Sin

[agnosticator]

"And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48

 

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30

 

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." -- 2 Timothy 1:9

 

"He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." -- Ephesians 1:4-5

 

"God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:13

 

and who is going to hell.

 

"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

 

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation." -- Jude 4

 

There's nothing you can do about it.

 

"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." -- Romans 9:11-22

[Ouroboros]

I thought I just had. Assuming that morality is absolute, would that lead to sin being absolute as well? And if absolute morality must be created by God, then would this mean that absolute sin also must be created by God?

 

Please define what you mean by morality being absolute. I prefer to say that morality is objectively true. If it is objectively true, then it has to have a transcendent source and we would have to be accountable to that source if morality was to have any oughtness to it. However, I see no reason, even given your explanation why sin would have to be grounded in God or be absolute. Maybe you could explain further.

 

LNC

So sin is not objectively true then? What does it make it? Objectively false or subjectively true or subjectively false?

 

But if sin is objectively true, then it must have an objective, transcendent source... i.e. God.

[Ouroboros]

I don't believe that is my argument, nor have I even presented such an argument. I've said all along that God doesn't remove free will, even for those who trust in him.

Wishywashy, flipfloppy, spin the words to save another day.

 

So God is not removing the "will" or "free" in free will, but he removes the "desire" to will anything that is against his will.

 

Potato, potaato.

[LNC]

"John 1:3-Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

 

this would state that sin would of been made by God and endorsed by him.

 

for a all powerful god this desicsion is pretty stupid imo to create somthing that you cant stand to the point you send people to hell becuase they jsut so happen to posses somthing that you created is absured.

 

and our morality comes from the ideals of our society and the influences around us probly originating ultimatly from our biological make up. for example in the collapse of society the guy killing mothers and stealing cars would be common place becuase the needs of survival demand it. rember we are no more than species of animals our selves with a higher state of awarness of its existance (this is debatable) and in its development has out grown the need for savage killing. but it isnt to say we CANT commit the acts of violence on such scale.

 

also the God of the bible "comands" his faithful servents to go kill babies, cattle and women. rather than use his INFINANTE POWER to educate and fix peoples rather than to hurt them.

 

Sin is not an ontological thing, but the absence of the good. Sin didn't exist in the beginning, it was not introduced until man rebelled against God. Man chose not to obey or do what was good and evil entered in.

 

God doesn't send people to hell because he can't stand them. In fact, he still loves them. He sends them to hell because they have chosen to go where God is not and that is hell. It is actually the person who chooses hell that is not smart.

 

So, you're saying that morality is ultimately relative in nature? Can you define society? Can you define whose society dictates morals and why anyone else in other societies should follow them? Whose biology decides proper morals? For example, if a person's biology makes them murder or rape, should they be off the hook? How could we prove that their actions either were or weren't caused by their biology? Can we really say that society collapsed? That would imply that there is an objective way that society should be, but if society changed (what you call collapse), wouldn't that just be a new definition of society and therefore, right? Now, you claim that survival is a need, but that is to sneak in an objective standard it seems. I will ask, survival of whom? Yes, I want to survive, but that doesn't mean that anyone else necessarily has to survive, let alone the species. Over 99 of all species that have existed have gone extinct, so our species should not have any "right" to survive, as much as we might want that to happen. If morality is relative, why CAN'T we go on committing acts of violence? We may not want it to happen, but it doesn't translate into an objective ought on that basis.

 

No, God didn't command people to go and kill babies. Please show me where you believe he did. God did use his infinite power to do more than educate people (some of the most educated people can be the most evil), he used his power to redeem and change people's desires from doing evil to doing good. Education is not enough to change people, otherwise, there would be no doctors who smoked cigarettes.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Most loving and caring fathers would. An evil uncaring father wouldn't. I, as a father would do everything I could to protect my children from low life bastards and to hell with the freewill of the perpetrator. My kids right to a safe and happy life comes before some bastard who wants to commit attrocities. Surely you as a parent would understand something about what a person would do to protect their child. Wouldn't you do whatever you could to protect your children?

Can you cite some statistic on to make your case? Not that I disagree with you, but it seems to be no more than an assertion on your part. Second, you seem to assume that God's ultimate intention is to make us happy in this life, which I don't believe is the case. The ultimate good is to know God and to spend eternity with him, which is a lot better end and a lot longer end than this temporal life. What if protecting my child (or you protecting yours) meant that you had to inflict pain on them? Would you do that?

 

Do you seriously believe this? Really? When you make rules for your kids and stop them from doing wrong, do you consider that violating their freewill? Do they become automatons? I have rules in my house and my kids keep the rules. I will stop them if I catch them doing something wrong. They are certainly not automatons. It's not like God would be tying up the perpetrator and controlling everything they do. All he would be doing is stepping in and preventing evil, which really for an all powerful God would be an effortless thing. To not do that shows an uncaring and unloving God.

 

Ask yourself this question. If God won't or can't do it on Earth, how do you expect him to keep Heaven free of evil? If he can deal with it in Heaven without violating freewill, then he can do it on Earth. And if you think God would never violate freewill, then you haven't read much of the bible. He violated freewill whenever he wants. He even forced an entire army of Midianites to turn against each other and slay each other with swords. (Judges 7:22) I also gaurantee that many of the prayers you pray and give thanks to God for when you get what you ask for, involve God having to violate someone's free will.

When I impose rules on my kids, it doesn't negate their ability to disobey those rules and, at times they do. God doesn't remove evil from the world by imposing rules on us, otherwise, evil would be long gone. So, I'm not sure what your point is here. You say that God would step in to prevent evil, please explain how that would happen without taking away free will. How would he take away our evil thoughts without violating our wills? How would he prevent us from even speaking hurtful words? I don't see how this would happen without our world seeming completely chaotic. Can you imagine that every time a person had the desire to carry out an evil intent, their actions would be frustrated? Would that take away the desire? No, it would probably make some people more and more determined. It would consume the person.

 

The issue, however, is not whether God can stop evil on this earth, it is whether that is his ultimate intention, to make us happy in this life by removing all evil. His ultimate goal is not happiness for a short time, but happiness for eternity. In that case of the Midianites, he didn't force them to do anything, he simply allowed them to do what was in their hearts and minds already.

 

This isn't "Back to the Future". This isn't about going back and time and avoiding changing something that would have a domino effect and change the future. We're talking about the present. If God won't intervene, then how can you possibly consider him loving and caring?

Why do you consider God not to be loving if he doesn't intervene. My parents loved their children, but when my brothers were intent on their acts of rebellion, my parents didn't intervene. They had to learn the hard way if they weren't going to learn from my parents' instruction. Do you think that is wrong? If so, on what basis?

 

How do you think God will do it in Heaven? Why not apply the same principles to here on Eart? I can personally give you a list of possible ways to prevent evil without violating freewill.

Evil will not be present in heaven and God will. God is not going to force himself on us in this lifetime, but will make himself known to those who have come to trust him in this lifetime by bringing us into his presence in the next. But please, explain how you would do it.

 

Why not? At least for the person giving birth to the future mass murderer and God knows, doesn't he? He knew what an abomonation he was creating when he created Satan, but he went ahead and did it anyway. Imagine what a wonderful world we'd live in if God had refused to create Satan?

 

If you knew that if you had sex with your partner tonight, you were going to give birth to a murderer, would you still have sex with her tonight or perhaps wait until tomorrow night instead? What if the murder victim was a small child and your child you gave birth to actually raped and tortured this child before killing him? What if the person he killed was someone you loved dearly? If you knew all this was going to happen before you concieved that child, you would avoid conceiving it if you could, wouldn't you?

Why wouldn't the parents count that as evil, the fact that they either lost the pregnancy or couldn't conceive? Satan wasn't an abomination when God created him. In fact, he was God's highest and most powerful angel. It was the rebellion that Lucifer conceived of in his heart and then carried out that caused his fall.

 

Do people commit rape? Do people engage in sex with people they hardly know? Do men conceive children and then abandon both mother and child? Is it more likely that those children are going to grow up in a troubled environment and be more likely to commit crimes? Yet, out of wedlock births are at an all time high and so is crime in those communities. It is not a matter of what you or I would do, but what is being done on a regular and ever growing basis in our day.

 

So you're saying God is limited? He couldn't stop the perpertrator if he really wanted to?

I didn't say that. Even if he stopped the crime, he would have to change the person's will to change their intent. The only way for that to happen is for the person to know that they are sinful and in need of salvation. We are great at rationalizing, even when we go beyond intent to actually committing evil.

 

So we should just let them do whatever they like then? Let them cause suffering to whoever they want? Even you say you stop them when you see it. You do it because you're a caring compassionate person, right? Because you couldn't just stand there and do nothing. God, if he is as the bible claims him to be sees ALL the we do. He is there every time a human being commits an attrocity. If he stands by and does nothing then he cannot be considered compassionate and loving, only uncaring or apathetic.

You and I both know that we cannot control every behavior of our children. Even if we can control most when they are with us, some day they will be on their own and will be able to do what they want. But again, God's desire is not to corral us and to stop our behavior, but to save us because we are sinners in need of salvation.

 

But he does violate freewill. And if Christians are to be believe, he does it all the time when answering prayers and I can quote numerous scriptures where God violates people's freewill in the bible. Stopping someone from performing an evil act is far more compassionate and caring than allowing one to continue.

Please quote the Scriptures. God paid the ultimate price to redeem us from ourselves and our sinful rebellion, so I don't have to be convinced that he is compassionate.

 

Of course the world would be better! No torture, murder, rape, child molestation... World a better place? You better believe it. Maybe not for the ones who want to do that stuff, but for the majority, good law abiding people who'd never dream of doing stuff like that, a resounding YES! Imagine all those poor children, rape and torture victims who will not have to live with the nightmares. You will not have suffered psychologically or physically. You're trying to say their world wouldn't be better? Seriously?

Suppose that ending all of these acts meant that people lived a more pleasant life on this earth, but then went to hell for eternity. Would that be better? We live our lives, still with our evil intents, but no means of carrying them out to completion, but also without guilt for our evil intentions since we never can carry them out, so we don't think we're that bad and don't think we need salvation, so we go to hell because we don't think we're that bad, when all that is different is an artificial limitation (meaning that it is a limitation imposed on us, rather than born out of us) on our ability to carry out our intents. God seems to have a reason to allow the evil to exist, at least for this time.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

Therefore those people in Heaven will have their freewill violated. They will have the desire to sin supressed. They will be like automatons if we go by your logic.

How do you come to that conclusion? It doesn't follow logically. A person can have his desires changed without losing free will. For example, when my brother-in-law became a Christian, his desire to drink alcohol (he was an alcoholic) went away. Did God violate his free will? No, he wanted to quit and God gave him the power and the freedom to do so.

 

Other question: How can God be omnipresent, yet one not be in his presence?

 

 

Good question. Yes, we are all, in a sense, in the presence of God; however, God keeps an epistemic distance from us in this lifetime and reveals himself fully in the next. So, that is the distinguishing descriptor.

 

LNC

[LNC]

That's right. There is no "free will" in the Bible either. No suggestion of it. Free will is just an excuse for Biblegod and a way to try to throw blame on people when God is ultimately responsible. I totally reject it.

 

“No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.” 1 Cor. 10:13

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” Genesis 2:16-17, 25

Sounds like free will to me. If you disagree, please explain.

LNC

[Ouroboros]

Tomato, tomaato.

[agnosticator]

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

Sounds like free will to me.

 

Your free to eat from anytree, but... This is a contradiction. The biblegod tells them it's OK, but not OK. They are not free to "become Gods like us".

[bornagainathiest]

3. What type of Multiverse would invalidate the Fine-Tuning Argument?

LNC: I suspect that it would require an infinite number of universes, each with unique sets of constants such that no two are alike. How do you propose that we detect these multiverses?

 

Before I can attempt to answer your counter-question LNC, I need to know which type/s and level/s of multiverse you are asking me about. I didn't specify these details in my initial question, but you seem to be asking me for specifics. Please specify. Thanks.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LNC: Sorry, I had a self-imposed ban on posting to forums as I completed my Master’s thesis.

 

No problem! I was a late-comer to the thread after all.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LNC: ???? I’m not tracking with this question - clarification, please.

 

An irrelevance. Please disregard. Thanks.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

8. So are you a Calvinist? (I put this one to you years ago - and never got a reply.)

 

LNC: For my clarification, please define what you mean by Calvinist. Everyone has different understandings and definitions and I don’t like to respond to questions about names or titles of positions, it can lead to too many misunderstandings.

 

I appreciate your point about different understandings and definitions, but considering that I've waited years for some kind of response from you on this, would it be too much trouble to ask you to present your definition of what you mean by Calvinist? Then you could also present your own position vis-a-vis your understanding of what it means to be a Calvinist.

Given that you've now completed your Master's thesis, you should have enough time to do this, right?

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

[Deva]

“No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.” 1 Cor. 10:13

 

The bolded words say to me "no free will here." Its also patent nonsense because there are plenty of Christians who have not been able to go on or bear things. Then again, the definition of "Christian" is rather shifty, isn't it?

 

The whole idea of the devil tempting people is sheer superstition.

 

The other verse has been addressed by Agnosticator. I completely agree.

[Deva]

Does anyone else think this is really dumb?

 

The whole "free will" schtick is the most worn out apologetic ever. There is no such thing as "free will", much less removal of it. What a ridiculous mess of a statement.

 

Then you had not choice in posting this message? May I take it then that this post is ultimately meaningless groupings of symbols with no intended meaning (as that would require free will on your part to impose meaning on them)? If there is no free will, then this whole forum is just meaningless strings of symbols being placed on the pages with no intention or purpose. Is that what I should conclude (if I had the freedom to do so)?

 

<let the outcry and insults begin>

 

 

LNC

 

I say there is the illusion of "free" will and there is apparent choice. Yes, I had no choice. I was compelled to post the message because of innumerable causes and conditions.

 

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in the rest of this reply. All words are indeed "meaningless strings of symbols" if you don't know the language. Being born into an English speaking family and country, naturally I had no choice but to learn the language. There is no question of free will.

 

I separate intention and purpose from so-called "free will". There is indeed intention and purpose but it isn't "free". Everything that happens or that is done is interdependent and the result of innumerable causes and conditions. Therefore it is not free.

 

As far as insults go, if you post something that insults our intelligence, you deserve a harsh reply.

[centauri]

Sin is not an ontological thing, but the absence of the good. Sin didn't exist in the beginning, it was not introduced until man rebelled against God. Man chose not to obey or do what was good and evil entered in.

This doesn’t explain where evil came from.

Was it the product of a big bang, aliens, or something else?

 

God doesn't send people to hell because he can't stand them. In fact, he still loves them. He sends them to hell because they have chosen to go where God is not and that is hell. It is actually the person who chooses hell that is not smart.

People don’t choose hell.

They are sent there for failing to obey an ultimatum.

 

No, God didn't command people to go and kill babies. Please show me where you believe he did.

Yes, God commanded people to go out and exterminate other people, including babies.

See Deut for details.

[Ouroboros]

A lobotomized person has just as much "free will" as a Christian in Heaven.

[BrotherJosh]

I say there is the illusion of "free" will and there is apparent choice. Yes, I had no choice. I was compelled to post the message because of innumerable causes and conditions.

 

Good point. I saw this earlier today and thought it was rather prescient on the conversation. I also think our earlier discussion in the thread http://www.ex-christ...hat-you-choose/ was a good one that is relevant to this current "debate". I always respect your opinion Deva and on many things I think we agree...

Linky

 

Here is a criticism about God’s omniscience and omnipotence based upon a point made by John D. Barrow in Impossibility, drawing on the work of cognitive scientist Donald Mackay. To put it into simple terms, it might be easier to state it as follows:

 

It has long been understood that with God’s omniscience, he cannot be contrary to his own predictions. For example, if you were claimed as being omniscient and omnipotent and you predicted beforehand that you would make yourself spaghetti bolognaise for supper on Friday, then when it came to making Friday’s supper, you would have no choice but to make the spaghetti bolognaise. This is because if you decided to be contrary to your own prediction and cook, say, pizza, then your prediction would have been incorrect. This would render your omniscience faulty, and would leave you with the characteristic of fallibility.

 

Likewise, God does not have omnipotence, because he cannot do something that would invalidate his infallible predictions.

 

So, logically, God can never be contrary to his own predictions. This constrains his free will quite significantly. However, it is far more serious than this. If he is creating the universe and knowing every particular outcome (even if one argues that he is somehow still allowing free will), then he has made predictions about every event that will come to pass. His foreknowledge is effectively one long prediction.

 

Thus, from the beginning of time onward, everything must come to pass exactly as God had predicted at the actualisation of the cosmos. This has far-reaching consequences: God does not have free will, intercessory prayer is pointless, God cannot change his mind, God's own future and interferences on earth are determined, and the passage in the bible where God changed his mind over the fate of Nineveh is patently false.

 

(Jonah 3: 10 "When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.")

 

[Ouroboros]

Your quote states the same thing I've been arguing with Christians for years. It seems like they don't understand the logical conflict.

[LivingLife]

John 6:44 pretty much refutes free will

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

[Deva]

I say there is the illusion of "free" will and there is apparent choice. Yes, I had no choice. I was compelled to post the message because of innumerable causes and conditions.

 

Good point. I saw this earlier today and thought it was rather prescient on the conversation. I also think our earlier discussion in the thread http://www.ex-christ...hat-you-choose/ was a good one that is relevant to this current "debate". I always respect your opinion Deva and on many things I think we agree...

 

Thank you, BrotherJosh.

 

I was struck many years ago by how frequently free will was brought into any apologetic by Christians. Naturally that made me suspicious of the whole idea since there are already so many obvious errors in Christianity. Upon further investigation and reflection over a period of years, and much reading of eastern philosophy, I decided that free will was just a bogus invention like so much else in Christianity. After a number of years I have not really seen anything to convince me otherwise, although I understand that there is something in quantum physics that seems to indicate some room for free will - I admit I don't understand quantum physics too well. Maybe some day someone will present information or an argument that can persuade me things are not deterministic. Until then, I remain yours truly, the determinist.

[Margee]

John 6:44 pretty much refutes free will

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

 

This scripture ALWAYS confused me!!! And some scriptures actually say god 'blinds' them from seeing the 'truth'!!

[LNC]

But LNC - I don't believe the bible - give me an explanation apart from the book that was written in ancient days, by ancient people........please..........

 

 

Margee, can you give me a reason why the age of the book would invalidate the contents? Is there a specific age by which a historical document expires in veracity? Maybe you can help me here.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

To take away our sinful nature would be to change our very natures. Sin must be a way we reflect God's nature too, in whose image we are created. Our natures don't need changing after all!

I can't take what you have to say about freewill seriously anymore.

 

That is not quite accurate. We were not created with sinful natures, so our sinful nature is an accidental or contingent aspect of who we are, not an essential aspect, therefore, it can change without our essential nature changing. So, no, sin is not a way that we reflect God's nature either.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Transform to what? If free will remains, it's still the same: free and unchanged.

Our wills can be changed without our freedom being altered. For example, I can change my will such that I get myself out of bed in the morning to workout. My body doesn't always want to do it, but my will makes me do it. Before I was a Christian and in my earlier days as a Christian, there were certain sins that I did that have since become unimportant to me. I don't will to do them as my will has been transformed.

 

My bad.

No problem, it is a common misconception.

 

The punishment must not be so bad...

Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus and apparently the rich man was tormented, but still able to think about having someone go to his brothers so they didn't meet his same fate. Yes, the punishment is bad, but it apparently doesn't completely consume the person's thoughts.

 

I can't argue with magic, but the verses referenced in this thread are all about predestination, not free will.

And I don't argue for magic. There are other ways to transform one's desires. I haven't referenced any verses about predestination. However, I'm a compatibilist, I believe that both free will and circumstances of predetermination can coexist.

 

LNC

[LNC]

So sin is not objectively true then? What does it make it? Objectively false or subjectively true or subjectively false?

 

But if sin is objectively true, then it must have an objective, transcendent source... i.e. God.

I believe that morality is objectively true and morality is what defines what is good and what is evil. It is morality that finds its source in God, not sin. Sin is rebellion against moral oughts, the choice to disobey moral commands. Goodness is a thing and evil is the choice to rebel against the good. Some describe it as the absence of good and therefore, not a thing in itself.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

Wishywashy, flipfloppy, spin the words to save another day.

 

So God is not removing the "will" or "free" in free will, but he removes the "desire" to will anything that is against his will.

 

Potato, potaato.

 

Sorry, but I thought my answer was very clear and precise, but you seem to be reading a different answer than what I've written. Let me state clearly, God does not remove free will. God gives us the power to change our desires and eventually, we will be in heaven where there is no temptation to sin and the uninhibited power of God to resist and desires for sin that we once had. I hope that is clear enough.

 

LNC

[Deva]

But LNC - I don't believe the bible - give me an explanation apart from the book that was written in ancient days, by ancient people........please..........

 

 

Margee, can you give me a reason why the age of the book would invalidate the contents? Is there a specific age by which a historical document expires in veracity? Maybe you can help me here.

 

LNC

 

 

 

Of course Margee can speak for herself, but I am sure she just wants something else apart from the Bible. It isn't an unreasonable request.

 

Isn't it a fact that ancient people did not have all the knowledge of science and the laws of the universe we have now? By trying to limit your entire philosophy of life to something written over a thousand years ago you are slamming the door on life as it is now. That is obvious and more than enough reason. I am absolutely sure Margee would never say nothing of value can be found in an old book. That is clearly not the issue here.