Sin

[agnosticator]

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 we are not born sinners? Then I can change my own "sinful nature" apart from the biblegod, since you said: "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."..."it can change without our essential nature changing."

 

You also said,"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."

 

My goal is to choose to do good rather than bad (evil) on a daily basis. Many others here have that same goal and ability to will and do good. I would venture to say many have succeeded in this task. I have changed and directed my actions in accordance with my will without the biblegod "transforming" me for many years, as others have.

 

Please list "the moral oughts" you follow that are different from the "moral oughts" non-believers follow, if you disagree with what I just said. If sin is "rebellion against moral oughts", what morals are not being followed by non-believers? They can only be guilty of being imperfect as you are, but they still do good rather than evil through their own volition. If doing good without the biblegod is called "rebellion" or "sin", then what you are quoted as saying isn't true. It would mean that doing good by one's own volition (will) is evil and rebellious, deserving punishment.

[LNC]

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".

 

I think you parse words too fine. We use these expressions all the time. "You can anything you like, except this." There is nothing contradictory about it as it is simply a qualifier. It implies that you may eat from every other tree, but the one in the middle, the other is implied in the statement.

 

LNC

[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.

 

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

Yes the strong delusion text

2 Thess 2:10-13 1And for this cause God shall send them

strong delusion

, that they should believe a lie,. 12that they all might be damned who believed not the truth,

...

From that perspective we are pretty screwed and we here are here cuz gawd made it so. Nice gawd no?

 

I wonder why that happened, Oh I know, we started to use our brainz. Bad sheep, bad sheep.... baa.... baaa...

 

 

[LNC]

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: Since our own universe is unlikely to be infinite due to the constraints of time, I would suggest that it would have to be a Level 2 or higher multiverse. You can let me know if you have a particular level in mind and why.

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

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

LNC: Thanks for understanding.

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

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?

LNC: I would say that my view is somewhat different from a standard Calvinist view in that I believe that God both foreordains (a point that is common to both Calvinists and Arminians) and uses free will in the saving of sinners. I believe that it is through God’s making the sinner alive in Christ from being dead to sin that shows us our need, and then from that point of recognition we acknowledge our need for salvation and gladly trust Christ.

LNC

[agnosticator]

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".

 

I think you parse words too fine. We use these expressions all the time. "You can anything you like, except this." There is nothing contradictory about it as it is simply a qualifier. It implies that you may eat from every other tree, but the one in the middle, the other is implied in the statement.

 

Even if you see it that way, their free choice was taken away: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." They had a choice, but it was limited by a command. God chose to deny them eternal life with moral awareness. They weren't free to choose from all possible choices.

[bornagainathiest]

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: Since our own universe is unlikely to be infinite due to the constraints of time, I would suggest that it would have to be a Level 2 or higher multiverse.

 

I'm sorry LNC, but if I go ahead and just assume that your use and understanding of certain words and terms is the same as mine, we still run the risk of misunderstanding each other. This is something I'm sure you'll be just as keen to avoid as I am. Therefore, please provide specific answers to these questions. Thank you.

 

1. What do you mean by, 'our universe'?

2. What do you mean by , 'infinite'?

3. What do you mean by, 'time'?

4. Who's definition of Multiversal levels are we using here... Max Tegmark's or someone else's?

 

You can let me know if you have a particular level in mind and why.

 

Yes, I can do that.

 

LNC: I would say that my view is somewhat different from a standard Calvinist view in that I believe that God both foreordains (a point that is common to both Calvinists and Arminians) and uses free will in the saving of sinners. I believe that it is through God’s making the sinner alive in Christ from being dead to sin that shows us our need, and then from that point of recognition we acknowledge our need for salvation and gladly trust Christ.

 

Did I say that my grasp of Calvinism was less than satisfactory? Sorry if I overlooked that.

The same is true when it comes to my appreciation of the Arminian position. So, before I can understand where and how you diverge from them on the issue of foreordination and free will, I'd need to better understand them, wouldn't I?

From the number of confused and disagreeing responses you've had concerning the free will issue, it looks as if other folks would also appreciate it if you gave a clear, specific, point-by-point and in-depth explanation of what Calvin and Arminius meant and where and how you differ from them.

That way, understanding would increase, leading to a less confused state of dialog and debate. Once again, I'm sure that better understanding is something you'll definitely want to foster and promote. Thanks.

 

Btw LNC, I couldn't help but notice that you wrote, 'from being dead to sin'. Is that a typo? Did you mean, 'from being dead thru sin'? When sinners are made alive in Christ they become dead to sin, but not before then. That's right, isn't it?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[agnosticator]

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.

 

Since the biblegod needs believers with proper wills to do good forever, he must work his magic to change their will. My point is that the biblegod uses his supernatural (magic in my mind) powers to "transform" the believer's desires and will, which "violates free will" (OnceConvinced quoted). But I am saying that any person has the ability to change his/her desire and will without supernatural help.

 

The verses about predestination are in post #51 referenced by Thackerie in a previous post.

[agnosticator]

Im just sharing a dose of reality they like to deny Bob. I guess Im unloading it for me too, but I think you may be right. I was just showing who society flushes down the toilet and likes to forget about. Some of us still deal with them every day.

 

The true power of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil- is internal peace and letting what disturbs us die. I guess we are our brothers keeper

 

Some Christians take it upon themselves to reach out and attempt to influence those immoral monsters for the better (morally, but they also include the bible bullshit), while most other Christians are too busy obsessing over their own convoluted salvation to do so. Their "Christian Nation" has failed miserably to solve society's problems, and I think it's because most are too busy dealing with the Misery of Christianity.

 

It's easier to sweep real problems under the rug, than to deal with any solutions. Besides, you can't provide much of a solution when you're part of the problem. The bible's solution lies mostly in individual salvation and an us vs. them mentality, rather than social reform or an inclusive morality. Even if they had an attitude of moral "tolerance" towards the rest of society, it wouldn't solve any problems like cooperation can. Teaching societal cooperation, like the Japanese do, is totally foreign to Christian thinking.

[homospiritus]

I work in prison (not jail). I work with the convicted doing serious time.

 

I would love to hear a christian explanation to these true stories.

 

#1 Parent guts their kid because the kid ate their crack. They did it to get their crack back. They gutted their kid alive to get their crack back. Let that sink in.

 

#2 Convict runs out of gas so they walk to the nearest gas station. They find mama filling her car. They shoot mama in the head in front of the kids. Kick the kids out and take the car and take it.

 

#3 Honestly, I thought twice and deleted this one because its so bad I wouldn't want to put it in your head. Some things stick with you

 

Really.

 

Sometimes I watch those shows on the Bio channel "I Survived" and "I Shouldn't Be Alive" and to think that a god had a purpose for what those people live to talk about is ludicrous.

[chosendarkness]

There are lots of factors in why people do the things they do. The easy way to explain it is sin. The more honest way to approach it would be to ask questions like, is there a history of abuse in the convicted person's family? Did they grow up in conditions of poverty? Did they have an education? What examples did they have to follow? What are you doing about these things as a supposed 'person of God' so that they don't happen as often? Instead of trying to convince people of your religion, sit and think about these things.

[LNC]

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.

 

So, what you are saying is that we are not really tempted since we don't have free will and free will is required for temptation to be meaningful, is that right? Can you not think of another way that God could prevent us from being tempted beyond what we are able to handle than to take away free will? How about just removing the thing that is tempting? We still have free will, but lack the presence of the thing that tempts us. I don't see where the verse says that Christians won't have to bear things, where do you read that?

 

No, the definition of Christian is not shifty, only the way that people try to apply it. How do you know that the idea of the devil tempting people is sheer superstition? Don't you believe that there are other ways to be tempted other than the devil tempting a person? I don't see the idea of the devil tempting in the verse quoted anyway.

 

LNC

[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.

 

How do you know that the free will is an illusion? Without free will, could you ever really discern between illusion and reality? When you say that you were "compelled to post the message because of innumerable causes and conditions, how do you know that? How do you know that is not mere illusion? Without free will, it seems you couldn't really know anything, as knowledge is defined (justified true belief).

 

What I mean is that without free will, language would be meaningless strings of symbols. Knowledge involves intentionality (the ability to have thoughts that are directed toward their object) and the ability to form concepts and then the ability to match those concepts to reality and determine whether they fit or need adjusting. Machines, which lack free will and intentionality, lack the ability to form concepts, to have intentional thoughts, and to form meaning with language. Machines are language processors, but they are not language understanders. To machines, language is meaningless strings of symbols that are manipulated but never imbued with meaning. You may not have had a choice about learning language, but that doesn't mean that you don't have free will. Are you able to learn a second or third language? Sure, because you can choose to do so or choose not to. Are you forced to do either? No. You confuse having some things for which you had no choice, with having no choice at all and that is a mistake. I didn't choose what to eat when I was a baby, but I did choose what to eat for lunch today.

 

Sorry, but there can be no intention or purpose for our actions if there is no free will. My computer has no intention or purpose and it is not free to choose anything. I do have intention and purpose and am free to make choices.

 

I try to be thoughtful with my responses and not insulting. Sometimes, however, my sinful nature gets the best of me, but I try to watch it. Thanks for the reminder.

 

LNC

 

 

 

 

 

[LNC]

This doesn’t explain where evil came from.

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

Evil came from the decision of rational agents to rebel against that which is good. To know the good and to choose not to do it, but instead, to do the opposite. It was not the product of the Big Bang or aliens, but of persons.

 

People don’t choose hell.

They are sent there for failing to obey an ultimatum.

How do you know people don't choose hell? If people know that the consequences of rebellion against God is to spend eternity in hell and then continue to rebel, are they not, in essence, choosing hell?

 

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

See Deut for details.

 

I've read Deuteronomy many times and don't see where God told anyone to kill babies as you said. Nor do I see him command anyone to exterminate anyone else. Maybe you can be more specific with your reference.

 

LNC

[LNC]

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

 

Have you been lobotomized and been to heaven to confirm that this is true? Do you believe that anyone has free will or are you like others in this thread who argues that no one has free will? If people have free will, from where do they get it? How does it originate? Just curious.

 

LNC

[LNC]

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.")

 

First, it is not accurate or precise to say that God predicts as that is a false understanding of omniscience. Omniscience is the present knowledge of all true propositions. However, for God to know what I will freely choose y at time x is not the same as God foreordaining that what I will choose y at time x. That is where people get confused on this topic. Now, say that I get to time x and make a choice that was different, say z, then God would have foreknown that I would choose z at x. It is just not accurate or in keeping with the concept of omniscience to say that foreknowledge entails foreordination, it is a confusion and conflation of concepts.

 

LNC

[LNC]

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.

 

Actually, it does not, except in the case of salvation. But again, just because we don't have freedom to choose one thing, doesn't mean that we don't have the freedom to choose anything.

 

LNC

[LNC]

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

 

Did you have any verses in mind that indicate that God blinds people from seeing the truth? I don't know of any. I do know that Romans says the people suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but that is us, not God doing the blinding. (Rom. 1:18) Rather, Jesus says “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32)

 

LNC

[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.

 

But, that is not what Margee said. She implied the the Bible is not reliable since it is so old. It seems that any other source that is contemporary to the events would be just as old, and therefore, just as unreliable if the age of the work determines its reliability.

 

What would knowledge of science and laws of the universe have to do with their experiences? Would it give them reason to doubt their experiences? If so, to which law of science and law of the universe would you be referring that should make a person doubt his or her own experience? Which laws would make whole groups doubt their very eyes? I don't know that I ever said that I limit my entire philosophy of life to something written thousands of years ago, but you haven't told me why that is inappropriate if I did. What is it about the age of a book that makes it more or less veridical? Does age or time effect truth? Why are our senses more reliable today than they were last year, ten years ago, 100 years ago, or 2,000 years ago? Has eye technology improved in that time? You may speak for Margee all you like, but I based my questions on what she said, not what you believe she means.

 

LNC

[centauri]

This doesn’t explain where evil came from.

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

Evil came from the decision of rational agents to rebel against that which is good. To know the good and to choose not to do it, but instead, to do the opposite. It was not the product of the Big Bang or aliens, but of persons.

What rational agents are you referring to?

Specifically what persons created evil?

Isa 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

Where do you see any persons mentioned in this verse?

 

People don’t choose hell.

They are sent there for failing to obey an ultimatum.

 

How do you know people don't choose hell? If people know that the consequences of rebellion against God is to spend eternity in hell and then continue to rebel, are they not, in essence, choosing hell?

And by that logic, people thrown into gulags by Stalin also chose their fate and volunteered to be punished.

They sent themselves to prison.

If people really have free will, why are they sending themselves to hell?

Are you seriously saying people willingly desire to suffer eternal torment?

They don’t cast themselves into hell, God does.

Luke 12:5

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

 

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

See Deut for details.

 

I've read Deuteronomy many times and don't see where God told anyone to kill babies as you said. Nor do I see him command anyone to exterminate anyone else. Maybe you can be more specific with your reference.

 

It’s not hard to find and it’s repeated several times.

Deut 7:2

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

 

Deut 20:16-17

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

[LNC]

So we are not born sinners? Then I can change my own "sinful nature" apart from the biblegod, since you said: "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."..."it can change without our essential nature changing."

 

You also said,"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."

 

My goal is to choose to do good rather than bad (evil) on a daily basis. Many others here have that same goal and ability to will and do good. I would venture to say many have succeeded in this task. I have changed and directed my actions in accordance with my will without the biblegod "transforming" me for many years, as others have.

 

Please list "the moral oughts" you follow that are different from the "moral oughts" non-believers follow, if you disagree with what I just said. If sin is "rebellion against moral oughts", what morals are not being followed by non-believers? They can only be guilty of being imperfect as you are, but they still do good rather than evil through their own volition. If doing good without the biblegod is called "rebellion" or "sin", then what you are quoted as saying isn't true. It would mean that doing good by one's own volition (will) is evil and rebellious, deserving punishment.

 

I said nothing about birth, I spoke of the nature of our creation. You can try to change your sinful nature, but according to Jesus, it will not work, and believe me, I've tried. The Bible says that we are dead in our trespasses and sins and that we need to be made alive by God. You can change your will, but you cannot change the corruption to your nature. Again, we were created very good (Gen. 1:31) and then from the Fall, our natures were corrupted (Rom. 5: 12ff).

That's great if you have changed yourself so that you no longer sin. Oh but wait, rebellion against God is the chief of sins and you seem to still be in rebellion, so there is still sin that needs to be dealt with, not to mention all the sins of your past that need to be atoned for. The moral ought that I follow that you do not is the greatest commandment, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matt. 22:40)

LNC

[Mike D]

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?

 

Are you kidding me?

 

You really require statistics to back up the "assertion" that most loving and caring fathers would stop a terrible event from happening to their children if they could?

 

Really? :twitch:

 

(oh course statistics like that likely don't exist, which makes it convenient for you to deny the "assertion" on the grounds that it's not supported by hard data. so very convenient.)

 

So I guess, even though "God' is "loving and caring", if he can't be bothered to intervene and stop a 6 year old child from being raped, tortured slowly over a period of days, and then dismembered alive (like some "loving and caring" fathers wouldn't bother themselves to stop), you'll still maintain how loving, caring and compassionate he is?

[agnosticator]

You can change your will, but you cannot change the corruption to your nature....Again, we were created very good (Gen. 1:31) and then from the Fall, our natures were corrupted (Rom. 5: 12ff)....rebellion against God is the chief of sins....

 

Since the will is the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action, and moral strength of character is one's "nature", the will would flow from a person's character. Doing good or bad is what counts in reality. Furthermore, our birth has nothing to do with biblical "creation". If we are supposedly created good, then we would be born good. But we are born amoral, and must learn and develop goodness. According to the O.T. story, the first couple were amoral and naive, knowing nothing about what "good" was. One must know what "bad" is in order to know "good". And what does "rebellion" mean? Disobedience.

 

The moral ought that I follow that you do not is the greatest commandment, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matt. 22:40)

 

What about loving the God that isn't the biblegod?

[Deva]

But, that is not what Margee said. She implied the the Bible is not reliable since it is so old. It seems that any other source that is contemporary to the events would be just as old, and therefore, just as unreliable if the age of the work determines its reliability.

 

I took Margee's response to mean she wants something other than an ancient book, that's all. Is there anything else? Evidently not for you, otherwise you could have responded with that reference instead of the "book is unreliable just because its old" answer.

 

Does age or time effect truth? Why are our senses more reliable today than they were last year, ten years ago, 100 years ago, or 2,000 years ago? Has eye technology improved in that time?

 

Did I ever say anything about the senses? Quit trying to lead this question away from the main one - which is - can you supply something other than the Bible (the old book in question).

 

There is also no such thing as absolute truth. Its a question of what is helpful to you in life. Why not go for some other old writings and not the crummy Bible? I personally prefer Buddhist teachings.

[Margee]

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

 

Did you have any verses in mind that indicate that God blinds people from seeing the truth? I don't know of any. I do know that Romans says the people suppress the truth in unrighteousness, but that is us, not God doing the blinding. (Rom. 1:18) Rather, Jesus says “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32)

 

LNC

John 12: 40“

The Lord has blinded their eyes

 

and hardened their hearts—

 

so that their eyes cannot see,

 

and their hearts cannot understand,

 

and they cannot turn to me

 

and have me heal them.”

 

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

"HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."

[agnosticator]

You can try to change your sinful nature, but according to Jesus, it will not work,... he will not change a person's will to do these actions as that would be a violation[of freewill]...

To transform one's will (in conjunction with the desire of the believer) is not to remove a person's free will. So, no it is not impossible, it is what God does in conjunction with the desires of the follower of Christ. It is not possible for the person who does not follow Christ...

we have the power to be transformed from the desire and power of sin...

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.

 

To put it all together, according to you, I've got this so far:

 

Goodness is a thing. Our essential nature is created good. But if a christian and a non-christian perform the same good act towards another person, the non-christian's action was tainted by evil (which is not a thing), which is the choice to rebel against the good (moral oughts). Sin is the transgression of the law of the biblegod (which can be many things), and we have a sinful nature added to our essential nature. "Sin" and "rebellion" make us "evil". The biblegod can change our sinful nature, but we can't. This God gives us the power to change our desires, while we can change our will on our own. Yet this God changes our will after our salvation, and removes desire to rebel in heaven.

 

But I believe that all this belittles morality. Goodness is a moral quality a person can possess, not a thing. It is our actions that make us moral, not our thoughts and beliefs. When I gave a homeless man a sandwich as a christian and later another one as a non-christian, my actions were identical. What good any human does isn't "filthy rags" or tainted.

 

The O.P. asks "how is sin justified"? I don't see how any bad act can be. Wrongdoing and bad action exist, but evil, sin, rebellion, and hell are christian beliefs. They exist in the christian's mind.