God, man, and the nature of sin

[Sabretooth]

split from God video games: sacrilegious?

 

 

 

*barges into discussion with banana*

 

Yaargh!!

 

Banana: Hi.

 

So, let us commence my post.

 

The very concept of God is rather vague, the way I say it. Every religion ascribes different levels of power to their God, some being limited to certain forces and emotions (polytheism) while others going to full all-controlling, all-doing, all-mighty Gods (Christianity and what-not).

 

Also, I don't think thy Christian lord will be offended if you make another God in a game. After all, this is entertainment/art and all is forgiven in entertainment/art.

 

And as for the title question, that's one thing I use to counter theists. If God exists and is really so damned powerful, why the hell does he need us for? I mean, just what freaking reason is the universe for? And why is he playing an elaborate game of The Sims with us? All that makes no sense. And don't give me that "he was bored and lonely" crap. Just don't.

[Gargoyle King]

And don't give me that "he was bored and lonely" crap. Just don't.

God made everything cause he was bored and lonely!

I doubt anyone would have a problem with a game like this anyways, and people who are really into religion perhaps wouldn't play videogames as much as other people would; the game would be pure entertainment, nothing more (it would be really fun to play as an all-controlling God, perhaps it would work best as an RTS game?).

[Emperor Devon]

I never said that you had to take my opinion and beleive it to be true. We all get to choose what we believe in, and this just happens to be what I believe in.

 

I'm glad to hear that you've found something you believe in. Unfortunately, however, it still hasn't gotten rid of that annoying question of mine. I could say, for instance, "It is sinful to wear blue pants." Most people's reaction to this would be "Why do you think it is sinful to wear blue pants?" were my response to be "I believe it is sinful to wear blue pants. You do not have to believe the same," it probably wouldn't be very satisfactory to whoever asked, namely because it doesn't answer the question. I guess that's what comes with believing in Absolute Truth.

 

You've stated numerous times I don't have to believe your opinion. Good to know you think so, but not terribly relevant. If you would claim to have a valid opinion on a matter you should at least be able to explain why you believe as you do. Nothing is right simply 'because it is'.

 

Uh, ED, opinons are just that, opinons. They don't need to be justified.

 

My opinion is that they do. And don't tell me I'm wrong, it's an unjustifiable opinion. You've admitted so yourself.

[Rev7]

I'm glad to hear that you've found something you believe in. Unfortunately, however, it still hasn't gotten rid of that annoying question of mine. I could say, for instance, "It is sinful to wear blue pants." Most people's reaction to this would be "Why do you think it is sinful to wear blue pants?" were my response to be "I believe it is sinful to wear blue pants. You do not have to believe the same," it probably wouldn't be very satisfactory to whoever asked, namely because it doesn't answer the question. I guess that's what comes with believing in Absolute Truth.

 

You've stated numerous times I don't have to believe your opinion. Good to know you think so, but not terribly relevant. If you would claim to have a valid opinion on a matter you should at least be able to explain why you believe as you do. Nothing is right simply 'because it is'.

Christianity is based on faith, ED. Generally the only proof is the Bible, and your own personal experiences. That is really all that I can think of. Besides, I have NEVER stated that it "is right simply because it is". Not once. I am also very glad that you finally "get" my opinion now.

[Emperor Devon]

Different genre with different kinds of characters!

 

I cite Revenge of the Sith and any other SW game that involves playing powerful Jedi from the start, touche Prime!

 

Christianity is based on faith, ED. Generally the only proof is the Bible, and your own personal experiences.

 

Since your case about sinful deified video game characters appears to have been drawn entirely from the bible's word we can discount the latter.

 

While I'm glad you've been able to tell me 'because the bible says so' rather than 'because this is what I believe', I'm afraid you've still not provided a sufficient answer. If you could explain that answer further (whether it's because you think the bible presents a sound argument against deified video game characters or because you think everything in it is true simply because it's the bible) that would go a long way in explaining your position.

 

I have NEVER stated that it "is right simply because it is".

 

The foundation of your argument relies upon it being wrong because the bible says so, in other words an appeal to authority. Until you explain further your reasoning for taking what it says for granted (or in your case, taking your extrapolation of what it has said for granted) you are basically saying 'it's right because <unarguable person/idea/thing> says it's right.' However, that can be augmented with what I mentioned in the above paragraph.

 

I think.

 

You don't, otherwise you wouldn't have started this thread. If you'd like me to argue those points with you as if they were your opinion, however, just give the heads up and I'd be glad to.

[Sabretooth]

You will do something that the real God won't like, and besides, to pretend to be God and do what God would do is an act of hubris.

 

The question is: Why would God dislike something humans do? Since the human intellect is so negligibly miniscule, God would hardly care about what humans do, and instead think of our wars and inventions as real cute (I can imagine him posting 'lolhumans' pictures all over 4chan). Besides, since God is in control, he can just avert us from doing something wrong.

 

Once again, something in religion that makes no sense!

[Ray Jones]

Once again, something in religion that makes no sense!

Once again, something in religion that is caught with phrases like "god moves in mysterious ways".

[Ray Jones]

I wonder where do you all know from what god likes and dislikes, and that he condemns killings in real life but does not care about killings or violence in a "real life simulation"?

[Corinthian]

See, we're 'targeting' you, because your views make no sense. They're not supported in the Bible, you've made no real arguments in favor of them, instead essentially saying "This is how I feel." then declaring it a sin. People get irritated when you declare that things they enjoy doing are sins. Did you know that? I doubt it.

[Emperor Devon]

I don't read books chuck full of gore, violence, sex ; ect.

 

I suppose that scratches the bible off your list? Some pretty bloody/sexual scenes in there from the parts I've bothered to read.

 

Unless you'd like to stick to Winnie the Pooh-Bear for the rest of your life, that's going to severely limit the amount of reading you can do. All great literature involves violence to some extent.

 

BTW-- I am not quite sure what to think quite yet on the killing in video games.

 

There goes KotOR too? Your call, I hope you enjoy games made for <10-year old children.

 

I'm curious as to the extent of your abstinence from media violence... In addition to games do you want to stop watching movies/TV shows that involve killing people too?

 

I only think that playing a video games when you play as a god is not right, and one reason that I think this because I don't play any sort of game along those lines. Secondly, I feel that it is not right to do so.

 

Oh dear. I'd been hoping you were making progress in avoiding 'it's right because it's right' arguments.

 

Really, all you've got to do is say why rather than restate your opinion...

 

By no means am I saying that you, or anybody else, should believe in what I believe.

 

You have informed us of that fact no less than three or more times. It's fairly irrelevant in any case. Just because someone doesn't force me to eat coconuts doesn't mean I can't dislike them. The same applies to opinions.

 

I personally do not see where you draw the line for what level of deification constitutes being sinful. D&D is a good example of this - would you draw the line for what's sinful to the gods of the gods/greater gods/minor gods, demi-gods/half-gods/very powerful immortals...? It's not as if there's a black and white line for "this is a totally supreme infinite being and this is not" in all fantasy genres.

[Ray Jones]

People get irritated when you declare that things they enjoy doing are sins.

To the opposite, people who declare things sins get irritated when those who "sin" say they don't.

[Corinthian]

Everybody sins. But you're right there, too. It's one thing to declare stuff that is clearly a sin, either by your conscience or the Bible itself. I don't think anyone would say that murder is not sinful. This kind of thing, on the other hand, is basically this guy passing judgment on his own merit.

[tk102]

Hey everyone let's try to keep our eyes on the prize, that is, keeping focus on the topic rather than any individual.

 

Okay let me see if I can revive the argument from Rev7's side. Video games exercise the imagination. If we partake in activities in a video game that would otherwise be consider sinful in real life, we are at least indulging the fantasy of committing sin. I remember one Bible passage (Matthew 5:28) "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Catholic boys like myself years ago would go to confession and confess "impure thoughts". In a sense, using your imagination to indulge in the pleasure of a sinful act, is itself sinful.

 

(Personally, I prefer not to thought-police myself too much and see a game as only a game. Acts of goodness towards real people far outweigh acts of evil towards imaginary people, IMO.)

[Sabretooth]

It's pretty easy really.

 

"Thou shalt not murder" != "Thou shalt not simulate murder"

 

Moses didn't say that. Jesus didn't say that. The Bible don't say that. The thousand million Popes didn't say that. Just goes to prove that religion is a strong faith without a constitution, which makes for tons of confusion and subversion. Really, if the bestselling author of the Bible had written a constitution, things would have been much more in order than they are today (considering that he didn't give into the Church's theocratical-ish rule back then).

 

(Was too lazy to read the rest of the discussion so I don't know what you guys are blabbering about. I'm reading now.)

 

Edit starts here:

 

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

**** that's creepy. But anyways, science has proved that "lust" is only a slightly aggravated natural sense of attraction. Attraction, love, lust, everything is just an excuse for mating, in varying degrees. The only reason that passage is in the Bible, the way I see it, is to counter rape, abuse and such by controlling lust. We reach a moral paradox here. By accepting this statement, we block off scientific and free thought, not to mention sexual urges. By denying it, we are at risk of letting lust control us. Which is the better option?

 

In a sense, using your imagination to indulge in the pleasure of a sinful act, is itself sinful.

But since said sinful act has never occurred in real-life, no sin has been committed and other than this individual's mind, nothing has changed at all. I do not see why this becomes a sin, until a sinful act is physically executed. The reason being, that nobody has been affected by this guys thinking. Nobody even knows. And quite frankly, it is impossible to stop thinking and to control thinking. The mind drifts everywhere. Example:

 

Statement 1: "omg monica bellucci is so hot."

St. 2: "no. I must not lust."

 

Here, even if he denies it, individual has lusted and acknowledges the lust. Even as he denies it, he lusts. Why must you go to hell for something you can't control. Is God really that sadistic? Is God the same as Satan?

[Corinthian]

You really don't get it. There's a difference between acknowledging a woman's attractiveness being attracted to her and lusting after her. Lust can be controlled. It's not easy, but few things worthwhile are. Jesus didn't promise us forgiveness because we wouldn't need it, you know. He also promises his aid.

 

And let's face it, you know it's true. The whole concept of lust is the desire to have sex with a person. And really, do you think your spouse would see it any differently if you told her "I'm not having sex with her, I just want to?"? I doubt it.

[Samuel Dravis]

But since said sinful act has never occurred in real-life, no sin has been committed and other than this individual's mind, nothing has changed at all. I do not see why this becomes a sin, until a sinful act is physically executed. The reason being, that nobody has been affected by this guys thinking. Nobody even knows.

An interesting way to look at this might be the views of older Christian theologians like Thomas Aquinas. Mr. Aquinas was rather deterministic in his worldview, and (at least given the way I read it), he seems to have thought that all matter was caused by something else, etc etc, to finally a cause created by God. AKA - matter does what God wants it to do, and nothing more. This leaves the responsibility of the individual in a strange place; if you don't have control over what your body does, how can you be responsible for it? You can't, apparently. Your soul doesn't seem to be held to this restriction, however, and so while you may not be wholly responsible for doing acts of violence, you would be responsible for your soul's reaction to them - i.e., do you agree with the actions your body is taking now? In this view, morality is based on intent, not action.

 

If that is true, then that definitely makes lusting (even if you do nothing physically) a sin.

 

Here, even if he denies it, individual has lusted and acknowledges the lust. Even as he denies it, he lusts. Why must you go to hell for something you can't control. Is God really that sadistic? Is God the same as Satan?

Like the above, it's just letting things go without trying to control them that gets you sent to hell, not simply having the thoughts. You can only be responsible for what you are capable of controlling (an interesting side question to this is, what is God not capable of controlling?).

 

Also, God can't be evil, as he is defined as having maximally perfect goodness.

[tk102]

Moses didn't say that. Jesus didn't say that. The Bible don't say that.

Um, no, I said it. I was explaining that simulation of killing is not prohibited by the 6th commandment. Your 1st paragraph makes no sense to me.

 

Also, God can't be evil, as he is defined as having maximally perfect goodness.

So goodness=godness? Didn't God make the devil? Doesn't that make him the ultimate source of evil? Does goodness have meaning without its opposite?

[Ray Jones]

And let's face it, you know it's true. The whole concept of lust is the desire to have sex with a person.

Nope. The whole concept of lust is to ensure reproduction.

 

And really, do you think your spouse would see it any differently if you told her "I'm not having sex with her, I just want to?"? I doubt it.

Not everybody has spouses, and basically it's not "I want to have" but "I could have, but don't want to", what happens to a lot of 'spouses'.

[Corinthian]

Wh...what? To reproduce, you have to have sex. Didn't your parents tell you about that?

 

And the thing about spouses was to make a point. Please don't deliberately be stupid, it's very irritating.

[Sabretooth]

You really don't get it. There's a difference between acknowledging a woman's attractiveness being attracted to her and lusting after her. Lust can be controlled. It's not easy, but few things worthwhile are. Jesus didn't promise us forgiveness because we wouldn't need it, you know. He also promises his aid.

 

And let's face it, you know it's true. The whole concept of lust is the desire to have sex with a person. And really, do you think your spouse would see it any differently if you told her "I'm not having sex with her, I just want to?"? I doubt it.

 

Quite true, but if one were capable of controlling lust, there would be very little chance of him lusting the first place, as he has control over his mind. And lust drives to sex - not rape. The two terms have significantly different meanings. Imagining to have sex with someone, which is what lust is, is not wrong in my books, but rape is damned wrong.

 

I believe lust to be equal to sexual attraction, and that is natural. But lust's manifestation is wrong, and that needs to be controlled.

 

As for the spouse thingie, it really depends from person to person. You are looking at the stereotypical wife here. I'd get a more understanding spouse, myself - one with a open mind and understanding.

 

@Sam Dravis: That's an interesting way to look at things, but that's a theory and a philosophy, in the end. Like all others, it cannot be proved or disproved, but I like it, personally. Better than other religious theories, at least.

 

Um, no, I said it. I was explaining that simulation of killing is not prohibited by the 6th commandment. Your 1st paragraph makes no sense to me.

Never mind, I just entered the place, was trying to find a place and warm up. Forget it.

 

So goodness=godness? Didn't God make the devil? Doesn't that make him the ultimate source of evil? Does goodness have meaning without its opposite?

Note the at the end of that statement, tk. He was probably half-sarcastic. But you're right in that. If God created all, if he is source of everything, how does evil exist, and how is sin against God?

[Corinthian]

Yes, God did make the Devil. Incidentally, he also made humanity, and he gave us the gift of choice. Why is this concept so difficult to comprehend? It's only made worse by the people who have no clue of what Christianity means talking like they're theologians.

[Sabretooth]

Yes, God did make the Devil. Incidentally, he also made humanity, and he gave us the gift of choice. Why is this concept so difficult to comprehend? It's only made worse by the people who have no clue of what Christianity means talking like they're theologians.

LOL, I'm agnostic, my friend - I'd never become a Theologian in my life! I just attack common notions of religion that I believe to be wrong or unreasonable. The reason the concept is so difficult to comprehend is that it still does not answer the fundamental question of religion: Why? Also, if God made the Devil, he must have had some source of Evil prior to the creation, or could have had evil inside Him. Also, where did God come from? How did he come into existence? Difficult to comprehend, certainly!

[Ray Jones]

Or, is he alone or are there others?

 

Wh...what? To reproduce, you have to have sex. Didn't your parents tell you about that?

 

And the thing about spouses was to make a point. Please don't deliberately be stupid, it's very irritating.

Watch you attitude, and stop being irritated, please.

 

To reproduce you have to have sex, yes. I did not deny that. However, the concept of lust was 'invented' to ensure reproduction under all circumstances and against all odds, not solely to make us engage in sexual activities for the sheer fun of it. It's a totally different thing.

 

And as for my 'deliberate stupidity', I was making a point too, namely that one pointing out that your 'example' to bring your point across has flaws. Plus, I tried to point out that the train of thought isn't necessarily that of "I want to have sex with someone else".

[Corinthian]

Not really. I'm sure you'll scoff, but here's the answers to those allegedly unexplainable mysteries.

 

Why? I have no idea. I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze God. The only thing I can say is because he wanted to. I mean, I can say it's not because he was lonely, but maybe he enjoys creating things. The Bible says we're created in his image, and we enjoy being creative and building stuff, which is as close to creation as we can get.

 

God made the Devil, yes. Also known as Lucifer and Satan. Originally, Lucifer was God's chief angel, but he wanted God's power so he attempted to overthrow God. There's not a lot of record of what happened, since it's beyond human comprehension and doesn't really have a lot of bearing on what the Bible says, but suffice to say, Satan lost and was banished from heaven along with one third of Heaven's Host of Angels, the ones who had rebelled along with Satan. God did not create Evil. In a sense, Satan created evil, much like Cain created murder.

 

God didn't come from anywhere. He's always been. He existed before time began. The logical thing for a human to do is to look for a beginning and try to find the end. This is natural, as we are mortal and everything has a beginning and an end. God, however, is the opposite. As we are bound to time, we cannot understand eternity, and as we are bound to limits, we can't really understand infinity.

[Ray Jones]

God made the Devil, yes. Also known as Lucifer and Satan.

God did not create Evil. In a sense, Satan created evil

From the mathematical aspect, that logic fails.