God, man, and the nature of sin

[Corinthian]

I didn't ignore it. I usually do not ignore people when they talk to me. Especially if I talk to them too. However, I chose my rather short answer regarding that topic.

 

What you might overlook here is, I don't want to go to heaven. I don't care about that kind of stuff. Here and now, and tomorrow is what I care about.

 

Okay so we're now wanting sin? That makes even less sense.

 

But we're still free to say "hey nice hat", "yeah baby lets do it that way", "oh ray", "ooooooh raaaaayyy" and "oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhh rrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy", right? That's enough I guess, who cares if I can take god's name in vain?

 

XDDD lol, I don't even wanna guess how many religions make that statement..

 

So it's sin to write about news of the day? Or funny things? New discoveries?

 

Who says it doesn't work that way? Penalty for gaining knowledge? Knowledge and wisdom is something really desirable, and I'd accept no god who'd punish anyone for seeking for it.

 

It is not against my will to take away sin. Is it against your will?

 

Gee, why would I pass my responsibility for what I have done to someone else, even more to the son of god? I am responsible for what I have done, no one can take that from me!

I was using taking God's name in vain as an example. Here's another instance of you completely, and probably deliberately, missing my point.

 

You've got a point about the worshiping other Gods part. That is generally how it works. What's your point, though?

 

Again, missing my point. Freedom of Speech gives you the Freedom to say sinful things, and Freedom of the Press gives you the freedom to print sinful things. Geez.

 

There's a big difference between knowledge and wisdom. Some of the wisest people I know are hardly geniuses, and many geniuses aren't very wise. Aside from that, we were not punished because we gained that knowledge, we were punished because we defied God in acquiring it. Or, to put it in Earth terms, we weren't given that knowledge, we stole it.

 

You say it's not against your will to take away your sin, yet there is already an aisle where that sin can be taken from you, yet you do not avail yourself of it. So, you must cling to sin.

 

As for the last part, then enjoy the wailing and gnashing of teeth, abandon hope, all ye who enter here, and remember to check to see if any cool people are on the same level as you.

[tk102]

But we're still free to say "hey nice hat",

In China, you're not allowed to form an opposing political party but you are certainly free to start your own business and make a million yuan. So Ray, you're suggesting maybe God could partially censor people's behavior like China? Hmm... interesting.

 

Eat some of the cake, and have some of the cake.

[Ray Jones]

Again, missing my point. Freedom of Speech gives you the Freedom to say sinful things, and Freedom of the Press gives you the freedom to print sinful things.

You are missing my point. Without sin there is still *a lot* of stuff that can be written that's not sin. I find that is more than enough. I don't need 'sinful things' to be written. You are missing my whole point. The end of 'sin' does not mean end of all freedom.

 

Aside from that, we were not punished because we gained that knowledge, we were punished because we defied God in acquiring it. Or, to put it in Earth terms, we weren't given that knowledge, we stole it.

Knowledge belongs to no one. However, what kind of knowledge did Adam an Eve steal exactly?

 

You say it's not against your will to take away your sin, yet there is already an aisle where that sin can be taken from you, yet you do not avail yourself of it. So, you must cling to sin.

Huh? Not my sin not your sin. Sin as a whole.

 

As for the last part, then enjoy the wailing and gnashing of teeth, abandon hope, all ye who enter here, and remember to check to see if any cool people are on the same level as you.

Sounds really horrible. Hor-ri-ble, I say.

 

EDIT:

 

In China, you're not allowed to form an opposing political party but you are certainly free to start your own business and make a million yuan. So Ray, you're suggesting maybe God could partially censor people's behavior like China?

See, tk, god's ways are m-y-s-t-e-r-i-o-u-s. What do I care how? We would not even notice that he took sin away. We would not know it ever existed. For sure.

[Corinthian]

You are missing my point. Without sin there is still *a lot* of stuff that can be written that's not sin. I find that is more than enough. I don't need 'sinful things' to be written. You are missing my whole point. The end of 'sin' does not mean end of all freedom.

 

Knowledge belongs to no one. However, what kind of knowledge did Adam an Eve steal exactly?

 

Huh? Not my sin not your sin. Sin as a whole.

 

Sounds really horrible. Hor-ri-ble, I say.

 

EDIT:

 

See, tk, god's ways are m-y-s-t-e-r-i-o-u-s. What do I care how? We would not even notice that he took sin away. We would not know it ever existed. For sure.

True. But God wants us to have true free will, not just freedom to do things that don't offend him. It angers him when we sin against him, but he gave us that choice. Why don't you get this? It's not complex. God allows us to sin, because we have free will. If he takes away that sin, he limits our free will, because he places a barrier on things we can and can't do even within our own mind.

 

I disagree. Knowledge belongs to God, and he gives it as he sees fit. Furthermore, they stole it because God said "Do not eat of that apple." and they did it anyway. Just because they were allowed to be in the presence of the apple doesn't mean they had the right to eat it. For example, say you were in a very wealthy friend's house and you saw a small item, say, a ring, with a large diamond stone, made of gold. Just because he allowed you into the presence of that, doesn't mean you have the right to slip it into your pocket and sneak out.

 

Humanity as a whole clings to Sin.

 

Have it your way, buddy. You won't be saying that when you get there.

[Ray Jones]

True. But God wants us to have true free will, not just freedom to do things that don't offend him. It angers him when we sin against him, but he gave us that choice. Why don't you get this? It's not complex.

See I get this. It just makes no sense. We have no free will to sin or not when it is given that every human is a sinner. By that phrase the option is no option at all. We are sinners without choice, period.

 

For example, say you were in a very wealthy friend's house and you saw a small item, say, a ring, with a large diamond stone, made of gold. Just because he allowed you into the presence of that, doesn't mean you have the right to slip it into your pocket and sneak out.

See, that ring belongs to my friend, not to whoever. It's a different pair of socks. Knowledge is not owned by my friend, so I cannot steal it from him.

 

Have it your way, buddy. You won't be saying that when you get there.

Yeah, hard to say something when I am dead.

[Achilles]

In addition, the belief that God unifies all things helps to reinforce feelings of empathy. When I'm at work or when I'm driving, for example, and I feel angry towards someone, I can overcome those negative emotions by remembering that this person is not someone so different from me. That person and I share the same core being after all. And then suddenly being angry doesn't seem so important.

Ooo...this one caught my attention.

 

If we know that empathy is possible and clearly exists, how is it beneficial to attribute that empathy (or any other emotion you would like to use here) to an external source?

 

I understand that people do this. I guess I just don't understand why they do it (aside from the obvious "enculturation").

 

Thanks!

[Corinthian]

Actually, we do have Free Will. We have a choice regarding that sin. We can choose to continue to hold onto that sin, or we can choose to give it to Jesus.

 

Alright, want to debate the semantics of knowledge ownership? What about national secrets? Would you say that the Government owns the schematics to our ICBM arsenals? Because they do. Knowledge can be owned, and that particular piece of knowledge was owned by God.

[tk102]

Corinthian do you ever get the feeling that the Christian God sounds like a passive-aggressive parent? "Sure Billy you can go out do whatever you want. When you get home, if you don't admit to everything you did wrong and aren't really sorry for it, I'm going to give you a beating for all of eternity and disown you." Does this Godness=goodness to you? Wouldn't a loving God be a little more understanding -- I mean after all if he put us here wasn't he darned sure everyone would sin? What's the point of casting people into hell? It's kind of an elitist amusement. Is there any reassurance in heaven that God's not going to judge you again for something?

 

But anyway, one thing that always confused me sin is the idea of God's omniscience. If God knows everything and knows what we're going to do, he surely also knows who's going to hell for sinning and who's not right? So why would sin make God angry? And why then condemn some and reward others? It's neither a reward nor a punishment if the outcome is predetermined. Kind of arbitrary on God's part don't you think?

 

 

If we know that empathy is possible and clearly exists, how is it beneficial to attribute that empathy (or any other emotion you would like to use here) to an external source?

I'm not ascribing anything to an external source. There is nothing external.

[Achilles]

Actually, we do have Free Will. We have a choice regarding that sin. We can choose to continue to hold onto that sin, or we can choose to give it to Jesus.

 

Alright, want to debate the semantics of knowledge ownership? What about national secrets? Would you say that the Government owns the schematics to our ICBM arsenals? Because they do. Knowledge can be owned, and that particular piece of knowledge was owned by God.

How does one own something intangible? An idea or thought, once shared, cannot be taken back. It is certainly possible to create an artificial system by which rights are assigned to individuals, but that isn't the same thing.

 

In the case of your example, the "knowledge" isn't "owned". It is kept secret and/or potential "knowers" are deceived, but again this is an artificial, intentional process. So are you suggesting that god is deceitful? How worth does "free will" have if the "willer" is prevented from having all the information at hand when making a decision? What does god have to fear that he can't be open and honest with his followers?

 

I'm not ascribing anything to an external source. There is nothing external.

I guess I need some help understanding the statement that I previously quoted.

 

Please and thank you

[tk102]

I guess I need some help understanding the statement that I previously quoted.

The short answer is Me = You = God = All. Nothing external. Empathy is just understanding this.

[Corinthian]

Good grief, can't I use a metaphor without someone picking it apart?

 

God IS pretty understanding. Sacrificing your own son so that your creation might be saved counts as being pretty understanding in my books.

 

It's not like God doesn't give us plenty of chances. We've got, for the most part, sixty to a hundred years to confess our sins to God and accept Jesus into our heart. That's a pretty sizable chunk of time from a terrestrial point of view. It's not like God gives us one chance and if we let that slip through our fingers he doesn't give us another one. On the contrary, God gives us hundreds of chances. Maybe more.

 

As for whether God knows our inevitable destination, that's called Predestination. I personally believe in it. God's omniscience, I believe, is because he's not bound by the same rules as we are, since he is a being not of the fourth dimension. Maybe even not of the dimensions. I don't really try to understand that, I'll leave that to the Theologian-Scientists.

 

Since God is not bound by time as we are, in fact, he created it, I believe he can look at time. He knows what's going to happen before it does, because time is essentially meaningless to him. Don't ask me to explain how you can be without time, please. I'd really rather not try to warp my own mind, Lovecraft style.

 

Yes, in a sense, it's already made up. But it's easier to think of it in terms of very deep knowledge of each of us. Have you ever guessed what a friend was going to do before he did it? Or vice versa? You might say it's the same way with God. He knows us so deeply that he knows what we'll choose before we choose it. However, despite that, we still have a choice.

 

After you enter Heaven, judgment is over. As your mind, body, and soul will be cleansed completely, you will no longer sin, as you will no longer desire to sin. Get it?

[Rev7]

God IS pretty understanding. Sacrificing your own son so that your creation might be saved counts as being pretty understanding in my books.

*********

It's not like God doesn't give us plenty of chances. We've got, for the most part, sixty to a hundred years to confess our sins to God and accept Jesus into our heart. That's a pretty sizable chunk of time from a terrestrial point of view. It's not like God gives us one chance and if we let that slip through our fingers he doesn't give us another one. On the contrary, God gives us hundreds of chances. Maybe more.

 

***********

 

After you enter Heaven, judgment is over. As your mind, body, and soul will be cleansed completely, you will no longer sin, as you will no longer desire to sin. Get it?

 

I totally agree! Once you enter heavan, you are perfect ! God and Jesus do give us many, many chances (for those who actually see it).

 

I was thinking about the first part, and the first thing that came to my mind was that we (us humans) could be considered dogs (in this analogy of course) and Jesus and God are the dog's Masters. The Masters are kind, loving, and they provide for us, but when we as dogs, say pee on the carpet, or chew up a pillow, or something we shouldn't do, we ,as dogs, get corrected for the certain things that we shouldn't do. We are trained to cut down on those things, by the Masters. This, I think, applies to this subject perfectly.

[tk102]

Don't ask me to explain how you can be without time, please. I'd really rather not try to warp my own mind, Lovecraft style.

Regarding predestination/free will etc... we actually had a nice thread about that awhile back when we all warped our minds pretty good.

 

How literal were you when you said that sin makes God angry? Because it seems He shouldn't be angry if He predestined everyone. Or maybe just angry at Himself.

As your mind, body, and soul will be cleansed completely, you will no longer sin, as you will no longer desire to sin.

 

Do you think you will still have identity? That is, that your being will distinct from the being of God? I think you will say yes to that.

 

What exactly makes one incorporeal soul distinct from another? Is it their volition?

 

You said you will no longer sin -- did you mean you will lose free will when you enter heaven or just the ability to sin? If it the former, it seems that as you said earlier, God is stripping you of something that people want. If it is the latter, doesn't that suggest (as Ray Jones was saying) that God could do this now while we're on earth and still leave us with free will?

[Achilles]

The short answer is Me = You = God = All. Nothing external. Empathy is just understanding this.

It seems to me that the equation still works without a reference to god. So why include it?

 

Also, there are some obvious problems with trying to reference god without making it something external, but for the sake of our conversation, I think we can leave those alone for right now.

God IS pretty understanding. Sacrificing your own son so that your creation might be saved counts as being pretty understanding in my books.

If god wanted to forgive, when why couldn't he just forgive? If something somewhere requires that his son must be sacrificed, then it would seem that god is forced to operate under rules that he himself did not create. That presents a problem for the argument of omnipotence.

 

It's not like God doesn't give us plenty of chances. We've got, for the most part, sixty to a hundred years to confess our sins to God and accept Jesus into our heart. That's a pretty sizable chunk of time from a terrestrial point of view. It's not like God gives us one chance and if we let that slip through our fingers he doesn't give us another one. On the contrary, God gives us hundreds of chances. Maybe more.

Well, if god is omniscient and omnibenevolent, then wouldn't it stand to reason that he would know before we did which sins we would commit? But he can't interfere because of free will, correct? Which brings us back to the problem of there being rules that god can't violate, which puts his omnipotence in something of a catch 22.

 

As for whether God knows our inevitable destination, that's called Predestination. I personally believe in it. God's omniscience, I believe, is because he's not bound by the same rules as we are, since he is a being not of the fourth dimension. Maybe even not of the dimensions. I don't really try to understand that, I'll leave that to the Theologian-Scientists.

If you aren't sure of the argument then why have you accepted the conclusion? It would seem that if you aren't certain, then you have to at least consider the possibility that the conclusion you have accepted is incorrect.

 

Since God is not bound by time as we are, in fact, he created it, I believe he can look at time. He knows what's going to happen before it does, because time is essentially meaningless to him. Don't ask me to explain how you can be without time, please. I'd really rather not try to warp my own mind, Lovecraft style.

If all things are predetermined, then there is no free will. Without free will, then god's capacity to allow you to sin argues against his omnibenevolence and his omnipotence.

 

Yes, in a sense, it's already made up. But it's easier to think of it in terms of very deep knowledge of each of us. Have you ever guessed what a friend was going to do before he did it? Or vice versa? You might say it's the same way with God. He knows us so deeply that he knows what we'll choose before we choose it. However, despite that, we still have a choice.

I don't think these examples are comparable. If I know someone very well, then it doesn't take a great deal of power to be able to accurately guess what they are going to do. If I have a buddy that shows up late to everything, then I'm not going to be shocked and amazed when I accurately predict that he's not going to meet me at the bar precisely at 8pm.

 

After you enter Heaven, judgment is over. As your mind, body, and soul will be cleansed completely, you will no longer sin, as you will no longer desire to sin. Get it?

I understand that's the argument. I'm still stuck on how we can possibly know this is true.

[tk102]

It seems to me that the equation still works without a reference to god. So why include it?

That's fine. I prefer the term Brahman anyway since "God" has many unintentional Judeo-Christian connotations.

[Totenkopf]

Corinthian do you ever get the feeling that the Christian God sounds like a passive-aggressive parent? "Sure Billy you can go out do whatever you want. When you get home, if you don't admit to everything you did wrong and aren't really sorry for it, I'm going to give you a beating for all of eternity and disown you." Does this Godness=goodness to you? Wouldn't a loving God be a little more understanding -- I mean after all if he put us here wasn't he darned sure everyone would sin? What's the point of casting people into hell? It's kind of an elitist amusement. Is there any reassurance in heaven that God's not going to judge you again for something?

 

But anyway, one thing that always confused me sin is the idea of God's omniscience. If God knows everything and knows what we're going to do, he surely also knows who's going to hell for sinning and who's not right? So why would sin make God angry? And why then condemn some and reward others? It's neither a reward nor a punishment if the outcome is predetermined. Kind of arbitrary on God's part don't you think?

 

More importantly, why would God create something that He knew in advance He would basically discard in the trash bin? If you create something flawed, it would seem somewhat petulant to then get angry when it "messed up" and consign it to "eternal punishment", especially when you consider that eternity is a whole helluva lot longer than the mere time people are given on earth to get it right. This would also seem to fly in the face of the concepts of a just and loving and merciful being.

[Corinthian]

God gets angry when we sin, yes. But logically, haven't you ever gotten angry over something you were certain would happen? For example, when you get a new puppy, it's pretty much guaranteed the dog is going to not be housebroken, but that doesn't mean you're not going to be irritated when he takes a crap on the couch.

 

He didn't discard us in the trash bin, you'll notice. So that whole thing is rendered pointless.

 

TK, when I said that...well, why do we sin? Because we want to. Even a Christian is drawn to sin because of the desires of his flesh, or, to be more crude, your penis talking. It's not that we won't have free will, we won't sin because we will no longer have the desire to indulge in sinful acts.

[Achilles]

That's fine. I prefer the term Brahman anyway since "God" has many unintentional Judeo-Christian connotations.

Depending on how we use the term, then either the question still applies or including the term is redundant.

 

Maybe if I rephrase the question this way: What do we gain by adding concept to things such as "empathy" that do not appear to be necessary?

 

If empathy works via you=me=us (aka ubuntu or whatever) then how do we benefit by including god, Brahman, cosmic consciousness, buddha, etc? What do we gain?

[tk102]

Depending on how we use the term, then either the question still applies or including the term is redundant

It can be considered redundant certainly but that's kind of the point. There is never a need more than one equals sign in an equation.

 

Maybe if I rephrase the question this way: What do we gain by adding concept to things such as "empathy" that do not appear to be necessary?

It's hard to know exactly what you're asking. For someone like myself that believes "That thou art", the epistemology of empathy is derived from that knowledge. Empathy results from it.

If empathy works via you=me=us (aka ubuntu or whatever) then how do we benefit by including god, Brahman, cosmic consciousness, buddha, etc? What do we gain?

What do we gain... what do I gain perhaps you mean to ask, because it's never my intent to proselytize, only question things. I'll discuss the matters privately with you if you prefer as the gains for me are personal.

[Totenkopf]

God gets angry when we sin, yes. But logically, haven't you ever gotten angry over something you were certain would happen? For example, when you get a new puppy, it's pretty much guaranteed the dog is going to not be housebroken, but that doesn't mean you're not going to be irritated when he takes a crap on the couch.

 

He didn't discard us in the trash bin, you'll notice. So that whole thing is rendered pointless.

 

It's not a question of God becoming angry or disappointed when His creations fall short of the mark. My point, especially as regards predestination, is that if God creates a person that He knows will end up in hell, so to speak, then why create someone He'll only "throw in the trash bin" (they wouldn't have made the flawed decisions that they did had they NOT been created in the first place)? So the question is not, as you put it, rendered pointless.

[Corinthian]

Yes, in a sense, it's already made up. But it's easier to think of it in terms of very deep knowledge of each of us. Have you ever guessed what a friend was going to do before he did it? Or vice versa? You might say it's the same way with God. He knows us so deeply that he knows what we'll choose before we choose it. However, despite that, we still have a choice.

 

Please don't make me repeat myself.

[RobQel-Droma]

That doesn't answer the question. Why? It makes no sense. There is no point in punishing a child for what its parents did.

 

That would be assuming that the child has done nothing. We all have sinned. (besides, I don't recall God punishing people for their ancestry....)

 

Why?

 

You'd rather to carry the sins of humanity yourself?

 

Why didn't he just make a 'law' that takes 'sin' out of the equation once for all. When his ways are mysterious and he can do thing we can't comprehend, why doesn't he do something not imaginable and makes sin go away just like *poof*.

 

I understand where you're coming from on this, many people have argued this way. However, as Corinthian said, if he wanted automatons, he would have made them. Wouldn't you want to have a choice about it?

 

Yes, yes, of course! But who said something about "strip out our free will and thought and make us robots"? I didn't. This was about "bye bye sin".

 

Well, naturally, if you take away sin, you also remove the capacity to sin, so there would be (in principle) a stripping of choice from us.

[Achilles]

That would be assuming that the child has done nothing. We all have sinned. (besides, I don't recall God punishing people for their ancestry....)

Erm...original sin? We are born with sin because Adam ate from the apple. The pain of childbirth is the penance that women pay for Eve. Sounds like punishment for ancestry to me. If none of us are born without sin (i.e. The Fall), then it certainly would seem that there's some form of inheritance happening there.

 

You'd rather to carry the sins of humanity yourself?

Well, since there is no such thing as sin...

 

I understand where you're coming from on this, many people have argued this way. However, as Corinthian said, if he wanted automatons, he would have made them. Wouldn't you want to have a choice about it?

Free will implies that god isn't omniscient. I'm afraid it can't be both ways.

 

Well, naturally, if you take away sin, you also remove the capacity to sin, so there would be (in principle) a stripping of choice from us.

I'm not sure I follow. Since sin is a concept born of the human imagination, I'm not sure how it could possibly influence our capacity to make decisions. It seems that whether we decide to accept the concept of sin would in and of itself be a choice, don't you think

[Totenkopf]

Please don't make me repeat myself.

 

If this was aimed at my post, it still fails to address the question. Feel free to repeat yourself if you feel you must (though I fear it will fall wide of the mark).

 

Free will implies that god isn't omniscient.

Nonsequitor. It does raise other questions, though. But, it demonstrates that such a G/god isn't a micromanager.

[Rev7]

Well, since there is no such thing as sin...

Sorry but I beg to differ. Focus on 1b...for the atheists out there......

 

1sin

Pronunciation: \ˈsin\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at is

Date: before 12th century

1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c: an often serious shortcoming : fault

2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

synonyms see offense