not have sinned in Eve's place and did not commit sins. The theory you're suggesting is that God is perfect, but humanity is a race of sinners, who can choose to repent. What is worse, is that this is one of the theories you can't run away from, and you can only choose not to believe in it. :(

And more questions arise, which God never answers directly to us, because we lack the mental capacity - Where is God? We know he isn't in the sky, because satellites have the place surrounded. Why is knowledge a sin and doesn't it make Adam and Eve sinners from the very moment they were alive? Why is knowledge of God and His ways not a sin? And lastly, why must we be treated as stupid ants that are suffering every minute just because Adam and Eve sinned? God can very well absolve us of the original sin. Not stopping this mad slaughter and sin that goes on is a form of sadism itself. Why is God so indifferent, so sadistic to us? Why doesn't he use his omnipotent, ultrapowerful will to actually help us rather than make us and let us go to hell (that's just a phrase, not to be taken literally) while watching us kill each other?

tk102
10-22-2007, 03:17 AM
Right, that would work too. That would be hard to fit into a Christian worldview, as usually God is not seen remotely like that, but it's definitely possible. These concepts aren't completely unique to Eastern philosophies but indeed you are right -- they do not fit well with traditional Christian teachings. Meister Eckhart (http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~harrison/eckhart.htm) of Germany was charged with heresy in 1326 for proclaiming this exactly this type of Christian mysticism.

Perhaps you could explain in a general way how this view works in relation to responsibilities (how to live your life, etc)?
The biggest thing this view provides for me is perspective. Whether in terms of human relations, quantum mechanics, or chaos theory -- the sense that all things are changing but the internal nature within everything is not. It's like when an astronaut looks down at earth and sees this sphere silently hovering beneath him. He knows all the hustle and bustle that is taking place below, but from where his, it appears almost at rest. But unlike the astronaut's view who's looking outwards at something other than himself, this view of the world includes myself.

In addition, the belief that God unifies all things helps to reinforce feelings of empathy. When I'm at work or when I'm driving, for example, and I feel angry towards someone, I can overcome those negative emotions by remembering that this person is not someone so different from me. That person and I share the same core being after all. And then suddenly being angry doesn't seem so important.

Can't help but remember a Beatles song: I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. :p

Beyond that, I've come to believe that (at least for me) the purpose of religion is not to lay down a set of dogmas to tell me how to live my life, but rather to provide an understanding of the relationships between all people. Morality then follows understanding. And of course, this includes the understanding and acceptance of our own mortality.

To wrap up, I'll just point out one of my favorite mnemonics. It is the dancing statue of Shiva Nataraja. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nataraja#Properties_of_the_Nataraja_form) This figure symbolizes the idea of eternal being/becoming. The drum that Shiva beats begins the dance of life and symbolizes creation, the fire in his other hand symbolizes its destruction, the raised hand with palm out says "wait, don't be afraid, nothing is really happening, be at peace".

I see they put one up in front of CERN (http://www.fritjofcapra.net/shiva.html). :D

Rev7
10-22-2007, 03:24 AM
Because I think that He wants to see who is loyal to Him Sabre. That is especially difficult to do nowadays because of "the world". Jesus said, "be in the world, not of it". It is our choice to believe in Him, or not believe in Him. Faith is a very important in this belief, as I have said may times, and will probably have to say may times in the future.

No one truly knows where God's kingdom is located.

I am sorry, but I have to sign off now, I will elaborate more tomorrow (hopefully) thanks :)

Empress Padme
10-22-2007, 04:52 AM
Even God admits to mistakes. The story in the bible ( naturally names escape me) were God basically okay'd a husband to sleep with someone else so the an would have an heir ( of course it totally backfired) and i do believe God admitted that it was a mistake that he shouldn't have encouraged it.

God gave us free will so if we mess up it's our own fault. He gave us a guide ( the bible) to show us the right path but let us choose whether we wanted that path or not.If we choose the wrong path we pay the steep price ( Hello Lucifer). He can't intervine in wars or fights since he gave us free will, to intervine would be messing with our free will. The price humans pay for free will is that not everybody will use free will for the greater good and sometimes innocent people die because of it. But isn't it better to have free will than be basically a clone. If we didn't have free will we wouldn't be debating this topic right now . If we didn't have free will there would be no Kavar's Corner cause everybody would be a clone thinking , agreeing on the same thing and that would be very, very boring.God gave us the gift , the ultimate gift of free will , naturally us humans would find a way to mess up a great gift but hey were only human.

Ray Jones
10-22-2007, 08:37 AM
Poppycock. Where does it say that removing sin from existence means free will has to be removed from mankind? If god is omnipotent he must know a way to accomplish this. Since he's not doing this he's making things unnecessary complicated, it's stupid and useless. He puts his son through suffering, for what? Putting any lifeform through suffering is immoral. He could have done it the moral way, but he didn't. Why?

Also, god has free will, right? Is god a sinner? No. Hence free will without sin is possible. What's his problem?

Why are you following a god that prefers to put sin/pain/suffering upon others, instead of ending it all by simply removing sin from that darn universe?

Corinthian
10-22-2007, 09:16 AM
It doesn't say that, because the Bible doesn't deal with hypothetical situations. It deals with what actually happens. As for your pointless questions that are essentially just there to irritate...hypothetically, if you were taken to a shack, flung in and locked in with no means of getting out, would you be free? Of course not. By denying us the option of defying God, we have no free will. God doesn't want our devotion to him by having it hardwired into our heads. He wants it to be our choice.

God has Free Will and is not a sinner. Correct. However, while Jesus was on Earth, there was the potential for him to sin. He had that choice. Satan tempted him with it quite often. I don't suppose you've ever heard of Jesus' fasting for forty days in the desert.

We have pain and suffering because we sinned and this is a fallen world. We have sin because God gave us that option. Ignoring Original Sin, which is an extremely complicated subject and most theologians don't entirely understand it, every human, except Jesus, has sinned, thus damning us. According to the Laws God laid down, if you sin, you must pay the penalty. Why would he erase his Laws from existence? That removes the whole point of the Law! It would be like if we made murder legal as soon as someone was on trial for it. It defeats the entire purpose of the law.

Of course, you'll pull some kind of complaint that he should just make it all okay for us despite the fact that we defy and sin against him every day, and forgive us whether we ask for forgiveness or not. But you don't want forgiveness, do you? You'd prefer it just all get taken away and you never had to deal with it.

Sabretooth
10-22-2007, 10:34 AM
It doesn't say that, because the Bible doesn't deal with hypothetical situations. It deals with what actually happens. As for your pointless questions that are essentially just there to irritate...hypothetically, if you were taken to a shack, flung in and locked in with no means of getting out, would you be free? Of course not. By denying us the option of defying God, we have no free will. God doesn't want our devotion to him by having it hardwired into our heads. He wants it to be our choice.
Oh, so questions to broaden out intellect exist to irritate? Why are we pursuing science, then? We'd all might as well live under rocks. Again, why does God want have us free and then acknowledge his existence when he could hard-wire it, after he created the universe and all. From a creator's perspective, that makes no sense - that's like creating a web browser that will go to websites only when it wants to.

Of course, you'll pull some kind of complaint that he should just make it all okay for us despite the fact that we defy and sin against him every day, and forgive us whether we ask for forgiveness or not. But you don't want forgiveness, do you? You'd prefer it just all get taken away and you never had to deal with it.
Quite frankly, yes. I refuse to believe that we're just test subjects God made to rule over with tyranny. Also, God instates a law that doesn't have a constitution, a right to trial, and a right to defense. You can laugh at that statement, but a real law has these facets. The only law where you don't, are tyrannical fascist laws.

We have pain and suffering because we sinned and this is a fallen world. *I* have not sinned. Not once in my life. (Assumption) Eve sinned. And I didn't choose to be born in this fallen world. If I didn't choose any of this, why must I follow some God's law?

God has Free Will and is not a sinner. Correct. Then why didn't he model us along that very line? The world would have obviously been a much better place, and it is quite possible to acknowledge God without recognizing sin. This need for sin and death and suffering is utterly useless.

Ray Jones
10-22-2007, 10:39 AM
It doesn't say that, because the Bible doesn't deal with hypothetical situations.It doesn't say that because people try to avoid thinking about that, and a proper answer is most probably going to render god immoral, a sinner or the whole thing itself useless.

It deals with what actually happens.Nope. It tells metaphoric stories, which are more of hypothetical nature rather than contemporary. Especially since the book is 2000 years old.

As for your pointless questions that are essentially just there to irritate...Err, please. Questions cannot irritate. However, obviously you just don't know a valid answer to my questions, and to cover that you accuse me of being irritating. You are irritated, indeed. Actually this is not due to my questions, but because you cannot answer them, and even more, you recognise that my questions arise a very good point.


hypothetically, if you were taken to a shack, flung in and locked in with no means of getting out, would you be free? Of course not.How is that relevant to god removing sin?

By denying us the option of defying God, we have no free will. God doesn't want our devotion to him by having it hardwired into our heads. He wants it to be our choice.AGAIN: remove sin and nothing but sin. Nothing else. Is that so hard to comprehend?

God has Free Will and is not a sinner. Correct.OK. Then we have prove that 'no sin' and 'free will' is an easy to solve task.

However, while Jesus was on Earth, there was the potential for him to sin. He had that choice. Satan tempted him with it quite often.Oh, so Satan propagates sin? Here's my suggestion: remove Satan. One problem regarding sin solved.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of Jesus' fasting for forty days in the desert.And you base that assumption on what fact? Also, I cannot see the relevance to 'make sin go away' either.

We have pain and suffering because we sinned and this is a fallen world.'fallen world' - what does that mean anyway? This is a vague phrase, and makes no specific point at all. And, also, that whole sentence is not true. We have pain and suffering because god created it. If god created everything, he also created cause for pain and suffering, and thus pain and suffering. He is also not taking it away, thus knowingly putting us through pain and suffering, thus he is acting immoral. Ain't that a sin?

We have sin because God gave us that option.I cannot see that option in the phrase "every human is a sinner". Focus on the word "is".

Ignoring Original Sin, which is an extremely complicated subject and most theologians don't entirely understand itBut yet you fight these theories as if there was no tomorrow. You orientate your life after something you don't understand, without even asking questions for further understanding.

every human, except Jesus, has sinnedOh, and so has a unborn or newborn baby? Again, where is the "option" to sin or not in that statement.

thus damning usI sense immorality.

According to the Laws God laid down, if you sin, you must pay the penaltyAgain, since everybody sins, everybody must pay the penalty. Why that whole "god gave us the option to sin" gibberish then. God made us sinners, that would be correct.

Why would he erase his Laws from existence? That removes the whole point of the Law! It would be like if we made murder legal as soon as someone was on trial for it. It defeats the entire purpose of the law.Nobody said make sin legal.

Of course, you'll pull some kind of complaint that he should just make it all okay for us despite the fact that we defy and sin against him every day, and forgive us whether we ask for forgiveness or not.Without sin, no forgiveness of sin is needed. Simple logic.

But you don't want forgiveness, do you? You'd prefer it just all get taken away and you never had to deal with it.Hey, why bother me with something that bothers god? If he dislikes sin so much, he should do something against it, not I. Also, why should I deal with the 'sins' of everybody else? It still makes no sense to me.

tk102
10-22-2007, 11:38 AM
Samuel Dravis gave a plausible explanation for this on the first page. We're told that in the beginning, there was no evil - God looked at his creation and saw that it was (perfectly) good. But there's an idea here we don't want to miss: maximally perfect in the sense of limited beings is not maximally perfect in an absolute sense. Now, here I presuppose that God can't do logically impossible things, like making a REAL married bachelor and the like (I'm sure some would like to say he could but I'm going to ignore them). Anyway, created beings are by definition limited, so God is in a difficult situation - he can't create a being that's not limited, because doing so would break the definition of creation. He's left with beings that are limited, and being so limited they are capable of error (and thus sin).
Perhaps you are suggesting God should do something logically impossible?

Ray Jones
10-22-2007, 11:50 AM
(A) God is omnipotent. He can, by the very definition of omnipotence, do the logically impossible, especially since god does not necessarily follow human or any logic with what he is doing.

(B) What is logically impossible? Something we cannot comprehend logically. It says that god can do things that we cannot comprehend. Ergo, if doing something logically impossible is something we cannot comprehend, god would still be able to do it, since he can do what we cannot comprehend.

Comprehende? :p

tk102
10-22-2007, 12:34 PM
(A) You are using a logical definition of omnipotence to assume God can do something that violates the definition of a thing. If God's omnipotence allows him to violate logic, God's omnipotence does not allow him to violate logic. Did that make sense? No, but that's about as meaningful of a discussion as we can have on the matter.

(B) Something is logically impossible if it violates its own definition. A = B, B != C therefore A = C is logically impossible. "Ergo, if doing something logically impossible is something we cannot comprehend, god would could maybe still be able to do it, since he can might do what we cannot comprehend." Fixed. We cannot say what could or could not be done when logic is suspended. See (A) for explanation.

Samuel Dravis
10-22-2007, 12:49 PM
These concepts aren't completely unique to Eastern philosophies but indeed you are right -- they do not fit well with traditional Christian teachings. Meister Eckhart (http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~harrison/eckhart.htm) of Germany was charged with heresy in 1326 for proclaiming this exactly this type of Christian mysticism. That was quite interesting, thanks for the link TK. I confess I am unaware of most heresies; my concentration up to now has been figuring out if even the most popular religions make sense. :p


The biggest thing this view provides for me is perspective. Whether in terms of human relations, quantum mechanics, or chaos theory -- the sense that all things are changing but the internal nature within everything is not.

...That's an good way to look at it, TK... if nothing's happening then why get upset about it? :D Got any books on the subject that you liked in particular? I'd be interested in reading them if so.



Ray, here's a quote I shamelessly stole from Wiki, which shamelessly stole it from C.S. Lewis' The Problem Of Pain. He talks about God's omnipotence:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

I do recommend the book if you're wanting to get a better explanation of why God would allow evil.

Corinthian
10-22-2007, 01:31 PM
It doesn't say that because people try to avoid thinking about that, and a proper answer is most probably going to render god immoral, a sinner or the whole thing itself useless.

Nope. It tells metaphoric stories, which are more of hypothetical nature rather than contemporary. Especially since the book is 2000 years old.

Err, please. Questions cannot irritate. However, obviously you just don't know a valid answer to my questions, and to cover that you accuse me of being irritating. You are irritated, indeed. Actually this is not due to my questions, but because you cannot answer them, and even more, you recognise that my questions arise a very good point.


How is that relevant to god removing sin?

AGAIN: remove sin and nothing but sin. Nothing else. Is that so hard to comprehend?

OK. Then we have prove that 'no sin' and 'free will' is an easy to solve task.

Oh, so Satan propagates sin? Here's my suggestion: remove Satan. One problem regarding sin solved.

And you base that assumption on what fact? Also, I cannot see the relevance to 'make sin go away' either.

'fallen world' - what does that mean anyway? This is a vague phrase, and makes no specific point at all. And, also, that whole sentence is not true. We have pain and suffering because god created it. If god created everything, he also created cause for pain and suffering, and thus pain and suffering. He is also not taking it away, thus knowingly putting us through pain and suffering, thus he is acting immoral. Ain't that a sin?

I cannot see that option in the phrase "every human is a sinner". Focus on the word "is".

But yet you fight these theories as if there was no tomorrow. You orientate your life after something you don't understand, without even asking questions for further understanding.

Oh, and so has a unborn or newborn baby? Again, where is the "option" to sin or not in that statement.

I sense immorality.

Again, since everybody sins, everybody must pay the penalty. Why that whole "god gave us the option to sin" gibberish then. God made us sinners, that would be correct.

Nobody said make sin legal.

Without sin, no forgiveness of sin is needed. Simple logic.

Hey, why bother me with something that bothers god? If he dislikes sin so much, he should do something against it, not I. Also, why should I deal with the 'sins' of everybody else? It still makes no sense to me.
Starting from the top...

The Bible doesn't deal with hypothetical situations like "What if Jesus was black?" or "Could God have his cake AND eat it too?" Which is basically the gist of what you're asking because the Bible has a point.

You cannot definitively say that the Bible is metaphoric. You were not present when it was written. Now, you can say you THINK it is metaphorical, but as you're trying to disprove, the burden of proof lies with you.

Questions can irritate. For example, every day I am asked several questions regarding whether I would like to increase the size of a certain organ. Your questions aren't quite that annoying, but they're up there.

Sin is what displeases God. That's pretty much the heart of it. That was my point. If God removed Sin from existence, we would have no choice but to do as God wanted, as there would be no alternative.

AGAIN: Without sin, we are forced to obey God, as disobeying God is sinful. Do you get it? Geez, maybe if I converted this to Binary or something?

Satan and Sin are not linked together that closely. Satan is the first sinner, but if he ceased to be, sin would still exist.

The relevance was that the Forty Day Fast in the Desert was where Satan tempted Jesus. Your question regarding the matter proves my point.

Fallen World. Well, here's Fallen... fall·en /ˈfɔlən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[faw-luhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb
1. pp. of fall.
–adjective
2. having dropped or come down from a higher place, from an upright position, or from a higher level, degree, amount, quality, value, number, etc.
3. on the ground; prostrate; down flat: Exhausted, the racers lay fallen by the road.
4. degraded or immoral.
5. (of a woman) having lost her chastity.
6. overthrown, destroyed, or conquered: a fallen city.
7. dead: fallen troops.

And here's World...world /wɜrld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wurld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the earth or globe, considered as a planet.
2. (often initial capital letter) a particular division of the earth: the Western world.
3. the earth or a part of it, with its inhabitants, affairs, etc., during a particular period: the ancient world.
4. humankind; the human race; humanity: The world must eliminate war and poverty.
5. the public generally: The whole world knows it.
6. the class of persons devoted to the affairs, interests, or pursuits of this life: The world worships success.
7. a particular class of people, with common interests, aims, etc.: the fashionable world.
8. any sphere, realm, or domain, with all pertaining to it: a child's world; the world of dreams; the insect world.
9. everything that exists; the universe; the macrocosm.
10. any complex whole conceived as resembling the universe: the world of the microcosm.
11. one of the three general groupings of physical nature: animal world; mineral world; vegetable world.

Hurray!

See how annoying it is when I deliberately reinterpret what you try to say?

We have pain because God created it. Correct. You see, pain is a very important part of the human mind. It shows us that such a thing is dangerous. It's why we don't jam our hands into fires, electrical sockets, glass shards, knives, and potent acids. Welcome to elementary biology.

God gave our forebears that option. Now, I guess I'll take care of your point that you should get away with your sin because Adam did it first. I like to think of that as the "Toddler Defense." AKA "He did it first" defense. Johnny Cochran would have loved it. God is merciful and just, but he is also, for lack of a better world, angry and vengeful. If we ask for his forgiveness, he will forgive our sins and cleanse our souls, but for each of us that sins, that stain remains until we ask forgiveness for it. But if we don't ask for it, if we don't WANT his forgiveness, God will understand that we have no desire for him and cast us into the outer darkness, where we can be with the one we love the most for eternity. Ourselves.

It's not complex. Casting down our sin and accepting Jesus into our hearts is not easy, but it's more than possible. God doesn't ask much of us to gain his forgiveness. Ever hear the story of the thief on the cross? He was vile enough to warrant crucifixion even by his own standard and when he asked forgiveness, Jesus told him he would be with him in Paradise that day. God doesn't ask us to sacrifice our hands for him or become hermits in the mountains, he simply asks us to let go of our sin and accept him into our hearts. If we sincerely want it, it's ours.

Think about that. All he asks us to do is let go of our burden and we'll be saved by him. He's not asking us to give up something that should be near and dear to us. He doesn't ask you to sacrifice your firstborn child or make some other great sacrifice, he asks you to give up something that brings nothing but bad. Consider that.

tk102
10-22-2007, 01:34 PM
Got any books on the subject that you liked in particular? I'd be interested in reading them if so.:) Well I liked Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse, the Mandukya Upanishad, and various excerpts from Sri Aurobindo that I've come across. I confess most of my reading in this area was done at a university using Radhakrishnan and Moore's A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy over 10 years ago. :p

Sabretooth
10-22-2007, 02:09 PM
The Bible doesn't deal with hypothetical situations like "What if Jesus was black?" or "Could God have his cake AND eat it too?" Which is basically the gist of what you're asking because the Bible has a point.

You cannot definitively say that the Bible is metaphoric. You were not present when it was written. Now, you can say you THINK it is metaphorical, but as you're trying to disprove, the burden of proof lies with you.
But you stated before that the Bible is a book sent by God for the humans to understand and follow laws, which makes it a pseudo-constitution. And books that lay down the law should be completely based on hypothetical situations, and not read out like a storybook compilation.

Sin is what displeases God. That's pretty much the heart of it. That was my point. If God removed Sin from existence, we would have no choice but to do as God wanted, as there would be no alternative.
And isn't that what we should be doing? Are you suggesting that sin is a viable alternative to following God?

AGAIN: Without sin, we are forced to obey God, as disobeying God is sinful. Do you get it? Geez, maybe if I converted this to Binary or something?
You're not making any sense here, mate. We won't be "forced" to obey God if we don't sin. Also, if not sinning is being forced to obey God, then we are as it is being forced to obey God by being threatened of sin, damnation, hell and Satan.

Satan and Sin are not linked together that closely. Satan is the first sinner, but if he ceased to be, sin would still exist.
But Satan propagates sin. We would considerably debilitate sin if we take Satan out of the picture.

Hurray!

See how annoying it is when I deliberately reinterpret what you try to say?
No, that is being an 11 year old *******.

We have pain because God created it. Correct. You see, pain is a very important part of the human mind. It shows us that such a thing is dangerous. It's why we don't jam our hands into fires, electrical sockets, glass shards, knives, and potent acids. Welcome to elementary biology.
Hi, ever heard of emotional pain, trauma, that of sort of thing? Psychology, perhaps? Go try that dictionary of yours.

God gave our forebears that option. Now, I guess I'll take care of your point that you should get away with your sin because Adam did it first. I like to think of that as the "Toddler Defense." AKA "He did it first" defense. Johnny Cochran would have loved it. God is merciful and just, but he is also, for lack of a better world, angry and vengeful. If we ask for his forgiveness, he will forgive our sins and cleanse our souls, but for each of us that sins, that stain remains until we ask forgiveness for it. But if we don't ask for it, if we don't WANT his forgiveness, God will understand that we have no desire for him and cast us into the outer darkness, where we can be with the one we love the most for eternity. Ourselves. The point is, why should we be punished for what Adam and Eve did? My soul, my will did not choose to be Adam's descendant. I was forced into this world. Why should I be forced to be born a sinner?

Casting down our sin But we are sinners to begin with! Imagine this scenario: A baby is killed five days after he is born. He is a sinner, according to the Adam/Eve theory and he wasn't intelligent enough to seek repentance. That would mean the baby goes to hell for no particular reason.

Think about that. All he asks us to do is let go of our burden and we'll be saved by him. He's not asking us to give up something that should be near and dear to us. He doesn't ask you to sacrifice your firstborn child or make some other great sacrifice, he asks you to give up something that brings nothing but bad. Consider that.
And if a person doesn't consider his sin a burden? We're talking about mass murderers, terrorists, psychopaths here, especially the last. He loves killing and doesn't consider it a burden, and hence doesn't bother asking for forgiveness, still he would go to hell. In his eyes, he did nothing wrong, he is completely innocent and his brain is damaged, hence he cannot comprehend morality. What would God's anti-sin SS do now?

tk102
10-22-2007, 03:11 PM
Reminder, anyone who is irritated by questions in this thread or any other should remember they are under no obligation to answer them. You have the power to control your own anger and that is one of the expectations when you enter a debate here.

Thank you. :)

Ray Jones
10-22-2007, 03:19 PM
Starting from the top...

The Bible doesn't deal with hypothetical situations like "What if Jesus was black?" or "Could God have his cake AND eat it too?" Which is basically the gist of what you're asking because the Bible has a point.Whether do I ask 'what if' nor do I ask 'can he', I am asking for a reason for what he *is* or *is not* doing. Different thing.

You cannot definitively say that the Bible is metaphoric. You were not present when it was written. Now, you can say you THINK it is metaphorical, but as you're trying to disprove, the burden of proof lies with you.I see that quite the other way around. I must not prove it to be metaphoric. And I can't. Because to do so, you'd need to point out to valid evidence that it is describing history how it happened. However, that is not what I am interested in.

Questions can irritate. For example, every day I am asked several questions regarding whether I would like to increase the size of a certain organ. Your questions aren't quite that annoying, but they're up there.Annoying does not equal irritating. And I think I am anything but about to ask you to upsize your breast.

Sin is what displeases God. That's pretty much the heart of it. That was my point. If God removed Sin from existence, we would have no choice but to do as God wanted, as there would be no alternative.There would be no alternatives and choices left? Like where to go? What movie to see? What's for dinner? Who you wanna marry? Which is your favourite colour? Go outside naked or paint the kitchen green? Come on.

AGAIN: Without sin, we are forced to obey God, as disobeying God is sinful. Do you get it?Oh, I sure get it. But try to get that without sin, disobeying god wouldn't be sinful anymore. Oh, and how can we disobey god, if we have free will, and have been given the choice?

Satan and Sin are not linked together that closely. Satan is the first sinner, but if he ceased to be, sin would still exist.Yes, but if he ceased to be, the would be one needless troublemaker off the list, right? Or do we seriously need Satan for anything?

The relevance was that the Forty Day Fast in the Desert was where Satan tempted Jesus. Your question regarding the matter proves my point.And you base that assumption on what fact? Also, I cannot see the relevance to 'make sin go away' either.I think you should reread what I wrote. :dozey:
And I repeat my question: how does that relate to "god should strike sin off the list".

See how annoying it is when I deliberately reinterpret what you try to say?Nope.

We have pain because God created it. Correct. You see, pain is a very important part of the human mind. It shows us that such a thing is dangerous. It's why we don't jam our hands into fires, electrical sockets, glass shards, knives, and potent acids. Welcome to elementary biology.Oh, that one was good. However. I have no problem with that and that was not my point, either.

preacheryNo. :dozey:

All he asks us to do is let go of our burden and we'll be saved by him. He's not asking us to give up something that should be near and dear to us. He doesn't ask you to sacrifice your firstborn child or make some other great sacrifice, he asks you to give up something that brings nothing but bad. Consider that.Consider that: do something good for those around you, but not for god, or out of the self centered and selfish wish to be 'saved'. Do something selfless and good, without god or Jesus in your mind.

Corinthian
10-22-2007, 03:58 PM
Have you ever really done anything altruistic? I doubt it. Nobody does anything really, truly altruistic. There's always that little thing in the back of your mind that you're hoping the girl you like will see you, or you'll get praised, etc, etc, so on and so forth. Humans are reward-motivated people.

How is it selfish to want to be saved? It's not like you being saved denies it to anything else. It's in your own interests, yes, but that does not make it selfish.

Sorry, you don't understand burden of proof. You have to prove something stated is wrong, the stater does not have to prove it is right. Although I could see if I can get Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to come down and prove their points...sorry, they're not interested.

Mammary glands aren't organs, and even if they were, my moobs are big enough.

Yes, I suppose you would have a choice about trivial matters, but not over anything really significant. Without sin in the world, everyone and everything would be effectively perfect. No worrying about which politician to vote for: They're all humble, good people who don't lie, and it's the same all over the world.

Again, I'm going to reiterate this one last time, and if you ignore it, I'm done with this thread.

Why would God, who's Law is perfect, override that law because it's not convenient, because you don't want to pay the same price as the rest of humanity? And you call me selfish for wanting to be saved.

Ray Jones
10-22-2007, 04:35 PM
Have you ever really done anything altruistic? I doubt it. Nobody does anything really, truly altruistic. There's always that little thing in the back of your mind that you're hoping the girl you like will see you, or you'll get praised, etc, etc, so on and so forth. Humans are reward-motivated people. I said 'without god in mind' not altruistic. And sometimes the reward is to see someone happy, your child, mom, girlfriend, who cares. Yeah I also do work for money to buy food so my family has something to eat. How reward orientated and selfish. The point is, I don't do that to be saved, I do that for me, and those around me.

How is it selfish to want to be saved? It's not like you being saved denies it to anything else. It's in your own interests, yes, but that does not make it selfish.Oooh, I gotta do good, else I'm not saved, but I want to be saved, so I am not going to hell. --- Selfish.

Yes, I suppose you would have a choice about trivial matters, but not over anything really significant. Without sin in the world, everyone and everything would be effectively perfect. No worrying about which politician to vote for: They're all humble, good people who don't lie, and it's the same all over the world.Wouldn't that be great? Nice people everywhere. However, please do not come up with "but what's with individuality", since being nice and honest and without sin does not mean everybody is the same.

Why would God, who's Law is perfectWho says it is perfect? And again, who says "change the law"? Let's say it together: no body but you..

Screw god's law - just wipe sin from the world. You don't know how? Ask your oh so perfect god.

override that law because it's not convenient, because you don't want to pay the same price as the rest of humanity?Wrong. I don't want humanity pay the price for what a naked couple did ten thousand years ago. It makes no sense. It's like someone is taking your little sister, brother, mother, father, son and wife to prison because your grand grand grand grandpa shot the sheriff.

And you call me selfish for wanting to be saved.I didn't call you selfish. I call doing good out of the will to be saved selfish. I do good without wanting myself to be saved. Yes, I do that to get a smile or to hear "i love you daddy" because that makes me happy. However, I couldn't care less if I'm gonna be saved by some god or not.

Corinthian
10-22-2007, 04:50 PM
You obviously didn't read the post before last. Apparently. Since you ignored a significant chunk of it as 'preachery.'. You can't get to Heaven by doing good. It has nothing to do with your own goodness. Trying to find Heaven by doing good on your own is pointless and futile, because God's standard is perfection, which a human can and will never achieve under his own power. But with Jesus, we can instantly be purged of all sin, thus qualifying us for entry into heaven because we turned our sin over to Jesus, who has already paid the penalty so that we would not have to.

God doesn't just remove Sin because we chose sin a long time ago, and taking it away from us would be taking away something the majority of humanity is pleased to have. To purge Sin from the world, he'd also have to remove many of the Freedoms we all cherish so much. Freedom of Speech? Gone. It's sinful to say some things, like taking God's name in vain. Freedom of Religion? Gone. It's sinful to worship other Gods. Freedom of the Press? Same as Freedom of Speech. So on.

Basically, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have the knowledge of the Apple of the Tree, but you don't want to have the penalty that came with it. It doesn't work that way.

Again, it would be violating our freedom to take sin away from us against our will. We can turn it over to Jesus, but by the Law someone has to pay for it. If we cling to our sin, we pay for it. But if we give our sin over to Jesus, he can pay for it, and he already has paid the penalty.

Ray Jones
10-22-2007, 05:28 PM
You obviously didn't read the post before last. Apparently. Since you ignored a significant chunk of it as 'preachery.'.I didn't ignore it. I usually do not ignore people when they talk to me. Especially if I talk to them too. However, I chose my rather short answer regarding that topic.

You can't get to Heaven by doing good. It has nothing to do with your own goodness. Trying to find Heaven by doing good on your own is pointless and futile, because God's standard is perfection, which a human can and will never achieve under his own power. But with Jesus, we can instantly be purged of all sin, thus qualifying us for entry into heaven because we turned our sin over to Jesus, who has already paid the penalty so that we would not have to.What you might overlook here is, I don't want to go to heaven. I don't care about that kind of stuff. Here and now, and tomorrow is what I care about.

God doesn't just remove Sin because we chose sin a long time ago, and taking it away from us would be taking away something the majority of humanity is pleased to have.Okay so we're now wanting sin? That makes even less sense.

To purge Sin from the world, he'd also have to remove many of the Freedoms we all cherish so much. Freedom of Speech? Gone. It's sinful to say some things, like taking God's name in vain.But we're still free to say "hey nice hat", "yeah baby lets do it that way", "oh ray", "ooooooh raaaaayyy" and "oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhh rrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyy", right? That's enough I guess, who cares if I can take god's name in vain?

Freedom of Religion? Gone. It's sinful to worship other Gods.XDDD lol, I don't even wanna guess how many religions make that statement..

Freedom of the Press? Same as Freedom of Speech.So it's sin to write about news of the day? Or funny things? New discoveries?

Basically, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have the knowledge of the Apple of the Tree, but you don't want to have the penalty that came with it. It doesn't work that way.Who says it doesn't work that way? Penalty for gaining knowledge? Knowledge and wisdom is something really desirable, and I'd accept no god who'd punish anyone for seeking for it.

Again, it would be violating our freedom to take sin away from us against our will.It is not against my will to take away sin. Is it against your will?

But if we give our sin over to Jesus, he can pay for it, and he already has paid the penalty.Gee, why would I pass my responsibility for what I have done to someone else, even more to the son of god? I am responsible for what I have done, no one can take that from me!

Darth Xander
10-22-2007, 05:37 PM
What if God is of a species who have spread amongst existence creating stuff and hanging out? :p

Corinthian
10-22-2007, 05:42 PM
I didn't ignore it. I usually do not ignore people when they talk to me. Especially if I talk to them too. However, I chose my rather short answer regarding that topic.

What you might overlook here is, I don't want to go to heaven. I don't care about that kind of stuff. Here and now, and tomorrow is what I care about.

Okay so we're now wanting sin? That makes even less sense.

But we're still free to say "hey nice hat", "yeah baby lets do it that way", "oh ray", "ooooooh raaaaayyy" and "oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhh rrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyy", right? That's enough I guess, who cares if I can take god's name in vain?

XDDD lol, I don't even wanna guess how many religions make that statement..

So it's sin to write about news of the day? Or funny things? New discoveries?

Who says it doesn't work that way? Penalty for gaining knowledge? Knowledge and wisdom is something really desirable, and I'd accept no god who'd punish anyone for seeking for it.

It is not against my will to take away sin. Is it against your will?

Gee, why would I pass my responsibility for what I have done to someone else, even more to the son of god? I am responsible for what I have done, no one can take that from me!
I was using taking God's name in vain as an example. Here's another instance of you completely, and probably deliberately, missing my point.

You've got a point about the worshiping other Gods part. That is generally how it works. What's your point, though?

Again, missing my point. Freedom of Speech gives you the Freedom to say sinful things, and Freedom of the Press gives you the freedom to print sinful things. Geez.

There's a big difference between knowledge and wisdom. Some of the wisest people I know are hardly geniuses, and many geniuses aren't very wise. Aside from that, we were not punished because we gained that knowledge, we were punished because we defied God in acquiring it. Or, to put it in Earth terms, we weren't given that knowledge, we stole it.

You say it's not against your will to take away your sin, yet there is already an aisle where that sin can be taken from you, yet you do not avail yourself of it. So, you must cling to sin.

As for the last part, then enjoy the wailing and gnashing of teeth, abandon hope, all ye who enter here, and remember to check to see if any cool people are on the same level as you.

tk102
10-22-2007, 06:14 PM
But we're still free to say "hey nice hat",In China, you're not allowed to form an opposing political party but you are certainly free to start your own business and make a million yuan. So Ray, you're suggesting maybe God could partially censor people's behavior like China? Hmm... interesting.

Eat some of the cake, and have some of the cake.

Ray Jones
10-22-2007, 06:16 PM
Again, missing my point. Freedom of Speech gives you the Freedom to say sinful things, and Freedom of the Press gives you the freedom to print sinful things.You are missing my point. Without sin there is still *a lot* of stuff that can be written that's not sin. I find that is more than enough. I don't need 'sinful things' to be written. You are missing my whole point. The end of 'sin' does not mean end of all freedom.

Aside from that, we were not punished because we gained that knowledge, we were punished because we defied God in acquiring it. Or, to put it in Earth terms, we weren't given that knowledge, we stole it.Knowledge belongs to no one. However, what kind of knowledge did Adam an Eve steal exactly?

You say it's not against your will to take away your sin, yet there is already an aisle where that sin can be taken from you, yet you do not avail yourself of it. So, you must cling to sin.Huh? Not my sin not your sin. Sin as a whole.

As for the last part, then enjoy the wailing and gnashing of teeth, abandon hope, all ye who enter here, and remember to check to see if any cool people are on the same level as you.Sounds really horrible. Hor-ri-ble, I say.

EDIT:

In China, you're not allowed to form an opposing political party but you are certainly free to start your own business and make a million yuan. So Ray, you're suggesting maybe God could partially censor people's behavior like China?See, tk, god's ways are m-y-s-t-e-r-i-o-u-s. What do I care how? We would not even notice that he took sin away. We would not know it ever existed. For sure.

Corinthian
10-22-2007, 06:30 PM
You are missing my point. Without sin there is still *a lot* of stuff that can be written that's not sin. I find that is more than enough. I don't need 'sinful things' to be written. You are missing my whole point. The end of 'sin' does not mean end of all freedom.

Knowledge belongs to no one. However, what kind of knowledge did Adam an Eve steal exactly?

Huh? Not my sin not your sin. Sin as a whole.

Sounds really horrible. Hor-ri-ble, I say.

EDIT:

See, tk, god's ways are m-y-s-t-e-r-i-o-u-s. What do I care how? We would not even notice that he took sin away. We would not know it ever existed. For sure.
True. But God wants us to have true free will, not just freedom to do things that don't offend him. It angers him when we sin against him, but he gave us that choice. Why don't you get this? It's not complex. God allows us to sin, because we have free will. If he takes away that sin, he limits our free will, because he places a barrier on things we can and can't do even within our own mind.

I disagree. Knowledge belongs to God, and he gives it as he sees fit. Furthermore, they stole it because God said "Do not eat of that apple." and they did it anyway. Just because they were allowed to be in the presence of the apple doesn't mean they had the right to eat it. For example, say you were in a very wealthy friend's house and you saw a small item, say, a ring, with a large diamond stone, made of gold. Just because he allowed you into the presence of that, doesn't mean you have the right to slip it into your pocket and sneak out.

Humanity as a whole clings to Sin.

Have it your way, buddy. You won't be saying that when you get there.

Ray Jones
10-22-2007, 06:54 PM
True. But God wants us to have true free will, not just freedom to do things that don't offend him. It angers him when we sin against him, but he gave us that choice. Why don't you get this? It's not complex.See I get this. It just makes no sense. We have no free will to sin or not when it is given that every human is a sinner. By that phrase the option is no option at all. We are sinners without choice, period.

For example, say you were in a very wealthy friend's house and you saw a small item, say, a ring, with a large diamond stone, made of gold. Just because he allowed you into the presence of that, doesn't mean you have the right to slip it into your pocket and sneak out.See, that ring belongs to my friend, not to whoever. It's a different pair of socks. Knowledge is not owned by my friend, so I cannot steal it from him.

Have it your way, buddy. You won't be saying that when you get there.Yeah, hard to say something when I am dead.

Achilles
10-22-2007, 06:57 PM
In addition, the belief that God unifies all things helps to reinforce feelings of empathy. When I'm at work or when I'm driving, for example, and I feel angry towards someone, I can overcome those negative emotions by remembering that this person is not someone so different from me. That person and I share the same core being after all. And then suddenly being angry doesn't seem so important. Ooo...this one caught my attention.

If we know that empathy is possible and clearly exists, how is it beneficial to attribute that empathy (or any other emotion you would like to use here) to an external source?

I understand that people do this. I guess I just don't understand why they do it (aside from the obvious "enculturation").

Thanks!

Corinthian
10-22-2007, 06:58 PM
Actually, we do have Free Will. We have a choice regarding that sin. We can choose to continue to hold onto that sin, or we can choose to give it to Jesus.

Alright, want to debate the semantics of knowledge ownership? What about national secrets? Would you say that the Government owns the schematics to our ICBM arsenals? Because they do. Knowledge can be owned, and that particular piece of knowledge was owned by God.

tk102
10-22-2007, 07:00 PM
Corinthian do you ever get the feeling that the Christian God sounds like a passive-aggressive parent? "Sure Billy you can go out do whatever you want. When you get home, if you don't admit to everything you did wrong and aren't really sorry for it, I'm going to give you a beating for all of eternity and disown you." Does this Godness=goodness to you? Wouldn't a loving God be a little more understanding -- I mean after all if he put us here wasn't he darned sure everyone would sin? What's the point of casting people into hell? It's kind of an elitist amusement. Is there any reassurance in heaven that God's not going to judge you again for something? :)

But anyway, one thing that always confused me sin is the idea of God's omniscience. If God knows everything and knows what we're going to do, he surely also knows who's going to hell for sinning and who's not right? So why would sin make God angry? And why then condemn some and reward others? It's neither a reward nor a punishment if the outcome is predetermined. Kind of arbitrary on God's part don't you think?


If we know that empathy is possible and clearly exists, how is it beneficial to attribute that empathy (or any other emotion you would like to use here) to an external source?I'm not ascribing anything to an external source. There is nothing external.

Achilles
10-22-2007, 07:06 PM
Actually, we do have Free Will. We have a choice regarding that sin. We can choose to continue to hold onto that sin, or we can choose to give it to Jesus.

Alright, want to debate the semantics of knowledge ownership? What about national secrets? Would you say that the Government owns the schematics to our ICBM arsenals? Because they do. Knowledge can be owned, and that particular piece of knowledge was owned by God.How does one own something intangible? An idea or thought, once shared, cannot be taken back. It is certainly possible to create an artificial system by which rights are assigned to individuals, but that isn't the same thing.

In the case of your example, the "knowledge" isn't "owned". It is kept secret and/or potential "knowers" are deceived, but again this is an artificial, intentional process. So are you suggesting that god is deceitful? How worth does "free will" have if the "willer" is prevented from having all the information at hand when making a decision? What does god have to fear that he can't be open and honest with his followers?

I'm not ascribing anything to an external source. There is nothing external.I guess I need some help understanding the statement that I previously quoted.

Please and thank you :)

tk102
10-22-2007, 07:29 PM
I guess I need some help understanding the statement that I previously quoted.
The short answer is Me = You = God = All. Nothing external. Empathy is just understanding this.

Corinthian
10-22-2007, 07:40 PM
Good grief, can't I use a metaphor without someone picking it apart?

God IS pretty understanding. Sacrificing your own son so that your creation might be saved counts as being pretty understanding in my books.

It's not like God doesn't give us plenty of chances. We've got, for the most part, sixty to a hundred years to confess our sins to God and accept Jesus into our heart. That's a pretty sizable chunk of time from a terrestrial point of view. It's not like God gives us one chance and if we let that slip through our fingers he doesn't give us another one. On the contrary, God gives us hundreds of chances. Maybe more.

As for whether God knows our inevitable destination, that's called Predestination. I personally believe in it. God's omniscience, I believe, is because he's not bound by the same rules as we are, since he is a being not of the fourth dimension. Maybe even not of the dimensions. I don't really try to understand that, I'll leave that to the Theologian-Scientists.

Since God is not bound by time as we are, in fact, he created it, I believe he can look at time. He knows what's going to happen before it does, because time is essentially meaningless to him. Don't ask me to explain how you can be without time, please. I'd really rather not try to warp my own mind, Lovecraft style.

Yes, in a sense, it's already made up. But it's easier to think of it in terms of very deep knowledge of each of us. Have you ever guessed what a friend was going to do before he did it? Or vice versa? You might say it's the same way with God. He knows us so deeply that he knows what we'll choose before we choose it. However, despite that, we still have a choice.

After you enter Heaven, judgment is over. As your mind, body, and soul will be cleansed completely, you will no longer sin, as you will no longer desire to sin. Get it?

Rev7
10-22-2007, 08:05 PM
God IS pretty understanding. Sacrificing your own son so that your creation might be saved counts as being pretty understanding in my books.
*********
It's not like God doesn't give us plenty of chances. We've got, for the most part, sixty to a hundred years to confess our sins to God and accept Jesus into our heart. That's a pretty sizable chunk of time from a terrestrial point of view. It's not like God gives us one chance and if we let that slip through our fingers he doesn't give us another one. On the contrary, God gives us hundreds of chances. Maybe more.

***********

After you enter Heaven, judgment is over. As your mind, body, and soul will be cleansed completely, you will no longer sin, as you will no longer desire to sin. Get it?

I totally agree! :) Once you enter heavan, you are perfect ! God and Jesus do give us many, many chances (for those who actually see it).

I was thinking about the first part, and the first thing that came to my mind was that we (us humans) could be considered dogs (in this analogy of course) and Jesus and God are the dog's Masters. The Masters are kind, loving, and they provide for us, but when we as dogs, say pee on the carpet, or chew up a pillow, or something we shouldn't do, we ,as dogs, get corrected for the certain things that we shouldn't do. We are trained to cut down on those things, by the Masters. This, I think, applies to this subject perfectly.

tk102
10-22-2007, 08:08 PM
Don't ask me to explain how you can be without time, please. I'd really rather not try to warp my own mind, Lovecraft style. Regarding predestination/free will etc... we actually had a nice thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=179402) about that awhile back when we all warped our minds pretty good.

How literal were you when you said that sin makes God angry? Because it seems He shouldn't be angry if He predestined everyone. Or maybe just angry at Himself.
As your mind, body, and soul will be cleansed completely, you will no longer sin, as you will no longer desire to sin.

Do you think you will still have identity? That is, that your being will distinct from the being of God? I think you will say yes to that.

What exactly makes one incorporeal soul distinct from another? Is it their volition?

You said you will no longer sin -- did you mean you will lose free will when you enter heaven or just the ability to sin? If it the former, it seems that as you said earlier, God is stripping you of something that people want. If it is the latter, doesn't that suggest (as Ray Jones was saying) that God could do this now while we're on earth and still leave us with free will?

Achilles
10-22-2007, 08:10 PM
The short answer is Me = You = God = All. Nothing external. Empathy is just understanding this. It seems to me that the equation still works without a reference to god. So why include it?

Also, there are some obvious problems with trying to reference god without making it something external, but for the sake of our conversation, I think we can leave those alone for right now.
God IS pretty understanding. Sacrificing your own son so that your creation might be saved counts as being pretty understanding in my books.If god wanted to forgive, when why couldn't he just forgive? If something somewhere requires that his son must be sacrificed, then it would seem that god is forced to operate under rules that he himself did not create. That presents a problem for the argument of omnipotence.

It's not like God doesn't give us plenty of chances. We've got, for the most part, sixty to a hundred years to confess our sins to God and accept Jesus into our heart. That's a pretty sizable chunk of time from a terrestrial point of view. It's not like God gives us one chance and if we let that slip through our fingers he doesn't give us another one. On the contrary, God gives us hundreds of chances. Maybe more. Well, if god is omniscient and omnibenevolent, then wouldn't it stand to reason that he would know before we did which sins we would commit? But he can't interfere because of free will, correct? Which brings us back to the problem of there being rules that god can't violate, which puts his omnipotence in something of a catch 22.

As for whether God knows our inevitable destination, that's called Predestination. I personally believe in it. God's omniscience, I believe, is because he's not bound by the same rules as we are, since he is a being not of the fourth dimension. Maybe even not of the dimensions. I don't really try to understand that, I'll leave that to the Theologian-Scientists. If you aren't sure of the argument then why have you accepted the conclusion? It would seem that if you aren't certain, then you have to at least consider the possibility that the conclusion you have accepted is incorrect.

Since God is not bound by time as we are, in fact, he created it, I believe he can look at time. He knows what's going to happen before it does, because time is essentially meaningless to him. Don't ask me to explain how you can be without time, please. I'd really rather not try to warp my own mind, Lovecraft style. If all things are predetermined, then there is no free will. Without free will, then god's capacity to allow you to sin argues against his omnibenevolence and his omnipotence.

Yes, in a sense, it's already made up. But it's easier to think of it in terms of very deep knowledge of each of us. Have you ever guessed what a friend was going to do before he did it? Or vice versa? You might say it's the same way with God. He knows us so deeply that he knows what we'll choose before we choose it. However, despite that, we still have a choice. I don't think these examples are comparable. If I know someone very well, then it doesn't take a great deal of power to be able to accurately guess what they are going to do. If I have a buddy that shows up late to everything, then I'm not going to be shocked and amazed when I accurately predict that he's not going to meet me at the bar precisely at 8pm.

After you enter Heaven, judgment is over. As your mind, body, and soul will be cleansed completely, you will no longer sin, as you will no longer desire to sin. Get it?I understand that's the argument. I'm still stuck on how we can possibly know this is true.

tk102
10-22-2007, 08:15 PM
It seems to me that the equation still works without a reference to god. So why include it?

That's fine. I prefer the term Brahman anyway since "God" has many unintentional Judeo-Christian connotations.

Totenkopf
10-22-2007, 08:19 PM
Corinthian do you ever get the feeling that the Christian God sounds like a passive-aggressive parent? "Sure Billy you can go out do whatever you want. When you get home, if you don't admit to everything you did wrong and aren't really sorry for it, I'm going to give you a beating for all of eternity and disown you." Does this Godness=goodness to you? Wouldn't a loving God be a little more understanding -- I mean after all if he put us here wasn't he darned sure everyone would sin? What's the point of casting people into hell? It's kind of an elitist amusement. Is there any reassurance in heaven that God's not going to judge you again for something? :)

But anyway, one thing that always confused me sin is the idea of God's omniscience. If God knows everything and knows what we're going to do, he surely also knows who's going to hell for sinning and who's not right? So why would sin make God angry? And why then condemn some and reward others? It's neither a reward nor a punishment if the outcome is predetermined. Kind of arbitrary on God's part don't you think?

More importantly, why would God create something that He knew in advance He would basically discard in the trash bin? If you create something flawed, it would seem somewhat petulant to then get angry when it "messed up" and consign it to "eternal punishment", especially when you consider that eternity is a whole helluva lot longer than the mere time people are given on earth to get it right. This would also seem to fly in the face of the concepts of a just and loving and merciful being.

Corinthian
10-22-2007, 08:25 PM
God gets angry when we sin, yes. But logically, haven't you ever gotten angry over something you were certain would happen? For example, when you get a new puppy, it's pretty much guaranteed the dog is going to not be housebroken, but that doesn't mean you're not going to be irritated when he takes a crap on the couch.

He didn't discard us in the trash bin, you'll notice. So that whole thing is rendered pointless.

TK, when I said that...well, why do we sin? Because we want to. Even a Christian is drawn to sin because of the desires of his flesh, or, to be more crude, your penis talking. It's not that we won't have free will, we won't sin because we will no longer have the desire to indulge in sinful acts.

Achilles
10-22-2007, 08:31 PM
That's fine. I prefer the term Brahman anyway since "God" has many unintentional Judeo-Christian connotations. Depending on how we use the term, then either the question still applies or including the term is redundant. ;)

Maybe if I rephrase the question this way: What do we gain by adding concept to things such as "empathy" that do not appear to be necessary?

If empathy works via you=me=us (aka ubuntu or whatever) then how do we benefit by including god, Brahman, cosmic consciousness, buddha, etc? What do we gain?

tk102
10-22-2007, 09:04 PM
Depending on how we use the term, then either the question still applies or including the term is redundantIt can be considered redundant certainly but that's kind of the point. There is never a need more than one equals sign in an equation.

Maybe if I rephrase the question this way: What do we gain by adding concept to things such as "empathy" that do not appear to be necessary?It's hard to know exactly what you're asking. For someone like myself that believes "That thou art", the epistemology of empathy is derived from that knowledge. Empathy results from it. If empathy works via you=me=us (aka ubuntu or whatever) then how do we benefit by including god, Brahman, cosmic consciousness, buddha, etc? What do we gain?What do we gain... what do I gain perhaps you mean to ask, because it's never my intent to proselytize, only question things. I'll discuss the matters privately with you if you prefer as the gains for me are personal. :)

Totenkopf
10-22-2007, 10:48 PM
God gets angry when we sin, yes. But logically, haven't you ever gotten angry over something you were certain would happen? For example, when you get a new puppy, it's pretty much guaranteed the dog is going to not be housebroken, but that doesn't mean you're not going to be irritated when he takes a crap on the couch.

He didn't discard us in the trash bin, you'll notice. So that whole thing is rendered pointless.

It's not a question of God becoming angry or disappointed when His creations fall short of the mark. My point, especially as regards predestination, is that if God creates a person that He knows will end up in hell, so to speak, then why create someone He'll only "throw in the trash bin" (they wouldn't have made the flawed decisions that they did had they NOT been created in the first place)? So the question is not, as you put it, rendered pointless.

Corinthian
10-23-2007, 12:08 AM
Yes, in a sense, it's already made up. But it's easier to think of it in terms of very deep knowledge of each of us. Have you ever guessed what a friend was going to do before he did it? Or vice versa? You might say it's the same way with God. He knows us so deeply that he knows what we'll choose before we choose it. However, despite that, we still have a choice.

Please don't make me repeat myself.

RobQel-Droma
10-23-2007, 12:14 AM
That doesn't answer the question. Why? It makes no sense. There is no point in punishing a child for what its parents did.

That would be assuming that the child has done nothing. We all have sinned. (besides, I don't recall God punishing people for their ancestry....)

Why?

You'd rather to carry the sins of humanity yourself? :)

Why didn't he just make a 'law' that takes 'sin' out of the equation once for all. When his ways are mysterious and he can do thing we can't comprehend, why doesn't he do something not imaginable and makes sin go away just like *poof*.

I understand where you're coming from on this, many people have argued this way. However, as Corinthian said, if he wanted automatons, he would have made them. Wouldn't you want to have a choice about it?

Yes, yes, of course! But who said something about "strip out our free will and thought and make us robots"? I didn't. This was about "bye bye sin".

Well, naturally, if you take away sin, you also remove the capacity to sin, so there would be (in principle) a stripping of choice from us.

Achilles
10-23-2007, 12:38 AM
That would be assuming that the child has done nothing. We all have sinned. (besides, I don't recall God punishing people for their ancestry....) Erm...original sin? We are born with sin because Adam ate from the apple. The pain of childbirth is the penance that women pay for Eve. Sounds like punishment for ancestry to me. If none of us are born without sin (i.e. The Fall), then it certainly would seem that there's some form of inheritance happening there.

You'd rather to carry the sins of humanity yourself? :)Well, since there is no such thing as sin...

I understand where you're coming from on this, many people have argued this way. However, as Corinthian said, if he wanted automatons, he would have made them. Wouldn't you want to have a choice about it?Free will implies that god isn't omniscient. I'm afraid it can't be both ways.

Well, naturally, if you take away sin, you also remove the capacity to sin, so there would be (in principle) a stripping of choice from us.I'm not sure I follow. Since sin is a concept born of the human imagination, I'm not sure how it could possibly influence our capacity to make decisions. It seems that whether we decide to accept the concept of sin would in and of itself be a choice, don't you think ;)

Totenkopf
10-23-2007, 12:43 AM
Please don't make me repeat myself.

If this was aimed at my post, it still fails to address the question. Feel free to repeat yourself if you feel you must (though I fear it will fall wide of the mark). ;)

Free will implies that god isn't omniscient.
Nonsequitor. It does raise other questions, though. But, it demonstrates that such a G/god isn't a micromanager.

Rev7
10-23-2007, 01:04 AM
Well, since there is no such thing as sin...
Sorry but I beg to differ. Focus on 1b...for the atheists out there......


1sin
Pronunciation: \ˈsin\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at is
Date: before 12th century
1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c: an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
synonyms see offense

Achilles
10-23-2007, 01:46 AM
Sorry but I beg to differ. Focus on 1b...for the atheists out there......1b and 1c are both turns of phrase. If we're going to discuss the religious concept of "sin", let's just stick to that.

Every other definition (those that relate to the context in which the word was being used) is evidence that sin is a human invention. No argument that some acts are immoral, however if there is no god, then one could not say that said acts would offend him/her/it/them.

Rev7
10-23-2007, 02:11 AM
Every other definition (those that relate to the context in which the word was being used) is evidence that sin is a human invention.
In a certain perspective sin was created by man(and woman). God, IMO, gave Adam and Eve a choice whether or not to eat the apple of the tree of knowledge, so in a certain perspective God created sin. I think that that just depends on the way you look at it. Definitions sometimes just don't make sense, and in this reply and the one before this, I thought that specific definition was an alternitive way to look at the word sin. :)

Sabretooth
10-23-2007, 03:09 AM
In a certain perspective sin was created by man(and woman). God, IMO, gave Adam and Eve a choice whether or not to eat the apple of the tree of knowledge, so in a certain perspective God created sin. I think that that just depends on the way you look at it. Definitions sometimes just don't make sense, and in this reply and the one before this, I thought that specific definition was an alternitive way to look at the word sin. :)

See, that's why religion irritates me. It doesn't have hard, tangible facts and definitions like science does. :(

Ray Jones
10-23-2007, 05:50 AM
God IS pretty understanding. Sacrificing your own son so that your creation might be saved counts as being pretty understanding in my books.-- "Hey, son, you know, I have to put you through some pain, because, you know, I am so understanding, and those people out there did something horrible, and you gonna pay for that, that okay with you?"

Seriously, on the planet where *I* come from, we (at least seek to) punish those who did the crime.

You'd rather to carry the sins of humanity yourself?Huh? Everybody is responsible for what he does, why burden it to one single person? It just makes no sense. It's not loving and caring, to let those get away who originally did bad things and let someone else suffer for this. It's unjust. And it's pointless to hold people responsible for long gone things done. I'm not saying forget past things, as we should not do that, to learn from that and not make a mistake twice.

I understand where you're coming from on this, many people have argued this way. However, as Corinthian said, if he wanted automatons, he would have made them. Wouldn't you want to have a choice about it?No, you don't understand. Because if you did, you'd not talk about "automatons". Corinthian has yet to make plausible that removing sin from existence means we'd have to be "automatons". Also he has not but once made a statement to my question how we have a choice to sin or not if it is determined that "all humans have sinned" from the begin with, even new born babies.

Where is that choice you are talking about?

At what point in *her* live had my daughter the choice to whether "stay clean" or to "become a sinner". If we can chose freely, then when is that?

Well, naturally, if you take away sin, you also remove the capacity to sin, so there would be (in principle) a stripping of choice from us.No. Not the capacity to sin is to be taken from us (with sin itself remaining), sin itself has to be removed. The concept of sin, the idea of sin, Satan, NO SIN AT ALL.

True_Avery
10-23-2007, 06:51 AM
Anybody considered the thought that right and wrong, good and evil, sin and just are relative terms used to describe the opinions and actions of others that we may or may not agree with, and that law and punishment is simply in place for people that society as a whole has deemed "bad" by a largely accepted set of modern day morals that most of it's people don't even pay attention to?

I honestly hope to see the day when people take responsibility for their own actions and the actons of others instead of blaming it on two naked people who decided to eat an apple six-ten thousand years ago. You cannot remove sin from a society, from humanity because sin has no true definition. You would end up removing humanity, and if you wanted to take it a step further, all life from he universe. Because, you know, rocks cannot sin.

Sigh. I don't even know why I try.

Ray Jones
10-23-2007, 07:15 AM
Anybody considered the thought that right and wrong, good and evil, sin and just are relative terms used to describe the opinions and actions of others that we may or may not agree with, and that law and punishment is simply in place for people that society as a whole has deemed "bad" by a largely accepted set of modern day morals that most of it's people don't even pay attention to?Why, yes, of course, I did.

I honestly hope to see the day when people take responsibility for their own actions and the actons of others instead of blaming it on two naked people who decided to eat an apple six-ten thousand years ago.Bravo!!

You cannot remove sin from a society, from humanity because sin has no true definition. You would end up removing humanity, and if you wanted to take it a step further, all life from he universe.I think an omnipotent god would find another way. ;)

Because, you know, rocks cannot sin.I'm not sure if the god of rocks would see that in a different light. :p

Sigh. I don't even know why I try.Because you know you want to...

Corinthian
10-23-2007, 07:31 AM
No, Avery. I believe Moral Relativity is a load of bunk.

-- "Hey, son, you know, I have to put you through some pain, because, you know, I am so understanding, and those people out there did something horrible, and you gonna pay for that, that okay with you?"

Jesus wasn't an unwilling participant in the plan. He agreed to it. And considering they are the Trinity, Three as One, it was likely as agonizing for the Father as it was Jesus.

Seriously, on the planet where *I* come from, we (at least seek to) punish those who did the crime.
Yes, that is usually how it works. But since God is merciful, he doesn't want us all to go to Hell. Or are you complaining that you still have to pay the price for Adam and Eve? Then here's two words, guaranteed not to make you feel better. Too bad.


Huh? Everybody is responsible for what he does, why burden it to one single person? It just makes no sense. It's not loving and caring, to let those get away who originally did bad things and let someone else suffer for this. It's unjust. And it's pointless to hold people responsible for long gone things done. I'm not saying forget past things, as we should not do that, to learn from that and not make a mistake twice.
Everyone does bad things, firstly. So you wouldn't get off the hook anyway. Besides, original sin has more to do with Eve bringing sin into the world. Before sin, the world was perfect. Then when Adam and Eve sinned, that perfection got thrown out of whack.

And, why shouldn't you pay for the sins of your forebears? The concept is practically hardwired into your consciousness. "My dad doesn't like your dad."

Besides, how do you propose that Adam and Eve are punished for their sin while their descendants are free of it? Warp them to another planet after they gave birth to Seth? Oh, wait. Seth was born after Cain murdered Abel, so that wouldn't work...

No, you don't understand. Because if you did, you'd not talk about "automatons". Corinthian has yet to make plausible that removing sin from existence means we'd have to be "automatons". Also he has not but once made a statement to my question how we have a choice to sin or not if it is determined that "all humans have sinned" from the begin with, even new born babies. To choose Christ or Sin is the most important choice a man will ever make. It pretty much decides every significant choice from then, until your death. You still have choices, but none of them are at all significant. Yes, you would still have a marginal amount of choice, but you wouldn't have real free will. You'd be an Asimov Robot. Good old Three Rules.

Where is that choice you are talking about?

At what point in *her* live had my daughter the choice to whether "stay clean" or to "become a sinner". If we can chose freely, then when is that?

The Choice comes during your life. You're always a sinner. We haven't had the choice to start from a clean slate since Eve. The choice is in whether you hold onto that sin, or you let God handle it. I believe I've said this several times already.

No. Not the capacity to sin is to be taken from us (with sin itself remaining), sin itself has to be removed. The concept of sin, the idea of sin, Satan, NO SIN AT ALL.
Why should God do that? Why should we have our crimes washed away before we serve our punishment? Besides, Sin is an integral part of our free will: Without sin, we no longer have the capacity to choose something over God. We can choose insignificant things, like which pants to wear and what movie to see, but what's Free Will when the only choices you're able to make are meaningless ones?

And who are you to tell God what to do with his power, anyway?

Sabretooth
10-23-2007, 08:48 AM
Without sin, we no longer have the capacity to choose something over God.
Considering that choosing anything over God is going to send you to eternity's worth burning Alcatraz, I hardly think that capacity even matters, in the end. Imagine this: A king establishes democracy in his kingdom, but states only the king can be leader and decide the law.

We can choose insignificant things, like which pants to wear and what movie to see, but what's Free Will when the only choices you're able to make are meaningless ones?
Ah, so I have a rather "meaningful" choice of not sinning and sinning if I have Free Will. Now, I choose not sinning, I'm happy, God's happy - everyone's cool. I "choose" to sin, I get sent to Hell. So, I'm walking on a road and someone gives me this choice: Hi man, you can go to your place, if you want. But I offer you a choice of killing me and not killing me. He does not explain further. I choose the other option. He falls, bleeding and says "Oh man, too bad. You'll have to go to jail now, sorry." What use is this free will if one option is going to screw you up real bad, and you know it.

And who are you to tell God what to do with his power, anyway?
A sensible thinking, democracy-believing, anti-monarchy individual. God's "kingdom" can go to hell, I want a democracy. (semi-serious statement, don't think over it)

Ray Jones
10-23-2007, 09:16 AM
Jesus wasn't an unwilling participant in the plan. He agreed to it. And considering they are the Trinity, Three as One, it was likely as agonizing for the Father as it was Jesus.Fairy tales next door please.

Yes, that is usually how it works. But since God is merciful, he doesn't want us all to go to Hell.No all of us. Those who are full of sin. Like Satan.

Or are you complaining that you still have to pay the price for Adam and Eve? Then here's two words, guaranteed not to make you feel better. Too bad.Complaining? Naaaaah. I don't complain. Disagreement yes, complain, no. Or do you want plead guilty and take responsibility regarding cruel and death bringing historic events like the ... crusades???

And, why shouldn't you pay for the sins of your forebears? The concept is practically hardwired into your consciousness. "My dad doesn't like your dad."Because it's crap like that which causes wars and fights, and thus more unnecessary sin. Why should I care about your dad doesn't liking my dad? Our dads might be sinful idiots, and we could be BFFs free of sin.

The Choice comes during your life. You're always a sinner.Huh? During life? How can I choose not to be a sinner when I am always a sinner? poppycock. Also, when the choice comes during lief, how come that even unborn babies are considered sinners?

We haven't had the choice to start from a clean slate since Eve.Aha? Nonsense. Eve is dead since forever now, how does that relate to me?

The choice is in whether you hold onto that sin, or you let God handle it. I believe I've said this several times already.Since I have not done that sin, I hard can hold onto it.

Why should God do that?Because sin displeases him, and it brings death and suffering. Would you stop death and suffering if you could? I bet as a good Christian you would, eh? Is god not a good Christian.

Why should we have our crimes washed away before we serve our punishment?Without sin, no crimes to wash away...

Besides, Sin is an integral part of our free will: Without sin, we no longer have the capacity to choose something over God.What's so bad about it? Also, without sin, choosing something over god would be no sin anymore.

We can choose insignificant things, like which pants to wear and what movie to see, but what's Free Will when the only choices you're able to make are meaningless ones?So the only important choice, and the only proper reason for free will to exist is to choose god? How..colourful.

And who are you to tell God what to do with his power, anyway?Name's Ray Jones. I'm the new one. I worked upstairs at the sales dept. before. I've always dreamed of working at the Brazilian wax test range and now I'm finally here. Thank you.

Corinthian
10-23-2007, 10:04 AM
Hey, fine. You want to be flippant about your soul, that's fine by me. I personally don't really care. I think we've about explored every corner of this. Besides, I'm tired of trying to explain the basics of the Christian faith and half the Bible to someone who doesn't even try to understand.

~~~

Ray Jones
10-23-2007, 10:32 AM
Well, I don't want you to explain Christian faith to me, and I got my own view on things already, thank you. As for being flippant with my soul, you got your deal with god, I got mine: I must not sneak secretly into her shower room I can come in openly at any given time - for that I had to swear I will never stop being curious and always be as sexey as I am .. and I have to tell her everything 'bout Plan E.

See, basically I wanted to explore the hows and whys of what's behind that Christian faith you propose so eager. With my doubting and questioning I wanted to gain knowledge not faith.

tk102
10-23-2007, 03:16 PM
Sabretooth, you are Warned for ad hominem remarks even after I was kind enough to nudge.

Godwin's Law is not on topic.

Thread re-opened for now...

Jae Onasi
10-24-2007, 01:43 PM
OK, I'm going to make a few assumptions before starting this whole discussion and answer some of the questions here.
1. There is a God. If there is no God, then sin/good/evil become irrelevant in this particular discussion.
2. I'm looking at it through the Christian paradigm, because that's what I'm most familiar with.
3. With those 2 above in mind, we then move to the nature of God--omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and holy/all-good.
4. Christ was the physical embodiment of God, and came to serve as the substitute of payment for our sin.
5. God created us because He wanted to have a relationship with us (the only human equivalent I can think of is deciding to have children because you have love to share with children and want to have a family, and that's probably an incomplete approximation).
6. This is my opinion. :)

What is sin? The antithesis of good, and more importantly, our choice to willfully do that which we know is wrong. If you've ever intentionally done something to hurt someone, you've sinned. If you whacked your brother/sister/cousin on the head in anger or said something hurtful to someone, you've sinned. In that respect, we've all sinned--I don't think any one of us can say we've _never_ done something hurtful to someone else. Our capacity/ability to sin is something we've 'inherited' from our forebears, but our choice to commit sin is still very much our own, and thus we are all individually responsible for those sins that we ourselves commit. This is why very young children are not condemned to hell despite having 'inherited' the capacity to sin. They have to be mentally mature enough to have the understanding that what they're doing is wrong in order to be held accountable. So, I don't believe babies or the mentally disabled are sent to hell. This is also the reason why the fruit (legend says it's an apple, the Bible doesn't specify) itself wasn't important--it was Adam and Eve's willful disobedience of God's requirement not to eat the fruit that was the problem. Learning what was good and evil meant they (and us) were now responsible for doing what was good and not doing what was evil.

In terms of God and sin, sin is doing what God has asked us not to do, or not doing something God does want us to do. God's not sitting up in heaven waiting for us to do something wrong so that He can zap us into hell. He wants to have a relationship with us. You cannot force someone to have a relationship with you. They have to choose to have that relationship with you. You cannot force someone to love you, they have to choose that. God has extended His love to us, but He cannot force us to love Him, otherwise it's not really love, it's at best forced worship and at worst a falsehood. That is the nature of free will--the choice to love/have a relationship with Him or not. I chose that relationship initially as a way to avoid the ultimate consequences of sin--being 11 at the time, it was pretty black-and-white thinking. Some people do choose that for the 'get out of hell free' card. I continue in that relationship because I choose to express love back to Him. The fact that following rules like 'don't kill' and 'don't steal' are also generally beneficial to my life is an added plus.

The lust thing--there's a big difference between appreciating someone's attractiveness and obsessing about a sex act with that person. The verse mentioned previously referenced in particular lusting after a neighbor's wife. Acting on that lust would involve harming the relationship between that husband and wife, aside from the paternity issues should she have gotten pregnant from someone acting on their lust.

Can God take away sin? Yes. Does He? No. Why? Taking away sin takes away our choice to do that which is good or evil. God doesn't want automatons and Stepford wives saying "Oh, yes, we love you God" in emotionless droning. He wants people to actually mean what they say and choose Him because they want to, not because they have to. I can't force my kids to love me, nor would I want to force them, because if I did, I know the love wouldn't be genuine. Part of love is the choice to give that love or not. If you take away the choice, you've taken away an integral part of love and rendered it worthless. God longs to have a relationship with all of us, but we each have to make the choice whether or not to have that relationship with Him, too.

What's the deal with Christ dying on the cross for us?
Christ is the physical embodiment of God, and He chose to do that for our benefit. Christ had the power to walk away from the crucifixion had He chosen to do so. He could have fled Jerusalem, He could have prevented Judas from identifying him to those who came to arrest him, and He could have gotten down from the cross if He wanted to. He opted to give Himself as a sacrifice--offering His spiritual purity as payment for our spiritual imperfection. The Bible tells us He did that because He loved all of us. I would give my life if it meant my children could escape death. Why would God not want to do the same for all of us?

Theologians have studied these concepts extensively and written countless books on these subjects. It's hard to do that any kind of justice in a short post. :)

True_Avery
10-24-2007, 06:48 PM
Interesting.

I like your definition of Sin, but I can only see that really applying to human beings. Humans, as we assume we are the most intelligent being on this planet, also assume greatly that we are all important through being made, or through evolution, or survival. That God(s) truly looks down upon us, with the rest of the world created directly for us. So, I ask... Why humans?

If you believe in both evolution and are spiritual, then consider the fact we are not all that evolved compared to most animals. Humans, or at least humans as we know them, have been evolving for over 10,000 years, about the end of the last Ice Age, and our "species" has been around for a good 200,000. Why love something so new, so selectively? Sharks have been nearly unchanged 100s of millions of years.

The cockroach is one of the most evolved creatures on the face of this planet. Taking a line from the TV show Heroes, cockroaches are far more evolved than us, have lived far longer than us, and will be around for millions of years after humans are gone. If the cockroach is the near pinnacle of evolution, couldn't you say that God(s) would be a cockroach? Don't we have a long way until we can claim to have the form and selective love from "our" God(s) when we are so incredibly new to a planet we show no respect for?

Survival of the Fittest, afterall, is by no means a merciful part of nature. Human beings try this on eachother now and then, but it usually ends in failure. The Nazi's, the Spartans, Religious cleansing. We try, but we really have no idea what we are doing.

If you believe that all other animals aren't mentally stunted by God, then you will can choose to see that many animals show incredible signs of intelligence and social patterns similar to humans.

Bonobo Chimp:
"Bonobos are capable of passing the mirror-recognition test for self-awareness. They communicate through primarily vocal means, although the meanings of their vocalizations are not currently known; however, humans do understand their facial expressions[7] and some of their natural hand gestures, such as their invitation to play. Two Bonobos at the Great Ape Trust, Kanzi and Panbanisha, have been taught a vocabulary of over 3,000 words which they can type using a special keyboard of lexigrams (geometric symbols), and they can respond to spoken sentences. Some, such as bioethicist Peter Singer, argue that these results qualify them for the "rights to survival and life," rights that humans theoretically accord to all persons."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

They are almost as smart as us, plus they have a better social structure than we do. They are a female run society, they almost never fight or go to war with each other or other tribes, and they constantly engage in social sex with each other as a pastime, the majority of the time being homosexual. If any intelligent animal is more deserving of having a kind face upon them, it would probably be the Bonobo.

But, on the other side, I can see why God(s) would pay attention to us. We are the babies of the planet. The new kids who don't know what they are doing and still have a long, long way until we have the stable social abilities of many other animals. We need a kind hand on our shoulder to help us get through the hard times if we don't destroy ourselves in the meantime.

Although, if you believe, like many of the religious people I know of, that animals are below us than everything I just said went out the window. Oh well.

Christ, in religious lore, gave him life to save us all. I am rather confused on how murdering the son or embodiment of God saves any of us. Doesn't that just prove that we may be beyond the capability to "save"? He may have "died for us", but we still killed him. Did he save us from the devil? Did everybody before christ go directly to hell? Please explain more, as the more I think on it the more I feel like an ant with a magnifying glass aiming at me.

And whats with Hell? Where does God have the right to send some people to a gated community and throw others into eternal torment for some sins they did because God either made them born that way, or let them do some stupid stuff in the 70 or so years they existed. 70 years isn't even the blink of an eye to eternity and I failed to see how sending people to feel pain for all time solves ANYTHING. I do understand that many people, even the religious, do not believe in a hell. But if God is going to choose who is naughty and who is nice, then I am not sure I like this God. Sounds more like a demented Santa with a complex. If you can, please explain more of this.

Lust is a interesting topic. We may disregard it completely, but how do we know that isn't a bad thing? The common chimpanzee, which regularly treats its females terrible and more than often "rapes" them, keeps females away from each other and has tight social groups and a tight rope on sexuality, constantly having wars with other chimps and fighting CONSTANTLY over who gets what... much like humans, actually. The Bonobo on the other hand, which has a much free'er social branch with the female leading the group instead, has recreational homosexual sex and relations... they are one of the most peaceful animals on this green earth. So, how bad can lust be when giving into it completely ends up with what the Bonobos have? All I can currently see is humans acting like the common chimp which is not a peaceful existence at all. We have ruled homosexuality as "unnatural" when it obviously is not, though many will disagree, and our men have a god complex and more often than not rule over the female of our species. We fight over money, food, and power and hide love and sex like it is a completely terrible thing. I think nature has some of the point I am trying to make backed up.

If fact, I might just make a thread on that topic...

It was Adam and Eve's willful disobedience of God's requirement not to eat the fruit that was the problem.
And that was a bad thing? You speak of robots, who simply say "We love you God." Before Adam and Eve discovered Sin and disobedience they were those robots. Living day by day, loving God and what God did for them. Then, one day, they took the Apple against Gods will. God became angry that he didn't have completely obedient servants anymore. If he became angry over those two and cursed all of humanity, what in the world makes you think for a second that he cares about you at all? It sounds more like a parent finding out their son is gay and throwing him out of the house for not being what they wanted him to be. He didn't even give them a second chance! If he said screw them, what makes you think that we simply are not all going straight to hell? Or, is that why Christ died for us? Did it really take him 8 thousand years to stop sending souls straight to hell?

Many may point at Adam and Eve and blame our problems on them, but if Adam and Eve were in front of me right now I would be one of the few to hug them and thank them endlessly for taking that apple. Because they took the apple, they became free from Gods servitude. Because Eve was cursed with pains of childbirth, humanity is not as big as it could be if women could pop out babies like nothing had ever happened. Because they did that, Cain killed his brother and brought death into our world... Death, which was not part of the human world before then. He gave us the gift of survival of the fittest, of the ability to kill for our own needs and the needs of our family.

Woman is cursed to submit to her husband... pfft. It may possibly be a misunderstood passage, but that most of all ticks me off for the fact that it brought forth so much oppression by the ignorant. You know, chimps oppress their woman and look where they are.

I am confused on many of these topics, so if someone could clear them up for me I would gladly read what you have to say.

Ray Jones
10-24-2007, 07:36 PM
Okay Jae, that all sounds good too me. Although I am still not convinced why an omnipotent god would not find a way to remove sin from existence without that he would take the choice for a relationship with him. :)

Jae Onasi
10-24-2007, 11:38 PM
Interesting.

I like your definition of Sin, but I can only see that really applying to human beings. Humans, as we assume we are the most intelligent being on this planet, also assume greatly that we are all important through being made, or through evolution, or survival. That God(s) truly looks down upon us, with the rest of the world created directly for us. So, I ask... Why humans?
I don't know 'why humans'. I know animals don't have the same capacity for sin because they don't truly know the difference between right/wrong--sure, some of them can be 'naughty' now and then, but so can 3 year olds, and we don't hold them accountable. The Bible implies animals end up in heaven, but otherwise it's not been addressed other than man's (generic humankind) authority over the animal world.

If you believe in both evolution and are spiritual, then consider the fact we are not all that evolved compared to most animals. I think God at the very least guided evolution, so I don't consider that an issue.
Why love something so new, so selectively? Sharks have been nearly unchanged 100s of millions of years.Simply because He made us that way.


If the cockroach is the near pinnacle of evolution, couldn't you say that God(s) would be a cockroach?
I don't consider cockroaches to be the pinnacle of evolution. Far from it.
Don't we have a long way until we can claim to have the form and selective love from "our" God(s) when we are so incredibly new to a planet we show no respect for?The Bible is designed to elaborate on God's relationship with humans. Since God declared His creation 'good', I'm assuming He cared about all of it, not just us, but we're the ones who have the capacity to have the relationship with Him rather than animals, hence the focus on us as humans.

Survival of the Fittest, afterall, is by no means a merciful part of nature. Human beings try this on eachother now and then, but it usually ends in failure. The Nazi's, the Spartans, Religious cleansing. We try, but we really have no idea what we are doing.Well, I agree we do a fine job of royally screwing things up sometimes, but I'm not 100% sure where you're going with this.

If you believe that all other animals aren't mentally stunted by God, then you will can choose to see that many animals show incredible signs of intelligence and social patterns similar to humans.
They were made the way they were. I don't view them as 'mentally stunted'.

Bonobo Chimp:
They are almost as smart as us, plus they have a better social structure than we do. They are a female run society, they almost never fight or go to war with each other or other tribes, and they constantly engage in social sex with each other as a pastime, the majority of the time being homosexual. If any intelligent animal is more deserving of having a kind face upon them, it would probably be the Bonobo.How did you come to the conclusion that this is 'better' than humanity (except war)? Maybe it's 'better' for that chimp, but unprotected promiscuity at least in humanity causes a number of health issues and unwanted pregnancies. What's good for a chimp may not be what's good for us humans and vice-versa.

Although, if you believe, like many of the religious people I know of, that animals are below us than everything I just said went out the window. Oh well.God created the entire universe, and none of it is unimportant. We may have authority over animals, but we're supposed to be their caretakers.

Christ, in religious lore, gave him life to save us all. I am rather confused on how murdering the son or embodiment of God saves any of us.Actually, Christ chose to allow that to happen to Him. There has to be punishment for ultimate evil. We do the same here on earth--evil is not allowed to go unpunished (at least theoretically). Something pure had to be the sacrifice to serve as the substitution for the bad/evil we do during life. I suppose He could have chosen toenail clippings as a sacrifice, but that's not very much of a sacrifice, is it? Giving up one's life is the ultimate sacrifice.

Doesn't that just prove that we may be beyond the capability to "save"? He may have "died for us", but we still killed him.He didn't have to die for us. He chose to do that.

Did he save us from the devil?He saved us from our own individual sinfulness.

Did everybody before christ go directly to hell?No. We look back to Christ for salvation, people prior to Christ looked forward to His salvation. Those who've never heard of Jesus can still see God in His very amazing universe, and acknowledging the Creator serves as their salvation, but that's a long discussion in itself.

Please explain more, as the more I think on it the more I feel like an ant with a magnifying glass aiming at me.

And whats with Hell? Where does God have the right to send some people to a gated community and throw others into eternal torment for some sins they did because God either made them born that way, or let them do some stupid stuff in the 70 or so years they existed. 70 years isn't even the blink of an eye to eternity and I failed to see how sending people to feel pain for all time solves ANYTHING. I do understand that many people, even the religious, do not believe in a hell. But if God is going to choose who is naughty and who is nice, then I am not sure I like this God. Sounds more like a demented Santa with a complex. If you can, please explain more of this.Let me ask this--would you allow a sadistic serial killer to go unpunished? Most likely not, because there are consequences for evil behavior. Should God be disallowed from passing judgment on evil because He's God? We all sin, we all do bad, we all are imperfect. I think what God is asking is if we're going to acknowledge and have a relationship in love with Him, or if we're going to utterly reject a relationship with Him. If we reject Him completely, He's going to respect that, and He's going to remove His presence from those who don't want Him. Now imagine a place completely devoid of God's love and goodness, a place of utter evil and hatred. That's hell right there. However, it will be by that person's own choosing. They will have chosen to completely reject God, and they will experience the results of that decision. God won't be punishing them so much as He will be respecting their decision to live entirely without His presence, and removing Himself from that person.

Lust is a interesting topic. We may disregard it completely, but how do we know that isn't a bad thing?Obsessing about having an intimate relationship with someone who's already involved in another relationship, or who maybe doesn't want a relationship with the luster, is a problem. Thinking about doing a sin leads to actually doing that sin with some frequency. You have to think about doing a sin before you actually commit it, which is why we're told to maintain pure thoughts as well as actions.

The common chimpanzee, which regularly treats its females terrible and more than often "rapes" them, keeps females away from each other and has tight social groups and a tight rope on sexuality, constantly having wars with other chimps and fighting CONSTANTLY over who gets what... much like humans, actually. The Bonobo on the other hand, which has a much free'er social branch with the female leading the group instead, has recreational homosexual sex and relations... they are one of the most peaceful animals on this green earth. So, how bad can lust be when giving into it completely ends up with what the Bonobos have? All I can currently see is humans acting like the common chimp which is not a peaceful existence at all. We have ruled homosexuality as "unnatural" when it obviously is not, though many will disagree, and our men have a god complex and more often than not rule over the female of our species. We fight over money, food, and power and hide love and sex like it is a completely terrible thing. I think nature has some of the point I am trying to make backed up.
We are not chimps, so this doesn't apply, as I noted earlier. I have a friend who has been a male prostitute and was so promiscuous I could never keep up with who was visiting him what night. I'm very happy to hide his sexual proclivities from my kids right now--they're too young to be exposed to his 'appetites'. I appreciate honesty in sexual discussion but not abject raunchy obscene (grandma's dirty jokes notwithstanding), and there is a big difference.

And that was a bad thing? You speak of robots, who simply say "We love you God." Before Adam and Eve discovered Sin and disobedience they were those robots. Living day by day, loving God and what God did for them. Then, one day, they took the Apple against Gods will. God became angry that he didn't have completely obedient servants anymore.
They had the choice to obey God or not--they weren't robots.

If he became angry over those two and cursed all of humanity, what in the world makes you think for a second that he cares about you at all? It sounds more like a parent finding out their son is gay and throwing him out of the house for not being what they wanted him to be. He didn't even give them a second chance! If he said screw them, what makes you think that we simply are not all going straight to hell? Or, is that why Christ died for us? Did it really take him 8 thousand years to stop sending souls straight to hell?God is loving. God is also just. Sin can't go on without consequences, just like we can't allow a serial killer to go on killing unchecked. He acknowledges that humans are going to do stupid hurtful things. He also provided a way out for everyone of us. As I noted before, salvation hasn't been limited to just those who came after Christ.

Many may point at Adam and Eve and blame our problems on them, but if Adam and Eve were in front of me right now I would be one of the few to hug them and thank them endlessly for taking that apple. Because they took the apple, they became free from Gods servitude. Because Eve was cursed with pains of childbirth, humanity is not as big as it could be if women could pop out babies like nothing had ever happened. Because they did that, Cain killed his brother and brought death into our world... Death, which was not part of the human world before then. He gave us the gift of survival of the fittest, of the ability to kill for our own needs and the needs of our family.
Well, having gone through childbirth, I can tell you I'm so not thankful for labor pains. Labor sucks. Given that we had perfection prior to sin's entry into the world, we lost out, not gained. We went from perfection to imperfection. You don't need 'survival of the fittest' when you already have perfection. However, what's done is done. We live in a world where sin is reality and all we can do is deal with the now.

Woman is cursed to submit to her husband... pfft. It may possibly be a misunderstood passage, but that most of all ticks me off for the fact that it brought forth so much oppression by the ignorant. You know, chimps oppress their woman and look where they are.Living in trees and eating bananas and ants? :)

I am confused on many of these topics, so if someone could clear them up for me I would gladly read what you have to say.I don't know that I can clear it up for you. C. S. Lewis is far more articulate on the subject--Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain are great at explaining some of these issues.


@Ray--I wasn't 100% sure what you were meaning with your post--thought about 3 different interpretations of it, so if you could clarify for me, that'd be cool.

True_Avery
10-25-2007, 12:24 AM
I don't know 'why humans'. I know animals don't have the same capacity for sin because they don't truly know the difference between right/wrong--sure, some of them can be 'naughty' now and then, but so can 3 year olds, and we don't hold them accountable. The Bible implies animals end up in heaven, but otherwise it's not been addressed other than man's (generic humankind) authority over the animal world.
Simply because He made us that way.
Hmm, interesting.

But why is a human's capability to think any more advanced than another animals? What makes us special? There are other animals capable of many of the things our minds are capable of. It sounds selfish to say that we are gods children when you in fact have never met god, do not know gods true motives, and get this information from a very old book. I am not trying to be a b**** here, but just stating the obvious.

Saying that humans are the guardians of the world is basically saying that we rule over it, which is the words of ignorant humans thousands of years ago that assumed that they were on a flat planet in the center of the universe. Evolution works on survival, and I think a bug that can live for weeks without a head is a little more ahead than us.

Our intelligent minds help us survive, but it is killing everything around us.

I don't consider cockroaches to be the pinnacle of evolution. Far from it.
The Bible is designed to elaborate on God's relationship with humans. Since God declared His creation 'good', I'm assuming He cared about all of it, not just us, but we're the ones who have the capacity to have the relationship with Him rather than animals, hence the focus on us as humans.
Hmmm

Animals are capable of feeling compassion and love though. Humans just absorb more information.

I'd think that something that has survived for hundreds of millions of years longer than us has the right to say that is it more evolved than us. Intelligent mind is not the highest point in evolution. It is something that is being tried, and in a few million years may be proven to be ineffective and thrown out of the gene pool.


How did you come to the conclusion that this is 'better' than humanity (except war)? Maybe it's 'better' for that chimp, but unprotected promiscuity at least in humanity causes a number of health issues and unwanted pregnancies. What's good for a chimp may not be what's good for us humans and vice-versa.
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=183210

God created the entire universe, and none of it is unimportant. We may have authority over animals, but we're supposed to be their caretakers.
We are doing a terrible job so far. Absolutely apalling job. I can see God forgiving us for a lot, but we are ALL murderers and we all destroy this planet willingly and fully aware of what we are doing. I think that is deserving of a nice stay in hell if anything.

Actually, Christ chose to allow that to happen to Him. There has to be punishment for ultimate evil. We do the same here on earth--evil is not allowed to go unpunished (at least theoretically). Something pure had to be the sacrifice to serve as the substitution for the bad/evil we do during life. I suppose He could have chosen toenail clippings as a sacrifice, but that's not very much of a sacrifice, is it? Giving up one's life is the ultimate sacrifice.
But why him? Couldn't any old person do that? God came down, died, then went back up. Acomplishing nothing but a new religion into place that would cause further drama and death along the road. He brought morals that were already common sense to the human race, and even after that people still sinned.

He didn't have to die for us. He chose to do that.
I'm still not clear on why.

He saved us from our own individual sinfulness.
What do you mean by saved?

No. We look back to Christ for salvation, people prior to Christ looked forward to His salvation. Those who've never heard of Jesus can still see God in His very amazing universe, and acknowledging the Creator serves as their salvation, but that's a long discussion in itself.
"Never heard od Jesus" sounds like a punch to nearly all other religions to me. It seems selfish to say that your belief system is the only true one in the universe, when it is quoite possible our feeble human minds cannot comphrehend what a god would actually think, if a god can even think as thinking is an animal behavior, electronic signals in the brains that travel from place to place.

Let me ask this--would you allow a sadistic serial killer to go unpunished? Most likely not, because there are consequences for evil behavior. Should God be disallowed from passing judgment on evil because He's God? We all sin, we all do bad, we all are imperfect. I think what God is asking is if we're going to acknowledge and have a relationship in love with Him, or if we're going to utterly reject a relationship with Him. If we reject Him completely, He's going to respect that, and He's going to remove His presence from those who don't want Him. Now imagine a place completely devoid of God's love and goodness, a place of utter evil and hatred. That's hell right there. However, it will be by that person's own choosing. They will have chosen to completely reject God, and they will experience the results of that decision. God won't be punishing them so much as He will be respecting their decision to live entirely without His presence, and removing Himself from that person.
As far as I am concerned, we live in both heaven and hell at this very moment. I am still not quite sure what you mean by hell. A place devoit of God? You know, if my son or daughter were to say they didn't want to be around me anymore I probably wouldn't say "screw it, go ahead and do what you want to" and then punish them for eternity when they come back later after doing something stupid. That is playing my children like a game, not as a parent.

Eternal damnation doesn't sound like "He will be respecting their decision." It sounds more like a cop out in saying that people who do "bad" thing will eventually be punished. A scare tactic for people to do "good", and even if hell existed that simply proves that god does not love all. I can respect someones wishes by shooting them in the head if they don't like being around me but that doesn't make for good equality.

I could start an arguement about good and evil relativity, but it seems a moot point right now.

Obsessing about having an intimate relationship with someone who's already involved in another relationship, or who maybe doesn't want a relationship with the luster, is a problem. Thinking about doing a sin leads to actually doing that sin with some frequency. You have to think about doing a sin before you actually commit it, which is why we're told to maintain pure thoughts as well as actions.
Fair enough.

We are not chimps, so this doesn't apply, as I noted earlier. I have a friend who has been a male prostitute and was so promiscuous I could never keep up with who was visiting him what night. I'm very happy to hide his sexual proclivities from my kids right now--they're too young to be exposed to his 'appetites'. I appreciate honesty in sexual discussion but not abject raunchy obscene (grandma's dirty jokes notwithstanding), and there is a big difference.
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=183210
And technically, we are simply hairless chimps. But thats an evolutionary debate topic.

They had the choice to obey God or not--they weren't robots.
He created them, told them what to do, and then watched over them. When they disobeyed him, he cursed all of humanity. Sounds like an "evil" monarchy to me.

God is loving. God is also just. Sin can't go on without consequences, just like we can't allow a serial killer to go on killing unchecked. He acknowledges that humans are going to do stupid hurtful things. He also provided a way out for everyone of us. As I noted before, salvation hasn't been limited to just those who came after Christ.
I'm still confused on the Christ part. If he was giving salvation this entire time, why come down in the first place to simply die and go back up?

Well, having gone through childbirth, I can tell you I'm so not thankful for labor pains. Labor sucks. Given that we had perfection prior to sin's entry into the world, we lost out, not gained. We went from perfection to imperfection. You don't need 'survival of the fittest' when you already have perfection. However, what's done is done. We live in a world where sin is reality and all we can do is deal with the now.
Perfection is a relative term. What is perfection to one is imperfect to another. In my opinion, Adam and Eve were imperfect before eating the apple. Then they became humans, they became animals, and they became part of nature. You wouldn't exist if they hadn't of eaten the apple. I think nature, as of now, is in its own way perfect. All the math, all the physics, all the evolution and selection. It is a system of near perfection that strives for perfection, and creating someone who already had everything, I think, would be cheating the system god set up in the first place. Why set up all those rules if he could just make perfection and be done with it. Is this some kind of game to him? It sure sounds like something I'd do in The Sims.

Living in trees and eating bananas and ants? :)
Civil war, death, destruction, slavery, rape, murder, etc . They are more like humans than you assume. We arn't alone in this world of intelligence, and saying we are is slapping gods work in the face. By saying that you alone are important, you disregard all of what God has done to put -yourself- in the spotlight, screaming "I want you to love me more!". The little kid who wants mommy and daddy to pay attention to it while the little kid's better siblings run around doing what must be done to continue the circle of life.

I'm sorry, but thats all I can see out of that.

I don't know that I can clear it up for you. C. S. Lewis is far more articulate on the subject--Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain are great at explaining some of these issues
I'll look them up.

Edit: Some of my comments may have come off as hateful. Know that I am merely throwing topics out for debate and not to anger anyone.

Ray Jones
10-25-2007, 09:53 AM
@Ray--I wasn't 100% sure what you were meaning with your post--thought about 3 different interpretations of it, so if you could clarify for me, that'd be cool.Yeah, right, as if I would, at least today, be able to abstract my posts in a way so they do not gush out into the ocean of thousand meanings. :p

Although I am still not convinced why an omnipotent god would not find a way to remove sin from existence without that he would take the choice for a relationship with him.

If I got it right, then you (and also others) said that god could remove sin from existence, but would not do it because he wants us humans to (more or less) actively choose between him and sin, and without sin there would be nothing to choose between anymore. (Regardless of when and how, or whatever this means to free will or not.)

I say, if god is really omnipotent, and omni-this, and omni-that, the must be able to find a way to have both: to remove sin from the universe and keep the choice for having a relationship with him or not, even more, he must already know of a method to achieve this. It is also totally irrelevant if this does sound illogical and makes no sense at all to the common human being because "how can someone choose between two things if one is nonexistent".

Jae Onasi
10-25-2007, 10:37 AM
Yeah, right, as if I would, at least today, be able to abstract my posts in a way so they do not gush out into the ocean of thousand meanings.
:D

How do you keep the choice to reject God when taking away sin? That's what sin really boils down to--that rejection. The types of sin are outworkings of that rejection.

Ray Jones
10-25-2007, 10:56 AM
By striking sin out of the universe, how can "rejection" of god be sin? How can something be something that does not exist?

Corinthian
10-25-2007, 11:30 AM
Rejecting God IS sin. That's what Sin boils down to. You can't reject God and not Sin. It's impossible, because Sin is Rejecting God, and Rejecting God is Sin. You can't have one without the other.

tk102
10-25-2007, 11:38 AM
By striking sin out of the universe, how can "rejection" of god be sin? How can something be something that does not exist?
"Striking sin out of the universe" -- no need to be mysterious about it. Aren't you just saying, why doesn't God eliminate the whole reward/punishment system? God doesn't need magic to change the laws of the universe to remove sin -- he could just change his mind and say it's all good. Right?

Ray Jones
10-25-2007, 11:38 AM
When sin is a non-existent thing, nothing can be sin. Nothing. You cannot even say something is sin. Because it's just not there.

Corinthian
10-25-2007, 12:18 PM
But removing Sin would mean removing defiance of God. They're one and the same. Synonyms. What you're suggesting is that God make Sin not Sin. I shouldn't have to explain why that is both ridiculous and impossible.

tk102
10-25-2007, 12:23 PM
It's only sin if God says it's a sin.

Corinthian
10-25-2007, 01:18 PM
Yess..., you know, He's God. What he says goes. That's how a monotheistic religion usually works.

Samuel Dravis
10-25-2007, 01:18 PM
That's where the Euthyphro dilemma I talked about earlier comes in. Why does God = Good? So he doesn't have to decide what sin is! :D

Corinthian
10-25-2007, 01:23 PM
I have no real desire to debate God's morality. Although by many of the standards around here, God is good because his actions according to his culture are good. But I really hate Moral Relativity.

However, my point was not that God = Good, it's that God = All Powerful.

Samuel Dravis
10-25-2007, 01:29 PM
I had actually posted in reply to TK's post but that's ok. :D

Corinthian, I was actually supporting your point that God couldn't remove sin. Further that that, he doesn't - and even can't! - decide what sin is arbitrarily. :)

Corinthian
10-25-2007, 01:41 PM
Ah. It was difficult to tell.

Sabretooth
10-25-2007, 01:53 PM
But removing Sin would mean removing defiance of God.
And if that did happen, God cannot be defied anymore, at least in theory. I don't see how that is bad.

Also, I think I'll lay down straight something that I was approaching from the sides throughout this thread:
If God is All Powerful, he should be able to devise methods, especially sublime ones to discipline men, or to at least show them His way without instituting a human-esque law system. Sin is identical to Crime and so on, but the human legal system was invented when it was gound that humans are all equal, and it is necessary to discipline them, hence creating a set of rules everyone agreed to. But in God's model, he would not need such a legal system, as he can invent ways to purge our sin instantly, or change our minds to be good-thinking, good-doing sorts. Why resort to such a primitive government?

Jae Onasi
10-25-2007, 02:26 PM
By striking sin out of the universe, how can "rejection" of god be sin? How can something be something that does not exist?

The argument is predicated on the assumption that God exists (which I noted in my initial response). If God does not, then there is no such thing as 'sin'.

edit--I see where you were going now.

If you strike out sin by striking out the ability to reject God, you've just made it mandatory to accept God. That eliminates free will and the choice to love God or not.

Corinthian
10-25-2007, 02:39 PM
And if that did happen, God cannot be defied anymore, at least in theory. I don't see how that is bad.

That's bad because it removes our choice. God wants our devotion by our own choice, even if it is something of a Hobson's Choice.

tk102
10-25-2007, 03:26 PM
Yess..., you know, He's God. What he says goes. That's how a monotheistic religion usually works.
So then, he could say "It's all good, do as you please, I love everything" if he chose to and then sin effectively would have no meaning.

Corinthian
10-25-2007, 03:45 PM
I suppose he could. But he doesn't love everything. He hates sin. God does have a personality, he's not some kind of floating Uberpower in subspace or something.

tk102
10-25-2007, 03:57 PM
Having a personality seems to me to imply he is limited. You can say "he is like this but not like that". It sounds anthropomorphic to me. :) It could be necessary for him to take on a personality to interface with us finite beings. I won't press it further because I know this is our core belief difference (personal vs. impersonal).

But going back, you would concede that God could change his mind if he wanted to and effectively nullify sin? The upshot would be the same as what Ray suggested earlier.

Corinthian
10-26-2007, 11:12 AM
How would having a personality limit God?

Hypothetically? Yes, I suppose God could, at the cost of our free will regarding Sin. But God would not. As he is omniscient and aware of all time, if he were going to do that, he'd have done it already. I believe that even after the Judgment, the idea of Sin will still exist, as Satan, his third of Heaven's Host, and the humans who followed him will still be paying for it. Furthermore, I don't think that Humanity is going to be the last thing God creates, and I doubt we were the first.

Ray Jones
10-26-2007, 11:59 AM
I swear that post # 122 from tk was not there after I posted mine (now # 123).

"Striking sin out of the universe" -- no need to be mysterious about it. Aren't you just saying, why doesn't God eliminate the whole reward/punishment system?Nööö. Removing sin would render punishment/reward because of sin/no sin useless, true, but I would not mind keeping it. It's like one of those crappy old PCs catching dust in the basement. :)

God doesn't need magic to change the laws of the universe to remove sin -- he could just change his mind and say it's all good. Right?But it's not the same to say it's all good. Bad example: removing sin means murder would not happen, saying it's all good would mean killing someone is OK.


The argument is predicated on the assumption that God exists (which I noted in my initial response).Err, yes, yes, else I would not need to talk about god removing sin. :)

If God does not, then there is no such thing as 'sin'.Oh, I think if god does not exist there still would be something like sin. Most probably it'd be called 'immoral act'.

edit--I see where you were going now.OK, let's have a look. =)

If you strike out sin by striking out the ability to reject God, you've just made it mandatory to accept God.Nope. I don't want to strike out sin by striking out the ability to reject god. I said, nothing can be a sin, when there is no such thing as sin. However, as a result, without sin humans could, but would not reject god. I don't think that means they have to accept him either.

That eliminates free will and the choice to love God or not.As I see it, there are three options: (1) acknowledge god (positive relationship with god), (2) deny god (negative relationship with god), (3) no qualified statement regarding god (no relationship with god). If you remove sin from the equation, you still have two options left, and thus free choice to have a relationship with god remains.


Having a personality seems to me to imply he is limited.How? I cannot see this.

You can say "he is like this but not like that". It sounds anthropomorphic to me. :) It could be necessary for him to take on a personality to interface with us finite beings.Hm. But god doesn't interface with us? Also, maybe this 'personality' is something humans project onto god, so they have something to grasp about god.

I won't press it further because I know this is our core belief difference (personal vs. impersonal).Oh, that is simple. If god is alone, she has no personality, if god has other god beings with her, she has personality. Either way, she's an eye catcher. ^^

The upshot would be the same as what Ray suggested earlier.Uuh, "let's change numbers"???

tk102
10-26-2007, 12:02 PM
How would having a personality limit God?He is limited by choosing one personality over another instead of embodying all personalities at once or none (which is the same thing to me). Hypothetically? Yes, I suppose God could, at the cost of our free will regarding Sin.Only insofar that sin becomes a figment of our imaginations and not God's. We would only lose the ability to truly sin against God, though we might believe that we are.But God would not. As he is omniscient and aware of all time, if he were going to do that, he'd have done it already.Yes I suppose stubborn God is quite set in his God personality. Oh well if God is going to gnash his teeth at sin, I guess there's no changing him. Poor God. I wonder if he ever wishes that he was beyond such cares. But I guess he's heavily invested in the whole sin thing, what with sending Jesus to die and all. Imagine how pissed Jesus would be if he found out he died for nothing. You're right, there's no way the Christian God would do that. Furthermore, I don't think that Humanity is going to be the last thing God creates, and I doubt we were the first.We agree. :) I wonder if God sent Messiahs to sinful aliens...


How I cannot see this.Answered above.
Hm. But god doesn't interface with us? Also, maybe this 'personality' is something humans project onto god, so they have something to grasp about god.Interface with us? No. Partake in us as we partake in him, yes. I haven't see avatars of God or been spoken to by God. I am sure humans anthropomorphize God to try to understand him.Oh, that is simple. If god is alone, she has no personality, if god has other god beings with her, she has personality.You are thinking either-or, but what I am saying is both-and. The transcendent can be both one and many at the same time.

Corinthian
10-26-2007, 12:21 PM
So, what, you believe God has no mind? His thoughts do not run along any particular pattern? You think God is just loony-toons? Because personality dictates actions, and not having a personality would either make you brain dead or you'd just go on tangents. God clearly has a personality from the Bible. He does not suddenly start talking in Ebonics to Abraham, nor does he recommend that Shem and Ham try the cannabis. His actions follow a somewhat predicable pattern, it's readily apparent that the same God is at work. If he had no personality or numerous personalities, his actions would vary a great deal, no?

Ray Jones
10-26-2007, 12:25 PM
He is limited by choosing one personality over another instead of embodying all personalities at once or none (which is the same thing to me).Where does it say so?

You are thinking either-or, but what I am saying is both-and. The transcendent can be both one and many at the same time.I did not say 'exclusive or'. If god's both, one and many at the same time, god has both, no personality and personality at the same time.

Prime
10-26-2007, 12:28 PM
Rejecting God IS sin. That's what Sin boils down to. You can't reject God and not Sin. It's impossible, because Sin is Rejecting God, and Rejecting God is Sin. You can't have one without the other.But it is also impossible not to sin even if you accept and worship him either... :)

Corinthian
10-26-2007, 12:30 PM
True, but that is why we can confess our sins and ask forgiveness. Without being in a relationship with God and having Jesus in your heart, you can never get that forgiveness and you will go to Hell.

tk102
10-26-2007, 02:01 PM
You think God is just loony-toons? Because personality dictates actions, and not having a personality would either make you brain dead or you'd just go on tangents...If he had no personality or numerous personalities, his actions would vary a great deal, no?

I believe that Brahman does not act at all because there is nothing external to act upon and has no personality. Individuals act in every which way as do subatomic particles in an inert stone -- so yes God is also these multiple personalities, some loony-toon, some genius, some orderly, some chaotic.

Where does it say so?
I could describe it set notation if that makes more sense. If set P describes the set of all personality traits and set Q describes a set containing only some personality traits, then set Q is a subset of set P and not the other way around, nor is set Q identical to set P.

f god's both, one and many at the same time, god has both, no personality and personality at the same time. Yes. :) Though I'd pluralize that to say he has no personality and personalities at the same time.

Corinthian
10-26-2007, 02:15 PM
Well, then we worship different Gods. The God I worship is always orderly, and more importantly always sane.

tk102
10-26-2007, 02:47 PM
The God I worship is always orderlyDarn that 2nd law of thermodynamics, making things disorderly. It's a sin I tell you. (that was a joke, not a jab :p )
Well, then we worship different Gods.Yes, set P is not identical to set Q. I suppose the Yahweh != Jehovah != Allah due to each god's personality differences. :(

Corinthian
10-26-2007, 04:01 PM
Yahweh and Jehovah are the same God. Allah, on the other hand, is about as closely related as Kali is to Freyr.

RobQel-Droma
10-26-2007, 06:56 PM
Fairy tales next door please.

Way to completely blow him off.

Huh? During life? How can I choose not to be a sinner when I am always a sinner? poppycock. Also, when the choice comes during lief, how come that even unborn babies are considered sinners?

First off, that is all what becoming a Christian is all about. Devoting your life to God and letting him take care of your sins. You will always sin, but if you repent and try to stay true to God, He will accept you. That was part of Jesus mission, you know, although you seem not to care.

Since I have not done that sin, I hard can hold onto it.

You're claiming to be sinless?

Because sin displeases him, and it brings death and suffering. Would you stop death and suffering if you could? I bet as a good Christian you would, eh? Is god not a good Christian.

Without sin, no crimes to wash away...

Sin is usually defined as the absence of God. So the only way to stop this would be to limit our ability to stray from Him.

What's so bad about it? Also, without sin, choosing something over god would be no sin anymore.

Thats so contradictory. Without sin, we would not choose anything but God, because without Him, we sin. Its our nature.

So the only important choice, and the only proper reason for free will to exist is to choose god? How..colourful.

Well, it's not like He created you or the whole universe or anything.

Oh, I think if god does not exist there still would be something like sin. Most probably it'd be called 'immoral act'.

Er... no. Sin is a God-related term. Outside of God, it has no meaning. Anything we would term immoral would be based on our own society that we invented - and it would have no meaning because there would be no purpose in the universe except to just, well, live as whatever...

Hmm, interesting.

But why is a human's capability to think any more advanced than another animals? What makes us special? There are other animals capable of many of the things our minds are capable of. It sounds selfish to say that we are gods children when you in fact have never met god, do not know gods true motives, and get this information from a very old book. I am not trying to be a b**** here, but just stating the obvious.

Saying that humans are the guardians of the world is basically saying that we rule over it, which is the words of ignorant humans thousands of years ago that assumed that they were on a flat planet in the center of the universe. Evolution works on survival, and I think a bug that can live for weeks without a head is a little more ahead than us.

Our intelligent minds help us survive, but it is killing everything around us.

First of all, this is based on evolution, which I do not believe in.

But anyways, your claim that our idea of being God's children is "immature", I guess, or based on ignorance, is interesting. You make a statement out of us getting it out of an "old book." Usually we call that book "God's Word". : That's why we believe it.

And besides, I don't understand your point about the bug. Ummm, yeah, it could survive without it's head (I'm tempted to do a sarcastic "Oh, that's amazing") but I'm not sure where that get's the bug.....

I mean, it can't read, talk, wonder about God, drive a mustang, get elected to bug president, or even sin. Especially without it's head.....

So I really don't know why the freakish ability to survive without your head can say something about yourself. Neither does happening to survive for a very long time (which again, get's into the idea of evolution).

Corinthian
10-26-2007, 07:26 PM
Yeah, those cockroaches sure do build great cities. Oh, wait. The last time a cockroach used a tool, I had duct taped it to one.

Ray Jones
10-26-2007, 07:33 PM
God made the cockroaches. You should at least respect his creations, now shouldn't you?

True_Avery
10-26-2007, 08:25 PM
Yeah, those cockroaches sure do build great cities. Oh, wait. The last time a cockroach used a tool, I had duct taped it to one.
Yeah, and it is silly how they don't wage war with eachother, destroy the environment, etc. I mean, c'mon. Without intelligent minds they must be worth less than dirt huh?

I mean, it can't read, talk, wonder about God, drive a mustang, get elected to bug president, or even sin. Especially without it's head.....
Sounds like a simple life that fits into the natural balance of nature. But, seeing as we see on completely different sides of the board I can tell that there is little use debating, unless you would like to.

God made the cockroaches. You should at least respect his creations, now shouldn't you?
Thank you.

The thing is, the more I read into this thread the more I have less of a feeling of a loving god, and more of a feeling of a power hungry monarchy. God says what to say, says what to do, and if we disobey god or reject god we get the guillotine. Look at Adam and Eve. Disobeyed him once, get all of humanity cursed. Either god is a king playing with toys, or god is an abusive parent who beats their child instead of trying to learn why they do what they do.

Threads like this really do deeply disturb me. They give me an outlook on God I am terrified of, and most of all they make me understand why the religious "Extremists" kill over who is right and who is wrong. People like this, and many people in this thread, who believe 100% that they are right and you are wrong make me afraid to walk outside sometimes.

Also, I am yet to have someone give me a good explaination as to why humans are better than other animals.

Sabretooth
10-26-2007, 11:57 PM
Yeah, those cockroaches sure do build great cities. Oh, wait. The last time a cockroach used a tool, I had duct taped it to one. If my memory of reading the Bible is right, God created animals to serve mankind. So, cockroaches were made to be duct-taped to things? Interesting.

Jvstice
10-27-2007, 12:52 AM
Also, I am yet to have someone give me a good explaination as to why humans are better than other animals.

Basic compassion and ability to feel pain (physical, mental, or emotional). It's why people get less upset about experiments on fish than they do dogs or cats. It's why many suggest that the great apes should be extended some human rights.

It's a matter of degree. Our minds make us capable of greater self awareness. Doesn't necessarily change behavior to make us more altruistic, but it opens up the possibility of being reasonable through communication to a greater degree as a way of solving problems rather than violence. And while it's true no known animal other than the genus Pans and the Homo sapiens have the brain power for as sustained an effort as war or genocide, no other species can consider the good of another species (or their own) in a systematic way either.

Rev7
10-27-2007, 01:27 AM
God made the cockroaches. You should at least respect his creations, now shouldn't you?
I think that we all, to some extent, should respect God's creations. Here is a quote from the Bible...
God said, let Us [ Father, Son and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all the Earth, and over everything that creeps upon the Earth.

It is your choice to believe that or not. I , at the moment, have nothing more to say. :)

PoiuyWired
10-27-2007, 04:26 AM
So, technically we don not have to respect the un-[tamed] beasts, and alien from space.

Jvstice
10-27-2007, 12:19 PM
I've never seen anyone add the spurious word "tamed" to the translation of that passage from genesis. As a matter of fact, most people that I've heard that have been to any seminary anywhere where they learned biblical translation teach the exact opposite, that we are responsible for all of them, not just the tamed ones.

It hasn't really made a difference that I've seen whether the person's biases are Catholic, Baptist or Presbyterian at least.

Rev7
10-27-2007, 03:43 PM
I guess I should have said that I got that quote from the Amplified Bible, and that is a translation.

So, technically we don not have to respect the un-[tamed] beasts, and alien from space
I think that you are misinterpreting the quote. Untamed animals are generally not affected by what we humans do, they have a mind of their own, and generally have no human interaction. The "alien from space" part makes no sense to me. The quote says we have authority over the Earth, and every animal, not aliens. Whether there are aliens, is a contriversial topic. I would have to see one right in front of me in order to believe that there are such things, but that is for another thread.

Jvstice
10-27-2007, 07:36 PM
Untamed animals are generally not affected by what we humans do, they have a mind of their own, and generally have no human interaction.

So humans didn't affect the passenger pigeon, the dodo bird, the spotted owl, the U.S. bald eagle, the sabre - toothed tiger, and the wooly mammoth in a significant way? I think you're being guided by some extreme logical fallacies. All of them other than the spotted owl and the bald eagle were wild animals (that remained wild animals) that were made extinct by humans.

Rev7
10-27-2007, 07:57 PM
Remember I said "generally"?? In most cases, is what I meant.

Jvstice
10-27-2007, 08:12 PM
We're extinguishing far more species than that. That is an utter betrayal of the concept of stewardship as portrayed in genesis, and that is the truth.

Corinthian
10-27-2007, 08:30 PM
So what? The dinosaurs went extinct without the intervention of humans. Everything in the natural realm has a beginning and an end.

Jvstice
10-27-2007, 08:52 PM
Things are going extinct at a rate unheard of since then though, and it should concern you for that reason if nothing else.

Rev7
10-27-2007, 11:56 PM
Everything in the natural realm has a beginning and an end.
I totally agree. Everything is starting to deterierate in the natural realm, and will only get worse, and that is a fact. Think about it,for example there is a massive famine in Africa. We can try to aid the Africans, but we cannot prevent the famine and the drought. There are so many things that are going wrong in the world that we cannot stop. Thing will only get worse...

mur'phon
10-28-2007, 06:26 AM
Thing will only get worse...

Then lets hope those bad things start happening to the western world so that people get of their asses and start doing something about it.

Ray Jones
10-29-2007, 01:19 PM
I think a drought in the western world will not necessarily bring people off their butts and make them help other people who are rather far away.

Jvstice
10-29-2007, 04:14 PM
True. Most people would say that charity starts at home, the world over.

RobQel-Droma
10-30-2007, 06:42 PM
God made the cockroaches. You should at least respect his creations, now shouldn't you?

Wait... all of a sudden you're worried about respecting God's creation? ;)

Yeah, and it is silly how they don't wage war with eachother, destroy the environment, etc. I mean, c'mon. Without intelligent minds they must be worth less than dirt huh?

Using that same logic, I could say that a table could possible be worth more than humans, since they do neither of the things you mentioned.....

Neither can cockroaches affect the world in a good way - except for possible filling the food chain. And if they are in too great or too little numbers, it could go out of whack. Simply being powerless to do evil is a pretty weak argument to say that they are better. They are also powerless to do any kind of good.

So yes, they are sentient beings and God's creation, but if it was not for the latter ( and their place in the environment), you could say that they would be just a hair above dirt. They're just there.

Sounds like a simple life that fits into the natural balance of nature.

That is what they are, yes.

Thank you.

Again, I wonder about this: two people who have previously brought up the possibility of God being a immoral tyrant - or that He was unworthy to be followed - are now trying to tell believers to respect His creation.

Hmmm.....

The thing is, the more I read into this thread the more I have less of a feeling of a loving god, and more of a feeling of a power hungry monarchy. God says what to say, says what to do, and if we disobey god or reject god we get the guillotine.

Where do you lose the loving God? Oh, and please.... the "guillotine"? You know, throughout our lives, for however many decades we have, we always have the choice to follow God. In fact, no matter what we do, we can always come back and have God except it. Like I said, we have decades to do this, and plenty of encouragement. I really don't know where you get the idea of God just waiting to zap people who stray out of line....

Look at Adam and Eve. Disobeyed him once, get all of humanity cursed.

One rule. One. And they broke it. Had everything they could possibly want, and they couldn't keep one rule. In fact, breaking it, in clear violation of God, knowing that God would punish them. Sounds like a problem on the part of humanity.

Which, you know, they still lived. It was harder for them, but God didn't kill them and send them to hell. In fact, as far as we know, they followed Godafter that, I think.

Not only that, we have thousands, possible millions of times to make a mistake. He doesn't punish you for those, does He? I don't see why you're complaining.

Either god is a king playing with toys, or god is an abusive parent who beats their child instead of trying to learn why they do what they do.

Oh, yes, He does beat you for your mistakes, doesn't He. (ignore the sarcasm :) )

And wait, what did you say? Learning why we do what they do?

What?

He's God! G-O-D God!

He doesn't need to learn, He knows everything, He's God! That's the definition of omniscient! :D

Threads like this really do deeply disturb me. They give me an outlook on God I am terrified of, and most of all they make me understand why the religious "Extremists" kill over who is right and who is wrong.

Funny, with the exception of the Muslim extremists, I don't recall hearing people murder others in America over religion that much.

People like this, and many people in this thread, who believe 100% that they are right and you are wrong make me afraid to walk outside sometimes.

Well, of course I believe I am 100% right, in the major points. I mean, this is kind of the point of all life, so I am very definite in what I believe.

Oh, and.... come on, man. You can cut the exaggeration. For some reason I doubt you are hiding in your house, afraid of the Catholics, Christians, and whatever else waiting outside with shotguns to murder you because you don't believe what they do. Either you are way exaggerating (sp?) just to make your point, or you're just paranoid without reason. I think it's probably the first.

Also, I am yet to have someone give me a good explaination as to why humans are better than other animals.

Um.

God says we are. Either than that, which I know you'll blow off, I think it's pretty self-evident when you compare a human being to a cockroach..... :xp:

If my memory of reading the Bible is right, God created animals to serve mankind. So, cockroaches were made to be duct-taped to things? Interesting.

Is this some kind of sad attempt to make Corinthian look like a hypocrite, or what?

Ray Jones
10-30-2007, 08:14 PM
Wait... all of a sudden you're worried about respecting God's creation? ;)No, I just think that someone who believes in god and that he created everything should also respect those creations. Shouldn't he?

Neither can cockroaches affect the world in a good way - except for possible filling the food chain.Well, basically, isn't that what life is about, to spread, and being a part of the food chain? And we were also just a part of it for a long time. Besides that, cockroaches are scavangers, what qualifies them as "affecting the world in a good way".

And if they are in too great or too little numbers, it could go out of whack. Simply being powerless to do evil is a pretty weak argument to say that they are better. They are also powerless to do any kind of good.Who are you to decide what cockroaches can do good? I they had no place in the scheme of life, and had not the power to survive, they surely wouldn't exist anymore. Like countless other species.

So yes, they are sentient beings and God's creation, but if it was not for the latter ( and their place in the environment), you could say that they would be just a hair above dirt. They're just there.Yes, for 250 million years already. Lifeforms who are "just a hair above dirt" don't survive on earth longer than mankind ever will.

Again, I wonder about this: two people who have previously brought up the possibility of God being a immoral tyrant - or that He was unworthy to be followed - are now trying to tell believers to respect His creation.

Hmmm.....And I wonder again, isn't that logical? I mean, this is not about god being a tyrant or not. It's about you respecting what you believe to be his work. I respect cockroaches as lifeforms, regardless if they are god created or not, shouldn't someone who think they are respect them too? And basically I would reckon that duct taping cockroaches and playing it down by labeling them "useless creatures" shows lack of respect. Yes, there are many of them and they have no place in our houses, and are not necessarily of any use to us humans, but that doesn't render them useless in the big picture. like I said before, they are scavangers, which is pretty much an important task, out there, in the wild. :)

Corinthian
10-30-2007, 08:16 PM
Funny, with the exception of the Muslim extremists, I don't recall hearing people murder others in America over religion that much.

$10 says they use the Crusades to prove you wrong somehow. Or at least try to.

Ray Jones
10-30-2007, 08:19 PM
The crusades took place in America?

Jvstice
10-30-2007, 08:31 PM
No

Corinthian
10-30-2007, 08:36 PM
No, but any time you point out the absence of Christian extremist lunatics the Crusades get dragged in.

Ray Jones
10-30-2007, 08:36 PM
I don't recall hearing people murder others in America over religion that much.

$10 says they use the Crusades to prove you wrong somehow. Or at least try to.

Ah. So these ten bucks are eeeaasy money, I guess. XD

Corinthian
10-30-2007, 08:39 PM
Right. Of course, now that it's been thoroughly mentioned, my odds are a lot higher. Then again, they're SpaceBucks, so I don't have too much to worry about.

Jvstice
10-30-2007, 08:43 PM
Of course the US did come close to militarily invading Salt Lake City, after a lot of the first mormons set out west into the frontier in order to have freedom from persecution due to their poligamy.

Rev7
10-30-2007, 08:57 PM
Key Word: CLOSE

Corinthian
10-30-2007, 09:03 PM
Anyone can say we came 'close.'. We came 'close' to a nuclear war with the USSR. We came close to invading China. We came close to defeat in World War 2. Saying that we came 'close' is pointless and meaningless.

Jvstice
10-30-2007, 09:09 PM
Actually it would have been a massacre if the mormons' 3rd leader hadn't had a sudden "revelation" from God the night before the invasion that God didn't want them to practice poligamy any more.

tk102
10-30-2007, 09:16 PM
Topicality, please.

Totenkopf
10-31-2007, 05:20 AM
I respect cockroaches as lifeforms, regardless if they are god created or not...

What does this mean exactly? Do you just collect them and take them back out to the wild if you find them in a house (where you say they don't properly belong) or just squash/exterminate them like most other people? Also, are you insinuating that people who believe in God/god are somehow immoral for not treating all other animals or insects they way they treat other humans (then again, would that even be a good thing seeing how we treat each other ;) )? Also, what exactly do roaches do that make them indespensible to the "health of the planet" (such that their extinction could prove most harmful)?

Prime
10-31-2007, 11:36 AM
Also, what exactly do roaches do that make them indespensible to the "health of the planet" (such that their extinction could prove most harmful)?They are part of the food chain, so they help support other species that use them for food. And like other insects they eat and break down decaying matter, and play an important part of the overall ecosystem.

Ray Jones
10-31-2007, 11:44 AM
What does this mean exactly?It does mean, r-e-s-p-e-c-t towards lifeforms, no matter how different they are. You cannot just go out and kill life just because you cannot cope how it looks or whatever. There are also religions out there which say that every animal's soul was a human soul earlier, so basically, when you squash a big fat bug it could have been the stinking uncle Bob once. :p Respect means also that no matter what you think of some creature it doesn't mean it's useless.

Do you just collect them and take them back out to the wild if you find them in a house (where you say they don't properly belong) or just squash/exterminate them like most other people?If possible I usually do not squash whatever insect found its way into my flat. I collect them and take them out. :) Of course, I life in Germany and there are not many if not no in any way toxic insects around here. Also, we're talking about single creatures here not a whole plaque where you have tons of ants or cockroaches running through your house.

Also, are you insinuating that people who believe in God/god are somehow immoral for not treating all other animals or insects they way they treat other humans (then again, would that even be a good thing seeing how we treat each other ;) )?When did I say they should treat any animals like they treat humans? That wouldn't even be possible, since I would not necessarily find it to be a good idea to try to shake hands with an ice bear or a black mamba. And frankly, I don't care if someone believes in whatever god.

Maybe I should try to make that clear once more: *if* someone believes in god and that this god created everything, and he respects his word, law, divinity, whatever, shouldn't it be a logical consequence that this person also respects what he believes to be god's work? At least in my book declaring it useless or unnecessarily doing harming to it shows a lack of respect for this "work of his god". Everywhere they go "respect god", "respect unborn life", "don't kill thy neighbour", "gayness is not what god wants us to do", "masturbation is murder", "obey god or else", "god has made this and that", "it's god's will" and what not and they yell at everybody who dares to think different, but when it comes to some small insect which is, according to their beliefs also a god made creature, it suddenly doesn't mean anything anymore that god made it, suddenly god's creation is called useless, worthless, and they ask "why is it there anyway".

Isn't that turning away from god already? Isn't that sin? No way, it's just a useless cockroach! :¬:

Also, what exactly do roaches do that make them indespensible to the "health of the planet" (such that their extinction could prove most harmful)?Cockroaches are scavengers and do exactly what all scavengers do. Scavengers clean up the place from the rotting remains of any life, which is very important to a working eco-system. They eat the dead remains of other animals or plants. From that point of view they are as (un?)important as many other insects, hyenas, piranhas or even sharks. I've seen deep see sharks cleaning a dead 5 ton (sunken down to the ground to 1400m depth) whale down to the bones in like 2 days, what the sharks left over was then eaten by some eels and worms and the rest was done by a huge colony of bacterias. By the way, even early humans supposedly were scavengers to some degree, as they were waiting to get a hold of what the big predators left over from their prey.

Also, if no one would clean up the place, pretty much every lake, river or ocean would be filled with toxic water, full of bacterias and germs for any illness one can think of. For instance.

However, what do animals or plants do massively productive anyway, besides eating each other, making loo and poo, standing in the way and disturbing our peace?

Jvstice
10-31-2007, 06:00 PM
Maybe I should try to make that clear once more: *if* someone believes in god and that this god created everything, and he respects his word, law, divinity, whatever, shouldn't it be a logical consequence that this person also respects what he believes to be god's work? At least in my book declaring it useless or unnecessarily doing harming to it shows a lack of respect for this "work of his god". Everywhere they go "respect god", "respect unborn life", "don't kill thy neighbour", "gayness is not what god wants us to do", "masturbation is murder", "obey god or else", "god has made this and that", "it's god's will" and what not and they yell at everybody who dares to think different, but when it comes to some small insect which is, according to their beliefs also a god made creature, it suddenly doesn't mean anything anymore that god made it, suddenly god's creation is called useless, worthless, and they ask "why is it there anyway".

Isn't that turning away from god already? Isn't that sin? No way, it's just a useless cockroach! :¬:


Actually, the book of Genesis claims exactly this. After Noah and his family survive the flood and are released from the Ark, God tells them that they can eat meat and lays down a prohibition against murdering other humans.

The prohibition against murder is spelled out as not destroying the image of God, since humans are created in the image of God, and people are required to kill animals that they eat in a respectful way.

Totenkopf
11-01-2007, 12:56 AM
@Prime/Ray---I get the whole "chain of life" thing, but if every animal and/or insect were that important (afterall, we're all part of that chain), then extinctions of any species should have proven catastrophic to the planet. I suspect if the cockroach disappeared overnight, something would take its place.

Ray Jones
11-01-2007, 05:39 AM
Err, but that is not something new, either. Except for small and micro-organisms, which are at the lower end of the food chain, every species will easily have an successor who will fill the gap it would leave and almost nothing would happen. That's the whole concept of life and evolution, after all. Also, that still does not render a species useless, just because it could be "replaced". I mean name an animal whose extinction would cause a catastrophe. And what's that "catastrophe" anyway?

Totenkopf
11-01-2007, 07:52 AM
Well, I'm not arguing that cockroaches don't make some contribution, just that killing them is not a moral issue just b/c they were "created by God". Seems like a kind of specious argument that theists shouldn't hurt any lifeform b/c "god" might be somehow offended (ie. sin). I will grant you that taping a cockroach to a hammer is frivilous, just not "sinful". Curious, though, to what extent do you "respect" plant life? It's also living, afterall.

Ray Jones
11-01-2007, 09:11 AM
Well, I'm not arguing that cockroaches don't make some contribution, just that killing them is not a moral issue just b/c they were "created by God".I did not talk about moral issues or killing them. I just wondered why one would respect a god and consider this god's word to be "law" and say what god does stands without question, and then on the other hand label some of his god's creatures "useless" and "a hair above dirt", nothing more. It just makes no sense to say "we cannot comprehend what god has in his mind when he does something and he has reasons for everything and is omniscient anyways" and so forth, and at the same time, he questions what he did and shows no respect for it.


Seems like a kind of specious argument that theists shouldn't hurt any lifeform b/c "god" might be somehow offended (ie. sin).Huh? I thought religion is all about "not to sin", in other words not to do something that might offend your god? I can imagine that god does not consider it to be OK if you're going to do harm unto his creatures without any given reason but that one where you think "these are just some lousy bugs, I pee all over those worthless beings."


I will grant you that taping a cockroach to a hammer is frivilous, just not "sinful".So, why doesn't he just take that cockroach, duct tape it to a hammer, shout out loud "See god, this is what I do with your creation, **** that creepy insect, it's worthless, you made it, I'll kill it, for no other purpose than [insert personal motive here], so why don't you shove it up your omnilala anus!! -- Oh, by the way, god, my little brother is very ill, please care for him so he'll be well again real soon, pleeaase????", and then crash its exoskeleton into thousand pieces. :dozey:


Curious, though, to what extent do you "respect" plant life? It's also living, afterall.I do respect plant life to the same extend I do respect animal life, what else?

Corinthian
11-01-2007, 12:54 PM
First of all, that incident never actually happened. I was making a very poor excuse for a joke. Yes, if I had done it, it would have been sinful, as I was essentially torturing the creature before snuffing it, but I didn't. I do my best to kill them quickly...they give me the creeps, anyway, I can't handle them long enough to get tape on them. Can we move on? This really isn't germane.

Ray Jones
11-01-2007, 03:10 PM
I do my best to kill them quickly...they give me the creepsSome worms or slugs give me the creeps, too, but that doesn't mean I must kill them. :rolleyes:

Corinthian
11-01-2007, 05:24 PM
Worms and slugs don't crawl on your leg at night, unless you're sleeping in a Hobbit Hole.

Jae Onasi
11-01-2007, 05:54 PM
Topicality, please.

Amen, brother. I'm trying to figure out how slugs and Hobbit holes are related to the nature of sin, and I'm just not seeing the connection, so let's return to the topic before it travels way off course.

Ray Jones
11-01-2007, 06:18 PM
The question currently was: is calling any of gods creatures useless considered sin? Humans, god, sin. There you go. :P

Corinthian
11-01-2007, 07:34 PM
No. Can we move on now?

Jvstice
11-01-2007, 08:37 PM
You can make a pretty strong case that not showing respect for God's creation is a sin in either New or Old Testament. There's nothing that says that killing any kind of plant or animal is a sin though, no matter how you slice it.

Ray Jones
11-02-2007, 06:30 AM
You can make a pretty strong case that not showing respect for God's creation is a sin in either New or Old Testament.OK. Thanks for clarifying that (again). :)

There's nothing that says that killing any kind of plant or animal is a sin though, no matter how you slice it.Killing itself cannot be a sin, and I don't think this was a point in question at any time. Especially since we all have to eat something, at least from time to time. ;)

Totenkopf
11-02-2007, 08:45 AM
I did not talk about moral issues or killing them. I just wondered why one would respect a god and consider this god's word to be "law" and say what god does stands without question, and then on the other hand label some of his god's creatures "useless" and "a hair above dirt", nothing more. It just makes no sense to say "we cannot comprehend what god has in his mind when he does something and he has reasons for everything and is omniscient anyways" and so forth, and at the same time, he questions what he did and shows no respect for it.

Well, if you don't consider killing them/cavalier treatment to be potentially sinful (sin being a breach of morality), then that explanation falls short somehow. By that rationale, we shouldn't walk on the grass (it's a life form) or dig holes in the ground b/c we might disturb the integrity of some "lifeform" already preexisting there, and that might be an offense (however negligent) against God/god.


Huh? I thought religion is all about "not to sin", in other words not to do something that might offend your god? I can imagine that god does not consider it to be OK if you're going to do harm unto his creatures without any given reason but that one where you think "these are just some lousy bugs, I pee all over those worthless beings."

Kinda of like suggesting good civic behavior is primarily about mindlessly obeying the laws on the books.


So, why doesn't he just take that cockroach, duct tape it to a hammer, shout out loud "See god, this is what I do with your creation, **** that creepy insect, it's worthless, you made it, I'll kill it, for no other purpose than [insert personal motive here], so why don't you shove it up your omnilala anus!! -- Oh, by the way, god, my little brother is very ill, please care for him so he'll be well again real soon, pleeaase????", and then crash its exoskeleton into thousand pieces. :dozey:

Such mellowdramatics. :rolleyes: I dunno? :giveup:

Ray Jones
11-02-2007, 09:43 AM
Well, if you don't consider killing them/cavalier treatment to be potentially sinful (sin being a breach of morality), then that explanation falls short somehow.No it doesn't. Because that explanation does not address moral issues of killing or whether it is potentially sinful. It never did. It didn't even address killing in the first place.


By that rationale, we shouldn't walk on the grass (it's a life form) or dig holes in the ground b/c we might disturb the integrity of some "lifeform" already preexisting there, and that might be an offense (however negligent) against God/god.It always depends on why respective how you walk on the grass or why respective how you dig a hole. What might offend god does not (and cannot) solely depend on the fact that someone steps onto grass or digs a hole. But again, that was not the point.


Kinda of like suggesting good civic behavior is primarily about mindlessly obeying the laws on the books.More like suggesting coherent and consequent behaviour, especially when it comes preaching god's will onto others.


Such mellowdramatics. :rolleyes:A rather colourful illustration of what it actually means when a firm believer talks about animals being "one hair above dirt".

Totenkopf
11-02-2007, 08:03 PM
No it doesn't. Because that explanation does not address moral issues of killing or whether it is potentially sinful. It never did. It didn't even address killing in the first place.

Not killing exclusively. However, killing something that doesn't threaten you directly (swatting a fly, stepping on a bug) seems to fall under what you appear to be railing about: the cavalier and seemingly hypocritical treatment of God's/god's creatures b/c they fail to satisfy some arbitrary (from your pov anyway) assessment of the value of God's/god's "lesser" life forms. As this thread is about the nature of sin, it's not unfair to conclude that you were questioning a "a firm believer's" sense of sin via your cockroach example.


It always depends on why respective how you walk on the grass or why respective how you dig a hole. What might offend god does not (and cannot) solely depend on the fact that someone steps onto grass or digs a hole. But again, that was not the point.

It may not have been your point, but this isn't one dimensional yes/no either. The underlying assumption w/in your challenge is the idea that all life is equal in value in God's/god's eyes, regardless of whatever your personal belief system is. You imply that it may well matter to God/god, but then insist that it shouldn't/can't. Don't know what to make of that. So, why assume that a God/god you don't believe in anyway would be offended that you kill/hurt/disrespect a cockroach simply b/c He/he created it? Who's to say why such things were put here in the first place.



More like suggesting coherent and consequent behaviour, especially when it comes preaching god's will onto others.

Meh........more like an overly simple, if consistent, view of interpreting God's/god's will. To each his own, I suspect. :)



A rather colourful illustration of what it actually means when a firm believer talks about animals being "one hair above dirt".

Right. Colorful as in mellowdramatic and over the top. :D

Corinthian
11-02-2007, 11:22 PM
I don't see it as being a problem when you destroy a creature that invaded your territory. Just about every other predator on Earth does it. Dogs don't mark their territory because it inflates their ego, you know.

Now, can we get off this little tangent?

RobQel-Droma
11-03-2007, 12:09 AM
A rather colourful illustration of what it actually means when a firm believer talks about animals being "one hair above dirt".

Oh, nice....

I was talking about cockroaches - which, BTW, I tend to not kill insects either, simply because I just feel slightly guilty about killing other creatures. Especially when they are some kind of mammal. Did you know that? I respect creatures. But compared to humans, I wouldn't even think twice. Perhaps you could find that out before you go out trying to make us all look like sadistic hypocrites with your little rant....

Secondly, what would you do? Would you treat your brother better than an insect? If it was a choice, which would you choose? Would you choose one simply because the species has survived longer than the other? That's no reason to call something better. Sure, rocks have been around longer than cockroaches, even according to evolution. Doesn't say anything about the rocks.

Well, I think I'm going to sign out of the discussion. Since Ray Jones and True_Avery both are speaking on the claim of evolution, it is kind of hard to argue when their viewpoint is that creatures have been evolving on the Earth for 250 million years - and I believe something totally different. Which is ok with me. :) I mean, evolution is really a topic for another thread. Which, I'd be more than happy to join in if it was started.

So, I think that I've said what I've needed to (although I might chime in).

Ray Jones
11-03-2007, 08:42 AM
Not killing exclusively. However, killing something that doesn't threaten you directly (swatting a fly, stepping on a bug) seems to fall under what you appear to be railing about: the cavalier and seemingly hypocritical treatment of God's/god's creatures b/c they fail to satisfy some arbitrary (from your pov anyway) assessment of the value of God's/god's "lesser" life forms.You missed the point again. Forget the killing. It's one step before that. :)


As this thread is about the nature of sin, it's not unfair to conclude that you were questioning a "a firm believer's" sense of sin via your cockroach example.Yes, right direction.


The underlying assumption w/in your challenge is the idea that all life is equal in value in God's/god's eyes, regardless of whatever your personal belief system is.Correct.


You imply that it may well matter to God/god, but then insist that it shouldn't/can't. Don't know what to make of that.It matters to god how you think about his creatures, that's a small step before you going to treat any of them, and makes a difference. Hence the pure fact that one of his creatures ceased living cannot matter to him, at least regarding the aspect of sin.


So, why assume that a God/god you don't believe in anyway would be offended that you kill/hurt/disrespect a cockroach simply b/c He/he created it?It doesn't matter what I do believe or not. What matters is that if you tell me I will go to hell because I am a sinner because I don't believe in your god and that you are the one who's gonna be saved because you accepted god into your heart and god is your truth, that is plain controversial to any comment containing disrespectful statements about your god's work. It's not so much about god or any belief in the first place, but double standards, ignorance and presumptuousness, regardless if you see this from a religious point of view, or a scientific.


Who's to say why such things were put here in the first place.I think I am not. Are you? But that's basically the point. Who decides what's a "good" being, and what's a "bad" one? Which has a purpose, which not. Where do we draw the line? You cannot have a fully fledged (god made?) eco-system and then take out what you don't like to see.




I don't see it as being a problem when you destroy a creature that invaded your territory. Just about every other predator on Earth does it.Every creature, predator or not, which is "defending" its territory does not do this because it "thinks" that the other one is "worthless".



I respect creatures.You know, respect does not just start where you not going to kill someone/something.


But compared to humans, I wouldn't even think twice.Fine. Me too. Again: not the point in question.


Perhaps you could find that out before you go out trying to make us all look like sadistic hypocrites with your little rant....Perhaps statements like "they're one hair above dirt" combined with "I believe in god, that he created everything and his word is teh law rana rana" make you look like hypocrites on your own. Maybe you could think about that. Imagine but one second what your god might think when you call his work use- and worthless. You all defend the principle of sin (which is also a creation of your god) or even the existence of Satan as necessary for free will to exist and so on, despite the fact that is causes so much suffering, but when it comes to a simple creature, also made by god, you go "Bah. Away with it!"


Secondly, what would you do? Would you treat your brother better than an insect? If it was a choice, which would you choose? Would you choose one simply because the species has survived longer than the other?Choose what? My brother over a cockroach when both lives are in danger? Come on. This is not about choosing. It's about that one cannot spout god's oh so true words upon everybody who thinks different, and how one must respect religion and whatnot, and at the same time talk disrespectful about any other of god's creatures! Is that a so difficult logic to follow?

RobQel-Droma
11-03-2007, 09:50 PM
You know, respect does not just start where you not going to kill someone/something.

I never knew....

Trust me, I have more respect than that. :) Do you?

Fine. Me too. Again: not the point in question.

Ah, we do agree on something. But you're right, that wasn't quite the argument.

Perhaps statements like "they're one hair above dirt" combined with "I believe in god, that he created everything and his word is teh law rana rana" make you look like hypocrites on your own.

Did I ever say that I treated them as if they were one hair above dirt? No. (although, if you saw one in your home, would you be so sorry if you squashed it?) However, I did make the statement that one cockroach matters just a little bit above than dirt - and I did not use "dirt" because of some derogatory reason, I could have used rocks, or trees, or whatever.

Imagine but one second what your god might think when you call his work use- and worthless.

You seem to be referring to a statement that I can't recall making. Did I ever say cockroaches were useless/worthless? Er..... No. Everything has a place in the world, and a use. I firmly believe that. You seem to be putting words in my mouth, my friend.

You all defend the principle of sin (which is also a creation of your god)

You haven't really read any of my posts, have you? ;)

I have actually noticed that you pretty much respond to half my posts, and ignore all the rest, though. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to argue my view about sin when you don't even listen.

or even the existence of Satan as necessary for free will to exist and so on, despite the fact that is causes so much suffering,

Again, we've already been over this, before we got on a little tangent here.

but when it comes to a simple creature, also made by god, you go "Bah. Away with it!"

Putting words in my mouth....

Choose what? My brother over a cockroach when both lives are in danger? Come on. This is not about choosing.

Oh, no, I think it's very relevant. Are you actually going to answer the question?

It's about that one cannot spout god's oh so true words upon everybody who thinks different,

You know, I like how you work in all that sarcasm and stabs at religion in that one little paragraph. But that's not the point.

Before this thread, I don't think any of us were trying to "spout god's oh so true words upon everybody who thinks different" on you. Do you just have some mindset that religion is trying to impose its beliefs on yours? Seems to be some kind of problem on your end, because I certainly haven't done it. Are you kind of overly defensive about your views?

and how one must respect religion and whatnot,

I don't recall saying that. Although, I would agree to the extent that you should give respect where respect is due. (kind of a Bible principle :) ) Which may not be in a religion, of course.

and at the same time talk disrespectful about any other of god's creatures! Is that a so difficult logic to follow?

You can't work both sides of the fence, Ray. You can't have "oh, you're a hypocrite, you disrespect God's creatures" and then say "god is immoral, he isn't doing things right, creatures have been evolving for millions of years and are just about equal to humans, etc." Your actual belief, I would think, would have nothing wrong with disrespecting creatures - which none of us have done, incidentally.

In fact, you have been disrespecting God in some of your posts, much less His creation. And, well, that's your choice. Nothing I can do about it. But I just wonder the idea of disrespecting the Creator and then calling other people out because you think they are disrespecting the Creation.

Again, humans were supposed to be the caretakers of the world, that's what the Bible says. That's pretty much my viewpoint on humans and animals; you seem to think that we're both equal, of course. Again, think of the rocks.... (wait - you did actually read that part of my post, right?)

Well, unless you have anything else directed to me, I'll be pretty much out of this discussion.

Ray Jones
11-04-2007, 01:41 PM
(although, if you saw one in your home, would you be so sorry if you squashed it?)By accident? Of course.


However, I did make the statement that one cockroach matters just a little bit above than dirt - and I did not use "dirt" because of some derogatory reason, I could have used rocks, or trees, or whatever.

You seem to be referring to a statement that I can't recall making. Did I ever say cockroaches were useless/worthless? Er..... No. Everything has a place in the world, and a use. I firmly believe that. You seem to be putting words in my mouth, my friend.
But you actually choose to use the word dirt, however, and also added "they're just there". In fact you said:

"Neither can cockroaches affect the world in a good way - except for possible filling the food chain. And if they are in too great or too little numbers, it could go out of whack. Simply being powerless to do evil is a pretty weak argument to say that they are better. They are also powerless to do any kind of good.

So yes, they are sentient beings and God's creation, but if it was not for the latter ( and their place in the environment), you could say that they would be just a hair above dirt. They're just there."

in reply to: "Without intelligent minds they must be worth less than dirt huh?"

Which I think comes across quite "derogatory" especially when the context is already set to a 'worth of dirt'. And to put this shorter one could argue you think they are "useless" or "worthless".

No chance to chicken out. :)


I have actually noticed that you pretty much respond to half my posts, and ignore all the rest, though.OK, what point did you bring up that I have not or insufficiently answered?


I'm not sure how I'm supposed to argue my view about sin when you don't even listen.You have yet to show me that I didn't listen. :)


Putting words in my mouth....Really? I think I was more likely putting meaning to your words.


Oh, no, I think it's very relevant. Are you actually going to answer the question?I cannot see how it is relevant. But I surely will answer that question. Which one exactly?


Before this thread, I don't think any of us were trying to "spout god's oh so true words upon everybody who thinks different" on you.

Do you just have some mindset that religion is trying to impose its beliefs on yours? Seems to be some kind of problem on your end, because I certainly haven't done it. Are you kind of overly defensive about your views?Please, let's review the whole sentence, not just what you quoted and thus put it slightly out of context: "one cannot spout god's oh so true words upon everybody who thinks different, and how one must respect religion and whatnot, and at the same time talk disrespectful about any other of god's creatures"

I was in no way defending "my views", merely trying make my point clearer.


In fact, you have been disrespecting God in some of your posts, much less His creation. And, well, that's your choice. Nothing I can do about it. But I just wonder the idea of disrespecting the Creator and then calling other people out because you think they are disrespecting the Creation.Aah. Now you might see where I am coming from. *I* don't claim to be religious. *I* don't claim to follow god's word and see his word as law of all laws. *I* don't claim I respect him and have let him into my heart. But *you* do/did. And Corinthian does/did. Or am I wrong with that?

I might as well now stress once more what has been said: "duct taping cockroaches to tools" or "one hair above dirt".

Corinthian
11-04-2007, 01:47 PM
This is really off topic, you know.

Jae Onasi
11-04-2007, 05:36 PM
OK, enough with the cockroaches already.