Sin

[Deva]

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

 

True, I don't KNOW that the devil doesn't tempt people. Its possible there is a malevolent invisible being out there that likes to tempt people, but I would say that this is an unlikely possibility.

 

Of course there are other ways to be tempted, especially tempting oneself, but you quoted something from the Bible, which often has Satan tempting people. If that wasn't the meaning of the verse, I withdraw that criticism.

[Margee]

Goodness is a thing. Our essential nature is created good. Sin is the transgression of the law of the biblegod .

 

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.

 

This! 110%

[Deva]

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).

 

There are some things we know by reading experts opinions and trusting them on the strength of their credentials. There are other things we know through our personal experience. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge - there are only probabilities. It probably is true that things are illusory - we certainly cannot see everything as it is, since our brains filter out most of the information coming in. This is a fact established by neuroscience.

 

Anything conditioned, such as the human mind is, cannot be free. There is apparent choice, but the choice is a product of the conditioned mind.

 

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.

 

I disagree that knowing things (knowledge) involves free will. I see absolutely no reason why a human programmed through DNA and conditioned even from before birth (no I don't believe babies are born tabula rasa) can't have intention or purpose apart from this extravagant idea of "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.

 

The desire to learn a different language is a product of the conditioned human mind - it is conditioned by circumstances and innate abilities. There is nothing free about it.

 

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 continue to disagree with this sweeping pronouncement. Also, I am not up on artificial intelligence, so I cannot address this objection you have about what machines can and cannot do. I admit my home computer is not a human brain - but this gets tiresome.

[LivingLife]

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."

 

It irks me when you have to tell a theist what is written in their babble. I guess it b/c all of them follow some sort of cherry picked doctrine.

[Deva]

Sure, I suppose it is possible as one's Christianity is not defined by one's belief in free will, it is defined based upon one's trust in Jesus' death and resurrection as payment for our sins. However, that person would have to somehow reconcile personal responsibility for sin within that model as if a person didn't hold the view that they had a personal responsibility and guilt for sin, then the person would see no need for salvation and would therefore have no reason to trust in Jesus' death and resurrection as payment for that sin. So, is it plausible? I find it highly problematic.

 

LNC

 

So, I take it that is a very tentative "yes, possibly". However, my original question was:

 

LNC, is it possible to be a theist or a spiritual person and not believe in free will?

 

My question was not "Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in free will?

[LNC]

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...

 

 

It is helpful to read and quote the text in context so that you don't misrepresent what is being said. Also, as you can see, the passage above only quotes through v. 12, even though you say it goes through v. 13.. Here are the verses before this that were left out.

9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.2 Thes. 2:9-12

So, these people were already deceived by the lawless one before God sends them a strong delusion. They had already rebelled and were intent on continuing that rebellion. They had already been warned earlier:

3. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

I would encourage you to read the whole chapter, in fact the whole book (it's short, only three chapters) before commenting so as to avoid making contextual errors.

 

LNC

[LNC]

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.

Having a free choice taken away is different than not having free will. I take choices away from my kids, but I don't take away their free will. God didn't deny them eternal life, that was never changed, it was immortality in these bodies that was taken away as an act of mercy. Once the fall occurred, there it would have been torture to make humans endure immortality in this corrupted world with these frail and failing bodies. No, they weren't free to choose from all possible choices, but then, we are rarely in a situation where we have the opportunity to choose from all possible choices, we are usually limited to feasible and available choices.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

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'?

LNC: Our Hubble volume or our visible universe.

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

LNC: The opposite of finite

 

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

LNC: Time is a series of temporal positions that are in continual transformation such that events can be characterized as being in the past, present, and future. I'll leave it at that for now as it is a much longer discussion to define time with precision.

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

 

LNC: Yes, Tegmark's classification.

 

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.

LNC: Yes, it is always helpful to understand a position before arguing the strengths and weaknesses of it. Wow, you ask me for a dissertation on Calvin and Arminius, that is a tall order and one that is not suited for a forum like this. Calvin wrote his Institutes to define his view Contained in one volume, it exceeds 1,000 pages of text. To summarize it to the five points without further explanation would not do justice or give clear understanding to his writings and thoughts. Although Arminius was not as prolific in his writings as Calvin, it would be just as difficult to summarize his views. However, the difference that most people note is the role of man in regard to salvation. Calvin believed that salvation was completely the work of God and Arminius left a role for man in the equation of salvation. Both believed in predestination and election as those are clearly taught in the Bible and beyond dispute, the question was how much, if any role, man played in salvation.

 

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?

 

LNC: You are right, it should have read, "dead in sin." Thanks for pointing that out and allowing me to correct it.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

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.

 

I get it, you are equating a miracle with magic. I don't equate the two. Also, you would have to show that a person didn't want to be saved when God intervened. In other words, it was a violation of his/her will to be saved. Can you show me someone who was truly saved that didn't desire to be saved? In other words, can you show me someone whose will was violated?

 

I see those verses, but I don't see where it refutes free will. Again, even if God saves us as a sovereign act, which I believe he does, it doesn't mean that we don't have free will, we are incapable of choosing for salvation due to our being dead in sin. However, once we are made alive, we freely and gladly choose to follow Jesus.

 

 

LNC

[centauri]

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...

 

 

It is helpful to read and quote the text in context so that you don't misrepresent what is being said. Also, as you can see, the passage above only quotes through v. 12, even though you say it goes through v. 13.. Here are the verses before this that were left out.

9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.2 Thes. 2:9-12

So, these people were already deceived by the lawless one before God sends them a strong delusion. They had already rebelled and were intent on continuing that rebellion. They had already been warned earlier...

If they were already deceived and doomed then there would be no need for God to send them a strong delusion.

Apparently God isn’t as certain as you are and intentionally interferes with their thoughts to ensure that they perish.

This is the same God that allegedly wants all people to be saved.

Any way you want to slice it, God interferes with their thought process.

[LivingLife]

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...

 

 

It is helpful to read and quote the text in context so that you don't misrepresent what is being said. Also, as you can see, the passage above only quotes through v. 12, even though you say it goes through v. 13.. Here are the verses before this that were left out.

Aah the context excuse. Forgive me for actually having studied eschatology quite extensively and the whole frigging buybull for that matter. 8+years since I opened a buybull and I still can recall texts from memory, I merely google to get the verses and chapter

9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.2 Thes. 2:9-12

So, these people were already deceived by the lawless one before God sends them a strong delusion. They had already rebelled and were intent on continuing that rebellion. They had already been warned earlier:

3. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

I would encourage you to read the whole chapter, in fact the whole book (it's short, only three chapters) before commenting so as to avoid making contextual errors.

Like I said I already have and as an ex apologist know all the spins used to try and make the mental gymnastics work.

 

This whole text is the favorite of the rapture retards and the appearance of the auntiechrist before they go off cloud surfing with jeebus.

 

The only ones that may be fooled are believers, we heathen not so much. None of here are waiting for some divine twat to perform miracles the likes of Benny Hinn and Todd Bentley where woo woos from all over the world flock to.

[agnosticator]

Having a free choice taken away is different than not having free will.

 

How can it be free when they weren't allowed to freely choose eternal life by eating from the tree of life? Your comparison fails.

 

God didn't deny them eternal life, that was never changed, it was immortality in these bodies that was taken away as an act of mercy. Once the fall occurred, there it would have been torture to make humans endure immortality in this corrupted world with these frail and failing bodies.

 

You are jumping to conclusions. It is far more likely the writer meant they were not to "become like us", as gods with eternal life, not eternally corrupted.

[agnosticator]

I get it, you are equating a miracle with magic. I don't equate the two.

 

Like Ouroboros said, "potato, potaato."

 

Can you show me someone who was truly saved that didn't desire to be saved? In other words, can you show me someone whose will was violated?

 

agnosticator, on 16 July 2011 - 09:52 AM, said:

Since the biblegod needs believers with proper wills to do good forever, he must work his magic to change their will.

 

I wasn't talking about being saved, but doing good.

 

I see those verses, but I don't see where it refutes free will.

 

You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive.

[bornagainathiest]

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'?

LNC: Our Hubble volume or our visible universe.

Are the terms Hubble volume and visible universe interchangeable?

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

LNC: The opposite of finite

Sorry, but I'm still confused LNC, so could you please provide a much more detailed, in-depth explanation that covers all of the salients points? Thanks!

 

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

LNC: Time is a series of temporal positions that are in continual transformation such that events can be characterized as being in the past, present, and future. I'll leave it at that for now as it is a much longer discussion to define time with precision.

 

What do you mean by, 'a series of temporal positions'? Isn't a 'position' a characteristic of space, not time? Please explain further.

 

What do you mean by, 'continual transformation'? From what to what?

 

What are the recognized means by which events are characterized as falling into the categories of past, present and future?

 

Aren't the terms past, present and future just arbitrary manifestations of human consciousness and not real entities in of themselves?

 

Btw, I'm certainly keen on a much, much longer discussion! I mean... why not?

What else do you need to be doing? Is there something else important you'd like to be engaged in here?

 

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

 

LNC: Yes, Tegmark's classification.

Thank you.

 

"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."

 

So why is our universe (your definition, as above) unlikely to be infinite (your more detailed, in-depth explanation to follow) due to the constraints of time (your answers to my questions on this, to follow)?

Could you please justify why you think this is so?

 

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.

LNC: Yes, it is always helpful to understand a position before arguing the strengths and weaknesses of it. Wow, you ask me for a dissertation on Calvin and Arminius, that is a tall order and one that is not suited for a forum like this.

 

Why not?

You've clearly got the time to answer the points that the Agnosticator, Deva, Margee, Centauri and others have put to you, so availible time can't be an issue for you, can it?

 

 

Calvin wrote his Institutes to define his view Contained in one volume, it exceeds 1,000 pages of text. To summarize it to the five points without further explanation would not do justice or give clear understanding to his writings and thoughts. Although Arminius was not as prolific in his writings as Calvin, it would be just as difficult to summarize his views. However, the difference that most people note is the role of man in regard to salvation. Calvin believed that salvation was completely the work of God and Arminius left a role for man in the equation of salvation. Both believed in predestination and election as those are clearly taught in the Bible and beyond dispute, the question was how much, if any role, man played in salvation.

 

Thanks for the eloquent reply, but you seem to have overlooked something LNC.

On July 15 you said that your view was somewhat different from the standard Calvinist view.

 

Presumably this difference is in regard to man's role? Yes?

 

You see, we still don't know where you stand on the question of how man's role in salvation, vis-a-vis the clearly taught Biblical principals of predestination and election.

 

This leaves us in the position of not knowing why you believe what you believe. Now I'm sure that you don't want this state of affairs to continue, so if you would be so kind as to apply your considerable intellect to the issue of how and why you differ from the standard Calvinist view, I think we'd all apppreciate it. 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?

 

LNC: You are right, it should have read, "dead in sin." Thanks for pointing that out and allowing me to correct it.

 

No problem. Glad I could help.

LNC

 

Many thanks.

 

Looking forward to your reply,

 

BAA.

[BrotherJosh]

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

 

First, I do not recall directing my post at you, LNC. Either way, whether or not you choose Y or Z is still known by God as you have stated, therefore to act differently than what God knows would be to violate his omniscience so we must act according to God's knowledge. I come to a point in time, X and am faced with two choices Y and Z. I choose Y. God knows I would have chosen Y. Is Z still a valid possibility if God knows I will not choose Z? If a proposition is known to be true then it must be true and cannot be false. Can I act in opposition to God's knowledge of what I will choose? Saying that getting to time X and making a different choice, Z, is still the same premise and problem of X and Y. Kicking the can down the road doesn't solve the problem we've just switched choices, Y and Z but haven't addressed the issue since God still has knowledge that I would choose one of them and I cannot act in opposition to his knowledge.

 

The past is known and the future is unknown but perhaps can be defined as an infinite number of possibilities with the present being the culmination of a specific set of possibilities. If God is omniscient how could he know the future precisely and yet it still be called the future if it's no longer a possibility but a certainty (the past)? Even within the nature of BibleGod thinking about what he may or may not do next or even having a future since he is set upon a course of doing what he certainly knows.

[LivingLife]

Even if the myth of freewill were proven correct, this in no way validates biblegawd. The poor attempts by apologists to oppose the predestination concept/doctrine, which invalidates freewill totally and justifies us heathen in unbelief as a valid outcome.

 

However, we heathen and specifically ex christians that have been rehabilitated from the madness, does not jive with the doctrine of armenianism aka free will and folk find it hard that we can apply logic and dismiss it all as bullshit.

 

They roll out the verses that suggest we are blinded by another fictional character satan, and thus are free to continue in their delusion having apportioned blame to someone for our lot. The calvinist is at least "honest" in seeing that it is their gawd that for whatever reason made us this way; they of course need to ignore the lost sheep parable and stick only to the verses that apply to them.

 

The reality is that the apologist will seesaw between calvinism and armenianism depending on the objection of the non believer.

 

The creation story is well and truly debunked by science. The new angle to keep the sheeple bleating is to suggest it is allegorical and not literal. Problem is what now becomes the norm for determining that which need to be taken at face value or that which needs to be taken with tongue in cheek? There is no standard and the folk simply make shit up as they go along. Yet this god is omni everything but really seems to do fuckall in his powers to make any snap changes like he did say in creation or the fludd. This is where the freewill argument falls flat on its face. A simple overnight intervention in Darfur alleviating the struggle and poverty would be indicative of a sign. Did those folk ask to be born there as opposed to a more affluent society say like the US for example?

 

So it really becomes an standard apology for the obvious lack of ANY real intervention by the omni everything god, he does not violate our free will.

 

When the bible can be used to conjure up so many differing interpretations, you cannot really expect us to take anything published in it as "fact"

[chosendarkness]

I see those verses, but I don't see where it refutes free will. Again, even if God saves us as a sovereign act, which I believe he does, it doesn't mean that we don't have free will, we are incapable of choosing for salvation due to our being dead in sin. However, once we are made alive, we freely and gladly choose to follow Jesus.

Christians don't have free will, they just think they do. You're Christians because you're from a Christian society. The root of your arrogance is from denying that fact.

[Noggy]

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."

 

It irks me when you have to tell a theist what is written in their babble. I guess it b/c all of them follow some sort of cherry picked doctrine.

 

I would also point out where God purposefully hardened Pharoahs heart just so he could cast a lot of plagues on Egyptians. Go fuck yourself, God.

[Guest end3]

Christians don't have free will, they just think they do. You're Christians because you're from a Christian society. The root of your arrogance is from denying that fact.

With all due respect.....how do we not stand on the shoulders of those that have preceeded us?

[chosendarkness]

Christians don't have free will, they just think they do. You're Christians because you're from a Christian society. The root of your arrogance is from denying that fact.

With all due respect.....how do we not stand on the shoulders of those that have preceeded us?

 

Right, if you're a Christian from a society who's dominant religion is Christianity, it's not a coincidence. That's what you know and it's home. But you're told to interpret those feeling as you 'have the truth' and anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong. People don't like that attitude because it comes across as arrogant and rude. If Christians were humble and acted decently instead of arrogantly assuming they have what everyone else needs, then no one would have a reason to take offense at you. But since you know you're so right and want to change everyone to your way of thinking, expect some resistance. If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to take it.

[Onyx]

Sin does not exist, mischief and crime does. Sin, according to what I understand of it, is an action contrary to God's will/preference/personal morality. When I took the Lord's name in vain, I have not encountered that light-bolt nor God scolding me; or having Satan tempting me to swear. That is precisely why I do not believe in either God or Satan or any other deities for that matter. So I am forced to conclude that sin is a psychological tactic to keep the weak in line by unscrupulous leaders and priests and etc. Christian 'free will' also is one. Therefore, I think neither of these doctrines can be said to exist in real life, just imaginary scare tactics made up to keep us giving dues to the Church and other churches. So, I'm sorry to say that sin or righteousness or Christian version of supposed free will does not frighten me or even exist.

[Guest end3]

Christians don't have free will, they just think they do. You're Christians because you're from a Christian society. The root of your arrogance is from denying that fact.

With all due respect.....how do we not stand on the shoulders of those that have preceeded us?

 

Right, if you're a Christian from a society who's dominant religion is Christianity, it's not a coincidence. That's what you know and it's home. But you're told to interpret those feeling as you 'have the truth' and anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong. People don't like that attitude because it comes across as arrogant and rude. If Christians were humble and acted decently instead of arrogantly assuming they have what everyone else needs, then no one would have a reason to take offense at you. But since you know you're so right and want to change everyone to your way of thinking, expect some resistance. If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to take it.

 

Don't you think everyone pretty much goes through an "I know" phase? Perhaps many years of "I know"?

[chosendarkness]

Christians don't have free will, they just think they do. You're Christians because you're from a Christian society. The root of your arrogance is from denying that fact.

With all due respect.....how do we not stand on the shoulders of those that have preceeded us?

 

Right, if you're a Christian from a society who's dominant religion is Christianity, it's not a coincidence. That's what you know and it's home. But you're told to interpret those feeling as you 'have the truth' and anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong. People don't like that attitude because it comes across as arrogant and rude. If Christians were humble and acted decently instead of arrogantly assuming they have what everyone else needs, then no one would have a reason to take offense at you. But since you know you're so right and want to change everyone to your way of thinking, expect some resistance. If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to take it.

 

Don't you think everyone pretty much goes through an "I know" phase? Perhaps many years of "I know"?

Absolutely, but to bible literalists it's not a phase but a way of life. So what happens to a family member who leaves that 'knowing'? Rejection, suffering, and many times abuse. Then the person has to deal with sometimes overwhelming fear as they deconvert from the knowing. People have committed suicide. It's no picnic to be a part of the knowing cult and escape. It's a strong cult that ingrains itself very deeply into the mind. Many people here have suffered more than you know. They aren't ex-Christians 'just so they can sin', they aren't hell-bound sinners, they aren't 'running from the light', or 'following satan, they're some of the bravest and strongest people you'll ever meet. .

[Ouroboros]

Christians don't have free will, they just think they do. You're Christians because you're from a Christian society. The root of your arrogance is from denying that fact.

With all due respect.....how do we not stand on the shoulders of those that have preceeded us?

Wouldn't it be better to stand on the shoulders of God instead of the shoulders of other humans from the past who only contributed their personal views? Which is better? Stand on solid ground or a construction of sand? Think about all the analogies in the Bible that talk about these things.

 

So really, if God does exist, you shouldn't have to stand on any humans shoulder or knowledge. God would be all you need.

[Guest end3]

Christians don't have free will, they just think they do. You're Christians because you're from a Christian society. The root of your arrogance is from denying that fact.

With all due respect.....how do we not stand on the shoulders of those that have preceeded us?

Wouldn't it be better to stand on the shoulders of God instead of the shoulders of other humans from the past who only contributed their personal views? Which is better? Stand on solid ground or a construction of sand? Think about all the analogies in the Bible that talk about these things.

 

So really, if God does exist, you shouldn't have to stand on any humans shoulder or knowledge. God would be all you need.

 

And I believe this to be exactly the point.....that literalism or strict adherence to the "rules" often finds us in the situation that CD describes. I think part of the problem is that multiple economies reside in the same place.....those that hold a firm but immature love that is dictated by rules mixed with those that use love to guide.

 

I think your second statement is address by the scripture, paraphrasing...."there is only one you should call Teacher".