Yes and no. There is a part of you, the most central part, that is eternal and uncreated. God picked you up and gave you a spirit and then a body, so you could learn and mature into something more like him. According to us, anyway.
Nobody’s perfect.
Yes and no (see above). Yes.
The point is not that God wants to throw you out of his presence for minor sins. The point is that God and sin cannot tolerate each other. It’s kind of against the laws of physics, in a metaphorical sense. A person cannot be in God’s presence if he has sinned–it just couldn’t happen. So there’s this whole plan where we get forgiven for our sins, because God wants us to come home to him, but we can’t in our current state. And to grow up, we have to go through this stage where we are on our own, we make mistakes and learn from them. There is no substitute for experience. Of course we have the potential for significant good–we just need help getting to the level of goodness we want.
Unrepentant sin is a choice to go away from God. A God who will not let you make that choice is a God who does not believe in free will, and who is willing to force you to do what he wants.
How does this relate to the key issue we were discussing. Is the part that has “free will” the uncreated part or not? Either way, I’m not sure it helps matters.
So God is not omnipotent? He created all: but there is some sort of ontological physical law that exists prior to him and prevents him and sin from co-existing?
So God is not omnipresent: he actually has a specific prescence somewhere?
People do indeed have the potential for significant good, but that doesn’t make them non-sinners. Such an argument would never hold up in court.
“Yes, Your Honor. I did run through that red traffic light, and yes, I did violate the speed limit. However, I have the potential to obey traffic laws fastidiously, so I really don’t deserve to be accused of reckless driving.”
Whether or not anyone gives credence to this story, the fact remains that there are examples of man’s inhumanity to man rife in the world, and that no person completely and perfectly carries out the stringent teachings which He laid down as proper behavior.
[including as you wrote]
*The whole Ten Commandments. Most people manage to avoid committing the majority of them – but there are exceptions. *
Heck Polycarp make up your mind. Here you say god wants you to follow the ten commandments, under the assumption he exists, yet just a few days ago you wrote this:
However, the Fourth Commandment is a part of the Mosaic Law, and Christians are free of the Law – contrary to what some folks who ignore Paul’s teaching on this in favor of the extensive Torah material on what one should and should not do would have you believe.*
How about a little consistency? I realize that liberal interpretation of the bible requires significant degrees of self deception, but with blatant contradictions like this it’s almost like you aren’t even trying to mask it.
I could go on at length. But the point is that, on the assumption that the God of Judaism and Christianity does in fact exist and has laid down these laws, nobody keeps them in full, nor is able to.
And as you illustrated some people can’t even decide which laws are meant to be followed from one day to the next.
He didn’t. In the vast majority of cases, God let the non-believers survive. He did wipe out certain vile cultures (e.g. the Canaanites, who regularly practiced child sacrifice), but he did not automatically wipe out all societies which did not embrace him. During the time of Exodus, many Egyptians were killed, but Egypt as a whole was not. And even in Noah’s time, Noah’s children and their families were spared, even though Noah was the only righteous man alive at the time.
God can define things that are unrelative, like gravity(No puns, please), so why couldn’t morality be just as solid as matter? God defining sin does not indicate that it is relative in any way. As for the human ability to define sin, that’s easy. If you’re dating a twelve year old, and I think that’s wrong, but you don’t, we have different definitions, right? We have, therefore, both defined a sin differently. I’m not saying you would, but people do, and people think it’s ok.
It sounds like a circle jerk, but I promise it’s not. If you’re asking why there is a concept called evil that we recognise, or why there is such a thing as a ‘bad thing’ someone can do, I think that a little reflection may clarify that. I, personally, understand this concept as being the nature of God, rather than an arbitrary definition. We should go back and forth about this a little more to clarify where we’re both coming from.
It’s actually a law if you believe God exists, and morality if you don’t. A person who kills a five year old in an alley and has sex with their dead body is violating the law, and they get punished. Same goes for someone running a stop light, or cheating on their taxes. Likewise, if you belive in God, the first second and third person have each sinned, and will each be punished accordingly. Many find this a difficult concept because in the first case, they see both an illegal act and a moral wrong, but in the second and third, only an illegal act.
This is a tough concept, and we’ll get into it more below.
I’ll assume here that you’re asking why God doesn’t prevent people from sinning, since that’s what it appears to me you’re asking. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
As I understand this concept, someone must be free to do evil in order for it to be done. Not that there’s a lot of evil out there that just has to get done, but if you were incapable of doing evil, you’d have no free will. It’s the act of choosing to do the right thing that makes it so special. Which do you prefer, the person who only does the right thing when the cops are around? If this sounds insensible, we can go back a forth a bit on this as well.
Do they really? What about the mugger? Isn’t he essentially being screwed out of mugging at the expense of the safety of society? OK, I’m being flippant, but I think the point is fairly clear. You can’t really live your life as you choose within a society where your every action is regulated until your behaviors are perfect. That’s how it would have to be done if God were enforcing the rules of our republic. I find it hard to picture it another way, but once again I may be unclear.
For a real, in depth study of this sort of idea, check out ‘The divine milieu’ by DeChardin. Of course we can talk further as well, but he’s a wiser man than I am.
This thread had devolved into a lengthy justification of the Christian model of the universe.
Sin does not exist. It is just an idea created by the priests as a way of controlling the peasants.
I am not a sinner. I have never sinned. Sin is an illusion.
I am not a “good person.” I am not a “bad person.” I am a human being. I have the potential to be what ever I choose independant from what any “god” has preordained for me.
Some said God has vested interest in having sinners around. This might be true if and only if God gained anything from sinners. This is not the case. God has no need of anyone or anything. He is perfect in all ways, and does all things perfectly for His divine plan, whatever that may be. The short version is, He made you so you would exist self-referentially. In other words, you exist, because He wanted you, specifically, to exist, warts and all.
Fortunately, wart remover is on sale, free of charge, in aisle 3, under the Divine Beauty Products section. ;j
Sooo, God didn’t create my soul? Isn’t my soul, according to most Christians, the real me? I mean, if my body can die but I can have eternal life, it seems that we’re saying that my body isn’t me, or isn’t the “me” necessary for “life.” (Using scare quotes just to make sure I keep straight that these things are being defined by the argument.)
Do I have that right, or am I misunderstanding something?
Because if God didn’t create me, well, what precisely am I supposed to owe him anyway? Most religious arguments seem to come down to me belonging in some way to God, as his creation. Or, as Bill Cosby said (paraphrased, “I brought you into this world, I can take you out. And make another one just like you!”
Seriously, if God didn’t create the me that is me, what authority does he have?
So, you seem to be saying that there’s kind of a big shelf with millions of souls on it. God grabs one of those souls, shoves it into a body, then watches it self-destruct, all the time knowing that the soul is flawed, and also knowing exactly what that soul is going to do. And he does this because he wants us to “grow up.”
But lots of people don’t grow up. They can’t. Their bodies die early for a million reasons. God didn’t forsee that?
And, more importantly, God is choosing those souls to stuff into those bodies. Are there no perfect souls?
The logical fallacies described in the above posts illustrate what goes wrong when people presume to know what God wants their neighbors to do.
What’s interesting to me, Degrance, is that I believe it’s easy to have a relationship with God on one’s own, outside of any formal religion - you don’t have to throw the deity out with the bathwater :).
You’re still reminding me too much of a certain poster here who no one could make any sense of. If something is “defined” that means the choice of what to define was arbitrary. In the case of morality and sin, that essentially drains them of all meaning. The conception of morality you are describing is essentially a form of relatavism so extreme that its really nihilism: people, including God, just say what they please about what is right or wrong, and that’s all there is.
Morality is not an object. It is not even a force. It is a concept of should/should not. Either those concepts are sound, and it is abstractly immoral to murder someone, or they are not, and anything goes. If morality is sound, then it applies to God as much as to humanity. If it is merely a creation of God’s then how can it have any sort of force AS a morality at all? Why should one be moral: because God will beat you up if you aren’t? (Notice how that response actually equivocates: the “why” was asking for a justification, but the response answers a different “why is it in your best interests” question.)
I’m sorry but this is again avoiding the issue. Whether or not they are punished has nothing to do with morality. The law is ultimately a pragmatic tool to regulate human behavior. Morality is a concept of the worth of various human behaviors. To reduce morality to a series of arbitrarily defined laws is to drain it of all meaning.
Not exactly. I am simply drawing a contrast between the law and God. God as described by you has very very different abilities than the law, as well as a very different relation to humanity: a creator. To treat them as analogous is simply invalid.
The fact that you jumped back to the free will excuse is just a demonstration of how you have missed the point, both in my challenge to the very concept of free will and in the fact that if choosing to do the right thing is so great, why not make people whos nature is to freely choose to the do the right thing?
That’s because society can only regulate with its very limited range of knowledge and capability. God not only knows all, but also created the individuals he’s judging: their natures. There is nothing contradictory in making them choose to do the right thing in the first place, and them being free. Choices have to proceed from SOME basic identity, or else how are they even anyone’s choices?
Ultimately, one has to find some excuse as to why God abdicates his own moral responsibility to prevent harm. But “free will” is hardly an even intelligible excuse.
Jsgoddess and Apos, did you read the OP of the thread that I linked to? It explained quite a bit of that. Here is part of the text, but not all:
And on to other things…
“Grow up” in an eternal sense, not just here on earth. After we die, we can still learn. Dying young is no barrier to that.
Well, there’s Jesus Christ. The rest of us have a way to go.
As I said, sin is a choice to go away from God. If you don’t want to be near him enough to let go of your sins, he’s not going to force you. As far as I can tell, honoring our free agency is God’s big important rule. C.S. Lewis’ The great divorce is a really nice book about this. And as far as I know, God cannot or will not go against his own rules.
Yes. His Spirit can be anywhere, his power can work anywhere, but God himself has a physical presence.
Do you have historical proof for that claim? Can you methodically show us how this concept did indeed originate with the priests, having no precedent? Also, can you demonstrate that their motivation was indeed as you claim? Please provide us with a thorough explanation of how you arrived at this conclusion.
The fact that He didn’t wipe out all cultures which did not embrace him doesn’t change the fact that He did wipe out some. And just how vile can God really consider the Canaanites for their child-sacrificing ways, considering Abraham was more than willing to engage in a little child sacrificing himself to please God? Rather than God being appalled that Abraham would even consider it, God is instead impressed with his obedience.
Eight people were spared: Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and the wives of each. Out of everyone alive at the time. That’s a lot of killing for exercising free will. If God does not need us, then He shouldn’t care what we do one way or the other. Someone wants to worship him? Great. Don’t want to? Whatever. But, the fact that God is so willing to punish those who do not wish to follow Him speaks not of a desire for folks to follow their “free will”, but a demand for obedience through intimidation.
genie, I’m going to skip the first part of your response for a while until I have a chance to read the thread in question.
On to other things.
Sooo, what’s the living part for, again?
We have to live because that’s how we grow up or gain experience.
But if we don’t have a chance to live, that’s no barrier to growing up or gaining experience?
And the suffering that’s a part of this whole living thing, that’s unnecessary too, isn’t it? Because if a soul doesn’t even need to live for a whole day, or a whole minute, or even a whole second, then why doesn’t God just ease everyone’s suffering and blip us out after the barest instant?
God is putting us into bodies for our own benefit, then leaving us in those bodies despite the benefit having already been achieved?
So, Jesus was one of those incorporeal floating intelligence blobs?
Again, all this says is that God is taking imperfect beings, knowing they are imperfect, setting tests for them to prove their imperfections, and then punishing them for revealing said imperfections.
The judge, like God, has the power to forgive this traffic violator. Of course that is too simple. Most likely, the judge will find the accused guilty and make him pay a fine. He will also warn the person never to appear in his court again. Supposedly God says you cannot pay a large enough fine. What you have to do is believe the fine has already been paid. You can go out and run more traffic lights, speed and in general drive carelessly, as long as you continue to believe your tickets have been paid. :dubious:
So morality must have existed prior to God for it to have meaning? God must have gotten His morals from somewhere? First off, I’m not advocating or saying I believe in moral relativism, I’m trying to explain a concept.
First, moral relativism is a reality of the world. As you begin to have other cultural experiences, you’ll find that in the scattered groups around the planet many people find different things morally acceptable, and many don’t. That’s not to say that every group is right. Every group thinks they are, and my group, or me if I’m to take full responsibility for my assertions and I am, believes themselves to be right.
This entire premise hinges upon the existance of not only God, but this specific God, and a correct interpretation of a few thousand years of literature relating experiences people have had with this God. Now, if this God were to express a definite set of morals, it has meaning, in the sense that this God being the only God in the system, has created right and wrong in a very real sense. In the sensible mind, it follows that God would be the most likely candidate for defining morality, as there are few other options. As I said, we could have voted, we could have sent it to a committee, or they could have been laying around before God got here. According to the Christian system of belief, or it’s interpretation, nothing pre-exists God.
Morality is not a concept, that’s where moral relativism comes from, the idea that morality is a concept. If morality is solid, as I think we both believe it is, where do you feel it came from? What, if anything, would it’s solidarity be based on?
Well, on the one hand, we can say that if God is real, and His message is correctly interpreted, you are welcome to disagree. On the other hand, given those values to be true, you’d be celebrating a shallow victory party in Hell, right? That’s just the sledgehammer version though.
There are, in actuality, any number of theories on this subject. Debates continue between Christians, almost on an individual basis, as to the why’s and how’s. Presuming, however, that the supreme being/ creator of the universe’s word on the subject is not enough, you can understand most of the moral principles as being accepted in parts of the western world. The ten commandments, for example, are a part of many of the people I know who are not Christian’s moral views. The concept of love and forgiveness is very similar to one that pervaded the 1960’s in America. These are both probably familiar, provided you’re an American, if not, I can say that your native system of societal ethics or religious views are likely to include many of the same concepts. If they don’t, and some do not, then you may hav4e to accept simply that they make sense to me, and may never adhere to the native ideals you’re familiar with. As I said, different people find different things acceptable.
Well, for one thing, I lack a common comparison. I’m sure you can understand how it might be hard for me to turn and say, ‘This is Bob, the omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being from next door, in a very similar manner to my understanding of God…’
I used the law as the nearest example I could think of to make this understandable. I understand the basis that you find this invalid, and it’s not an exacting comparison. To accept morality as the concept of the worth of various human behaviors is to reduce it to an arbitrary value. The absolute best you could argue would be that my concept is based on shoddy research and yours is not(Provided our concepts differed at all. Eventually, however, your concept of morality would differ with someone’s.) It should be noted that my ‘concept’ also derives from personal experiences, leading me to believe this is correct. Or, more accurately, my view of the world would seem to support this.
I may well demonstrate that I’ve missed the point of your argument, but I understand free will fairly well. This is also a point of debate, and one which I find to be a bit of a circle jerk myself. The very concept of free will is in doubt for many Christians, who believe in one of several systems of predestination. If you’re asking for what’s real, I can’t tell you. I fyou’re asking for my Aquinas-like psuedo-scientific explanation of this, then I can give you that. It’s my theory, based on my understanding of Christianity. I’m guessing that’s not what you’re looking for.
On this set of questions, you’re essentially asking me to crack a metaphysical walnut for you. Suffice it to say that these points had bothered me for several years, during which time I meditated on them regularly until they ultimately fed into an understanding. I’m currently working on a book on the subject, so my reply is literally that big. We can email on it if you like, but it’s a hell of a discussion for the board to hold.
How is the moral responsibility to prevent harm placed upon God in your view? How do you find that inconsistent with the concept of the Bible related to the concept of the world as you see it? I find it fairly clear.
Look, there are two cases with God and morality. If there are absolute morals, that God reports to us, then he is just a transmitter, not a creator. If God is responsible for morality, morals are whatever God randomly says they are. If you are a Christian, then you believe God changed morals over time and for different people. (And I know all the usual evasions about why it okay to eat pork and work on the Sabbath.) Not only that, God said not to kill, but has no compunction about killing - so his moral code ain’t the same as ours.
I went to Hebrew School for 5 years and went to a lot of services, and never had sin pushed in my face. Yes, we sin, and you atone, and that’s it. The punishment is death, not eternal torment.
So, why does Christianity say everyone sins? I always have good luck looking at the tenets of Christianity from a marketing viewpoint. If you want to sell a product to someone, you need to create a need. To sell deodorant, you convince everyone they smell bad. To sell life insurance you convince someone that his survivors will be living in poverty without the policy. To sell Jesus, you convince everyone that they are awful sinners, and without the Christian product they are going to wind up in hell. Whatever you say about Paul and that crowd, they really seemed to intuitively understand this stuff.
The other side of selling is that you remove obstacles to purchase. A Roman soldier balked at signing up because he liked his shellfish. No problem. One small dream and there goes the Kosher Laws. Too bad Paul didn’t need to recruit a powerful gay Roman - homosexuality could have become a sacrement.
Bottom line - we are all sinners because it was part of the marketing plan.
That simply doesn’t follow. Either it’s okay to rape someone or its not, regardless of what even a God wants or believes.
Any morality that is simply “defined” is not a morality in the sense that it has any weight to compell someone to do anything.
The belief can believe anything it pleases: it’s still stuck with the problem that morality cannot both be morality and be arbitrarily defined by any being’s will. That lacks any sort of coherent meta-morality.
I don’t understand what you are saying. Morality is not a physical object. It is a judgement of behavior. If if it true, it is true, not “solid” or “existing” in the way that other things exist.
Those values are not true except in the sense that there is some being that holds them and is willing to enforce them via violence. There is nothing more (morally) repulsive than trying to “prove” a point by threatening violence if one doesn’t agree.
And most were before the Ten commandments. Some still aren’t (which is why its so ridiculous to claim that they they universal: what’s universal about “there is no God but Jehovah, don’t fool around with nobody else?” or “Don’t say my magical mystical name/word: tis forbidden”? As to the more common ones, what sort of society could survive without being against murder?
In reality, the TC are neither as special nor as unique as they are made out to be.
Please explain anything you can think of: I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered a more utterly incoherent and self-refuting concept in my lifetime. Most often people simply equivocate, thinking that a justification for the quite obvious and trivial concept of freedom from coercion in making a choice is the same issue as exactly how and why someone chooses as they do: which is the key issue when talking about something like sinful natures and so on.
You may be writing an entire book, but so far, from what I can tell is that there IS no nut. The “Free Will” concept used in theology is no concept at all: it’s a basic equivocation from external coercion to internal nature.
Because moral imperatives are just that: imperatives. They apply abstractly to any subject considering a course of action. If they apply only to certain beings and not others, they are not really any sort of absolute morality at all.
