Sin

[chosendarkness]

 

 

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

 

It's not hard for someone to adhere to the rules when they're told they have the only way of salvation any other way leads to eternal torment. Most people's egos will eat that up because it makes them feel like they know something and are special. They can't conceive any other way because it's not a part of the accepted way of thinking.

[Guest end3]

 

 

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

 

It's not hard for someone to adhere to the rules when they're told they have the only way of salvation any other way leads to eternal torment. Most people's egos will eat that up because it makes them feel like they know something and are special. They can't conceive any other way because it's not a part of the accepted way of thinking.

 

I hear you, but most rational people realize at some point that they can't live to the rules and they aren't that special. The fact that people get hurt in the process unfortunate. It happens in more than just religion.....

[Xerces]

People need to eat, yes, but they do not need to eat animals. Humans do not need meat in order to get all the nutrients they need. I'm just stating a fact, not preaching vegetarianism. I don't think humans are special. They're just more intelligent, and I really wish they'd use that intelligence, particularly in their treatment of other sentient creatures. When it comes to killing other species, we don't need to do it for our survival, particularly not at this stage of our evolution. Humans do this only because they enjoy the taste of dead flesh. We should do everything possible to avoid the needless suffering of other creatures in this process. But as we know, too many people don't give a shit about their suffering, since they think humans are more important and animals are to be exploited.

 

 

Life is cruel, we're omnivores and that is how it is. Besides, being a vegetarian is a wealthy country privilege. I'm fine with people choosing that, but I'm not convinced that it is the "superior" way to live. Animals eat other animals, and I have a special preference for humans over other species because it is my species. If I had to choose between a human or a dog I'd choose the human. You're right about the dead flesh thing to, I like my T bone steaks with A1.

 

I'm not trying to be mean I'm just being real.

[LNC]

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?

The word ra, which is the word that the KJV translates as "evil" is better translated as calamity or disaster, rather than moral evil as you seem to refer to it. In context of the chapter, it is simply saying that in that time rewards were given to those who faithfully followed God and punishments to those who rejected him.

 

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.

Sorry, but Stalin was evil and ruthless. Did he grant pardon to those who begged forgiveness? Did he send his son to pay the penalty for those who deserved their punishment? You have posited a false analogy.

 

People choose hell because their pride is greater than their desire to avoid hell. In other words, knowing the consequences of their sin, they still choose rebellion against God. Does God ask much of us? Yes, God casts people into hell, but the people who go to hell have chosen their fate. Think about it. Does the judge send people to jail? Yes. Do the people going to jail deserve it? Yes, if the case was conducted fairly and they were rightly judged. Did the person know that the consequences of being caught for their crime was time in jail? Yes. Did they choose to do the crime anyway? Yes. So, in a sense, they chose to go to jail by willingly and willfully doing what was deserving of jail time.

 

Yes, we should fear God, just as the criminal should fear the human judge. The difference is that God offers pardon, the human judge only offers justice.

 

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:

 

Sorry, I don't see anywhere where is says to kill babies. Could you be more specific and show me where it says to kill babies? The key here is to understand what the word "destroy" means in this passage. Adam Clarke argues that it could mean to subdue them and only slay them if they resist, or it could mean to utterly drive them from the land. However, terms of peace are always offered and the consequences of denying these overtures is always understood. Some have also argued that these cities were fortress cities, like Jericho and Ai were, and that there would not be families in these particular cities. Also, you have to understand that these groups were (and still are to this day) trying to wipe Israel off the map. So, it's not as simple as you seem to indicate.

 

LNC

[LNC]

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.

If moral strength of character is our nature, why is there evil in the world? Why, when I tune into the news, is if filled with so much on crime and the evils that people commit against one another? Why can't people resist the urge to do these acts?

 

Man was created good, but then fell in rebellion against God. That rebellion has affected people ever since. If we are born amoral, why do children know to be rebellious? Why do they know to lie before they could learn such behavior? Why are children selfish with their things? Who teaches them to say, "mine" as one of their first words? I don't know where you read that the first couple were unaware of what "good" was. They had been given rules and told the consequences of disobeying. They knew that obedience was good. Why must a person need to know what bad is in order to know what good is. Cannot a person simply know that something is pleasing, and therefore good? It seems sensible and logical that this is possible. Rebellion means willful opposition, to know what is right and to willfully choose not to do it or to do the opposite.

 

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

 

I don't know of any God, but the God of the Bible. To which god were you referring and what is your evidence for that god's existence?

 

LNC

[LNC]

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.

Actually, there is other evidence, but that is beside the point and the question still remains, why is an ancient book excluded from consideration? What is it about a book's age that disqualifies it as evidence? It's a legitimate question as the standard of a book's age has nothing to do with it's qualification as evidence.

 

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.

 

It is often implied in the question that due to the age of the work, and therefore, the time of the people, that we consider their testimony to be less reliable. If the objection was based upon other reasoning, please provide it. Otherwise, the objection is without merit.

 

Are you sure that there is no such thing as absolute truth? Is it always true that absolute truth does not exist? Why do you consider the Bible to be "crummy" and Buddhist teachings to be good? Which form of Buddhist teachings do you prefer and why do you prefer that form over other forms? Do you believe that the poor and disabled deserve what they have gotten because they had bad karma? If a person lives a selfish life, are they simply doomed to their fate of what their bad karma will bring them in the next lifetime? Can a person truly break out of a bad karma downward cycle?

 

I guess I don't see this system as redemptive overall.

 

LNC

[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."

 

Ah, but you left out a verse that preceded this one:

 

Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, (John 12:37) The people had already made up their minds before this to disbelieve. It always helps to put things in context so as not to misrepresent the text.

LNC

[LNC]

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.

 

You've gotten some things wrong here, so let me clarify. Man was created good, but then rebelled and fell, taking on a sin nature. All of our good acts are tainted by the sin nature (both Christians and non-Christians), which is one reason that they cannot save us. Sin is rebellion against God, which is in part, demonstrated by transgression of God's law. Sin and rebellion are evil, we are sinners who commit these evil acts. Yes, only God can change our sinful nature. God makes changes to us in that we are saved, meaning that positionally, we are righteous in his eyes. We then go through a process of sanctification (setting apart from sin) which begins to change our desires and actions, a process that is not completed during this lifetime. Next, we are glorified (completing the process of sanctification) in which we are changed in many ways. Our sin nature is completely removed and we are taken out of this sinful environment of this world.

 

How is a moral quality not a thing? No, actions don't make a person moral. A person can do moral actions with an immoral heart and attitude. We can think vile thoughts while helping the poor. We can believe the poor are deserving of their plight while helping them, simply because we think we are scoring points for ourselves in some grand accounting scheme. That is why our works cannot save us in that we can never do them with pure motives in this life. Our motives are always mixed at best, and selfish at worst. So, I wouldn't agree with your premise.

 

Evil, sin, rebellion, and hell are Christian beliefs, but that doesn't mean that they are false or not believed outside of Christianity. It doesn't not follow that because they are Christian beliefs they are not true and only exist in the Christian's mind. Otherwise, why bother having this discussion? If they are simply figments of my and other Christian's imaginations, what's the big deal. Shall we next start up a thread on why Bart Simpson is a figment of Matt Groening's imagination?

 

LNC

[Deva]

It is often implied in the question that due to the age of the work, and therefore, the time of the people, that we consider their testimony to be less reliable. If the objection was based upon other reasoning, please provide it. Otherwise, the objection is without merit.

 

I didn't say that, but if the "testimony" we are talking about is eyewitness accounts of events before the age of cameras, film, and other such forms of proof then I say we have every right to be suspicious, especially if its some incredible event that is contrary to what we know to be scientific laws.

 

Please understand that I know film can be faked, so don't bother bringing it up. People tell lies all the time to make themselves the center of attention.

 

Are you sure that there is no such thing as absolute truth?

 

No, of course I can't be sure, you Christians are the only ones who are, but I say the odds are against it.

 

Why do you consider the Bible to be "crummy" and Buddhist teachings to be good? Which form of Buddhist teachings do you prefer and why do you prefer that form over other forms? Do you believe that the poor and disabled deserve what they have gotten because they had bad karma? If a person lives a selfish life, are they simply doomed to their fate of what their bad karma will bring them in the next lifetime? Can a person truly break out of a bad karma downward cycle?

 

I admit personal preference. I think you have a flawed understanding of karma but I do not believe this is the place to address it. Karma is the most misunderstood teaching in eastern religion. I will say its a yes, though, to your last question. Karma can be broken at any time. It is not predestination and any given event that happens cannot be said to be traced to a single person's karma. In some sutras, particularly the prajnaparamita, the existence of karma is denied. Overall, I think the Bodhisattva ideal of the Mahayana is the most heroic and highest ideal I can think of. Buddhism, as Christianity, is not one unified whole.

No, I personally do not believe the disadvantaged deserve what they get. Wouldn't that be more a Christian idea? I mean, are you into the prosperity gospel where you believe that the poor must somehow either not be Christian or be out of God's will or some such nonsense?

 

I guess I don't see this system as redemptive overall.

 

That word "redeem" implies a sacrifice to me, or some kind of monetary exchange. To me, its a rather senseless term when applied to life. If you can cultivate some dispassion, learn to train your mind through meditation from clinging to thoughts and illusory material things, I think you live a better, less self centered life.

[Legion]

A Christian woman told me one time that sin was anything which disrupted community. I can't buy that. Sometimes entire communities are grossly mistaken.

 

Imagine a Lemming telling the others that if they continue to run in their current direction they will all be killed. "Heresy!" "Sin!"

[Legion]

."there is only one you should call Teacher".

And that teacher's name is Nature.

[agnosticator]

If moral strength of character is our nature, why is there evil in the world?...

Man was created good, but then fell in rebellion against God. That rebellion has affected people ever since. If we are born amoral, why do children know to be rebellious?

 

I said "if moral strength of character is in our nature" because you said "man was created good", so it is in our nature. Unless you mean it was removed supernaturally?

 

I did some reading, and found I was wrong. Humans are NOT born amoral, but morality is innate just as it is in other animals. See here.

 

 

Why do they know to lie before they could learn such behavior? Why are children selfish with their things? Who teaches them to say, "mine" as one of their first words?

 

Scientists are observing otherwise:

 

In one experiment babies between six and ten months old were repeatedly shown a puppet show featuring wooden shapes with eyes. A red ball attempts to climb a hill and is aided at times by a yellow triangle that helps it up the hill by getting behind it and pushing. At other times the red ball is forced back down the hill by a blue square. After watching the puppet show at least six times the babies were asked to choose a character. An overwhelming majority (over 80%) chose the helpful figure. Prof. Bloom said it was not a subtle statistical trend as “just about all the babies reached for the good guy.”

 

In another experiment the babies were shown a toy dog puppet attempting to open a box, with a friendly teddy bear helping the dog, and an unfriendly teddy thwarting his efforts by sitting on him. After watching at least half a dozen times the babies were given the opportunity to choose one of the teddy bears. The majority chose the helpful teddy.

 

A third experiment used a puppet cat playing with a ball with a helpful rabbit puppet on one side and an unhelpful rabbit on the other. The helpful rabbit returned the ball if the cat lost it, while the unhelpful rabbit stole the ball and ran off with it. In this test five-month-old babies were allowed to choose one of the rabbits, and most chose the helpful one. When the test was repeated with 21-month-old babies they were asked to take a treat from one of the rabbits. Most took the treat from the unhelpful rabbit, and one even gave the rabbit a smack on the head as well.

 

Lead author of the study, Kiley Hamlin, said people worry a lot about teaching children the difference between good guys and bad guys but “this might be something that infants come to the world with.” Other psychologists have cautioned that adult assumptions can affect how babies’ reactions are interpreted, and that babies begin to learn from the moment they are born.

 

 

I don't know where you read that the first couple were unaware of what "good" was. They had been given rules and told the consequences of disobeying. They knew that obedience was good. Why must a person need to know what bad is in order to know what good is. Cannot a person simply know that something is pleasing, and therefore good?

 

Gen 3:22 "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

They obeyed blindly. They couldn't have known what "good" was. They couldn't make a logical connection to "good", unless you equate "good" with obedience alone. To do what you are told is much different than making a moral decision. How can a person know that pleasing another is "good", when that person is a possession of the other and is limited to two choices; obey or suffer? That's extortion.

 

 

I don't know of any God, but the God of the Bible. To which god were you referring and what is your evidence for that god's existence?

 

I asked a rhetorical question and got the answer I expected.

[agnosticator]

How is a moral quality not a thing?

 

How is it?

 

No, actions don't make a person moral. A person can do moral actions with an immoral heart and attitude.

 

True. But actions are what morally affects the recipient, and that is morally good. So, actions are what makes morality important.

 

We can think vile thoughts while helping the poor. We can believe the poor are deserving of their plight while helping them, simply because we think we are scoring points for ourselves in some grand accounting scheme.

 

Just like many christians are doing in helping poor sinners, then attempting to convert them because they aren't good enough morally unless they convert.

 

That is why our works cannot save us in that we can never do them with pure motives in this life. Our motives are always mixed at best, and selfish at worst. So, I wouldn't agree with your premise.

 

...and I reject your premise. There is such a thing as pure motives in the moment. Humans are both good and bad. We choose what to be. The only thing we can't choose is perfection.

 

Evil, sin, rebellion, and hell are Christian beliefs, but that doesn't mean that they are false or not believed outside of Christianity. It doesn't not follow that because they are Christian beliefs they are not true and only exist in the Christian's mind. Otherwise, why bother having this discussion? If they are simply figments of my and other Christian's imaginations, what's the big deal.

 

 

Those beliefs result from the story of christian salvation. I don't see them in real life. I see good and bad behavior, not the biblical interpretation of it. But many christians want me to believe them, and want to force their biblical morality and views about abortion, church/state, and other social views onto everyone. If all christians did not do this, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and I wouldn't even be on this site.

[centauri]

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?

The word ra, which is the word that the KJV translates as "evil" is better translated as calamity or disaster, rather than moral evil as you seem to refer to it.

Hebrew Lexicon states:

ra-adj

bad, evil

bad, disagreeable, malignant

bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

evil, displeasing

bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)

bad (of value)

worse than, worst (comparison)

sad, unhappy

evil (hurtful)

bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

in general, of persons, of thoughts

deeds, actions n m

evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity

evil, distress, adversity

evil, injury, wrong

evil (ethical) n f

evil, misery, distress, injury

evil, misery, distress

evil, injury, wrong

evil (ethical)

 

Ethical evil and wickedness are included in the definitions.

Are ethics a form of moral principle?

 

In context of the chapter, it is simply saying that in that time rewards were given to those who faithfully followed God and punishments to those who rejected him.

The context of the text indicates that God creates all things, not just good things.

All things, including evil, ultimately emerge from one source.

When God brings disaster on children and creates calamity is that moral evil?

When did David's son with Bathsheba reject God?

When God killed this infant for David's sin, was that an act of moral evil?

You forgot to answer the following:

Specifically, what persons created evil?

 

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.

 

Sorry, but Stalin was evil and ruthless. Did he grant pardon to those who begged forgiveness? Did he send his son to pay the penalty for those who deserved their punishment? You have posited a false analogy.

Prove that it's false.

Giving orders to kill entire populations isn't evil?

Killing infants isn't evil?

Ordering horses to be hamstrung isn't evil?

Sending disease on a population because of a mistake a ruler makes isn't evil?

Killing men for burning improper incense isn't evil?

Killing a man for attempting to steady a cart carrying a religious artifact isn't evil?

 

You've created subjective definitions.

 

Prove that God wasn't using Stalin as a tool as he did Pharaoh.

If God set Stalin up and used him as an agent to deter Nazi conquest, then your definition of Stalin as evil is relative.

The evil was part of God's greater plan.

 

Sorry, but the "son" you mention didn't pay for anything according to the law his father set down.

The Bible God doesn't need a human sacrifice to forgive sins.

 

People choose hell because their pride is greater than their desire to avoid hell. In other words, knowing the consequences of their sin, they still choose rebellion against God.

And by your logic, people that volunteered to be sent to gulags went there because of their pride.

Their pride was greater than the desire to avoid prison.

They knew rebellion to Stalin would have consequences and they still chose rebellion against him.

 

Does God ask much of us? Yes, God casts people into hell, but the people who go to hell have chosen their fate. Think about it. Does the judge send people to jail? Yes. Do the people going to jail deserve it? Yes, if the case was conducted fairly and they were rightly judged. Did the person know that the consequences of being caught for their crime was time in jail? Yes. Did they choose to do the crime anyway? Yes. So, in a sense, they chose to go to jail by willingly and willfully doing what was deserving of jail time.

 

Yes, we should fear God, just as the criminal should fear the human judge. The difference is that God offers pardon, the human judge only offers justice.

You don’t seem to fear God.

You’ve adopted a heretical religion as a replacement for God’s original rules.

You haven’t established that people sent to hell by God deserve it.

You simply assume your conclusion and use it as special justification.

And your same logic applies here:

Stalin’s prisoners went to gulags because they deserved it and chose rebellion.

They did it to themselves.

Shopkeepers that rebel against having Mafia protection deserve to have their shops burned down.

They deserved it by failing to follow Mafia instructions and volunteered to have their shops destroyed.

 

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

Sorry, I don't see anywhere where is says to kill babies. Could you be more specific and show me where it says to kill babies?

Do babies and infants breathe?

The rest of your apologetic hangs on that question.

[Ouroboros]

The word ra, which is the word that the KJV translates as "evil" is better translated as calamity or disaster, rather than moral evil as you seem to refer to it. In context of the chapter, it is simply saying that in that time rewards were given to those who faithfully followed God and punishments to those who rejected him.

One day (I hope) you will wake up and realize how lame all your (and other apologists') excuses are.

[bornagainathiest]

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: [/i]

 

LNC

Sorry, I don't see anywhere where is says to kill babies. Could you be more specific and show me where it says to kill babies?

Do babies and infants breathe?

The rest of your apologetic hangs on that question.

 

Quite frankly I can't see the problem here.

 

Scripture tells us that God killed all but eight humans in the Deluge, permitted Satan to kill Job's children and servants and sent His angel to slay tens of thousands in Jerusalem, when King David took a census. We also know that none are righteous before God and that the potter (God) has the right to do what He will with His creations.

 

So there's no possible comeback here.

 

Whatever actions God carries out are automatically good and pure and just and righteous - because He's God.

 

So directly ordering the Israelites to kill anything that breathes MUST be an equally good, pure, just and righteous command. Right?

 

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

 

Btw, unborn children don't breathe - they receive their oxygen thru their mother's umbilical cord.

So they might be exempted from the remit of this command.

Their mothers can be killed, but they musn't be!

 

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

God promise to kill babies:

 

Hosea 9:11-16

Ezekiel 9:5-7

 

Oh, and God sends his angel to kill the firstborn in Egypt: Exodus 12:29-30

 

Babies are evil by association. If they're born to a sinner, they're sinners too, and deserve to die. That's God's word (presumably).

 

Leviticus 26:21-22

 

 

Here's a webpage that lists many Bible verses were God promises killings: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

 

"God is good" ... don't think so. He's good at killing, but not a good god.

[bornagainathiest]

(snip)

 

You've gotten some things wrong here, so let me clarify. Man was created good, but then rebelled and fell, taking on a sin nature. All of our good acts are tainted by the sin nature (both Christians and non-Christians), which is one reason that they cannot save us. Sin is rebellion against God, which is in part, demonstrated by transgression of God's law. Sin and rebellion are evil, we are sinners who commit these evil acts. Yes, only God can change our sinful nature. God makes changes to us in that we are saved, meaning that positionally, we are righteous in his eyes. We then go through a process of sanctification (setting apart from sin) which begins to change our desires and actions, a process that is not completed during this lifetime. Next, we are glorified (completing the process of sanctification) in which we are changed in many ways. Our sin nature is completely removed and we are taken out of this sinful environment of this world.

 

(snip)

LNC

 

This is interesting LNC.

 

Several times in this thread you've refered to Man's creation.

 

Does this mean that you're a Creationist?

 

Young Earth, Old Earth or something else... like perhaps, your own idioscyncratic interpretation? Do tell.

 

Or perhaps you've a more metaphorical take on Genesis and you're a Theistic Evolutionist?

 

Does a real act of sacrifice on the cross require a real 'Fall' event, where a historical Mud man and Rib woman knowingly rebelled against God?

 

Or, if Adam and Eve weren't historical and we've all evolved over 4.5 billion years, why didn't the 'historical' Jesus just make a token sacrifice, rather than a real, substitutionary one?

 

I look forward to your answers...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... once you've replied to my other questions on your stance vis-a-vis Calvinism.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[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.

And, your reason is?

 

 

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.

 

I wouldn't say that it is often stated explicitly that Satan is tempting people in the Bible. There are about a half dozen cases where it is stated explicitly, Job and Jesus being the ones that people most often think of. However, behind the scenes, it is likely that Satan and his minions are the ultimate cause of temptation, although, we often put ourselves in the way of temptation.

 

LNC

[LNC]

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.

When you say that "things are illusory" are you speaking of all things or just some things? Can we see some things as they are? Do we have direct access to the external world through direct perception in your estimation or is all mediated to us? How is this fact established by neuroscience? If we don't have free will, then how can we be certain that we have any knowledge (as being defined as justified true belief)? How would we be able to escape our determined ends to know that some things were really true and not just something determined to appear as true to us? If our choice is conditioned, it seems that we are stuck within a perspective from which we cannot escape and therefore could not justify anything we know as knowledge. In fact, the idea that we are determined could not be established as fact. It appears to be a self-defeating belief.

 

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".

If we don't have free will, then we have no way of justifying our beliefs. They could all just be determined thoughts in our brains for which we would have no independent means of justifying, therefore, knowledge would be eliminated. You would have to establish how we could escape this condition, but without free will, there really would be no escaping.

 

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.

However, you are not in a position to establish this idea as fact or to raise it to the level of knowledge. It too, if you are correct, would just be a conditioned bit of data in your brain with no means of validating it.

 

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.

This may get tiresome for you, but it is basic philosophy of mind. Without intentionality, we cannot have thoughts, without thoughts, we cannot grasp truth, without the ability to make logical relations, we cannot arrive at knowledge. If the brain is just a data processor, we don't have knowledge, we have data and we don't have a way of validating the truth of that data, it is just data. My computer does not have knowledge, it has data; it doesn't deal in truth, it deals in data and processing. It will never rise to the level of having thoughts about anything because matter is never inherently about anything else, so for that reason, it will never have thoughts about anything else.

 

LNC

 

 

[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.

 

Someone I know often says, "never read a Bible verse." Now, you would think he is trying to discourage people from reading the Bible, unless you know the context of his statement. What he means is never read a Bible verse: you must read the verses before and afterward to gain the context. If you read the passage from which this verse is quoted and even the passage from which it comes in the OT book of Isaiah, you will see that the people had truth proclaimed to them, and in the case of John's Gospel, they even had miracles performed in their presence. The blinding of the people was in the context of preaching truth to hardened hearts

 

 

"Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him" (John 12:37). The same is the case in the early part of Is. 44, where truth was proclaimed. However, in both cases, the people remained in rebellious unbelief - i.e., their hearts were hardened by the proclamation of the truth. The same was the case with Pharaoh, who heard Moses proclaiming the truth to him, yet each time his heart grew harder, even when he lost his son, his heart grew harder. So, this passage can be understood in that context. The Lord hardened their hearts by proclaiming truth to hearts that were already bent on rebellion. Thanks for bringing this up and allowing me to clarify.

LNC

[LNC]

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?

 

Sure, it is possible. I have pointed out logical problems with this view, but it is possible.

 

LNC

[LNC]

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.

 

Basically, what is happening in this passage, much like what is happening in Romans 1, is that when people pursue unrighteousness and deception, God removes any restraint of the force of that choice. In other words, if the people were bent upon believing a lie, God allowed the full force of that deception to come upon the people such that they would be completely consumed by that deception and its consequences. It is often referred to as restraining grace, a grace that God has in the world to prevent the full force of sin to have its effects in this time. However, some are bent upon that course and God allows those people to "have at it" as it were; to pursue that life with full vigor. Maybe that is what happened to Amy Winehouse, she was committed to destroying her life, as her family seemed to indicate, and all restraints were removed to allow her to pursue that course to its completion. It is sad, but some people want what they want when they want it, and in those cases, God allows them to have it. I've seen it in my life with two of my brothers who went that course and had the same end as Amy.

 

LNC

[LNC]

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

Yes, then you should remember from your studies that context is king. That doesn't just pertain to the Bible, it is true of any text we study.

 

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.

OK, all I can say then is, have it your way. BTW, I hope I don't go the way of Benny Hinn or Todd Bentley, I fear that they may be among those who say, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’" To which he will reply, “‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” At least, that is what I see based upon their "ministries". I hope they both repent before it is too late.

LNC

[LNC]

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.

There was free choice in the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There is also choice when we rebel against God, or when we choose what we will order from a restaurant, or what we will wear to work. We have plenty of free choices and free will to make those choices. You chose what to write in your post to me.

 

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.

 

Actually, if you read the whole statement it will tell you in what way God didn't want man to become like him, but did, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:22)

LNC