God, man, and the nature of sin

[Achilles]

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

1b and 1c are both turns of phrase. If we're going to discuss the religious concept of "sin", let's just stick to that.

 

Every other definition (those that relate to the context in which the word was being used) is evidence that sin is a human invention. No argument that some acts are immoral, however if there is no god, then one could not say that said acts would offend him/her/it/them.

[Rev7]

Every other definition (those that relate to the context in which the word was being used) is evidence that sin is a human invention.

In a certain perspective sin was created by man(and woman). God, IMO, gave Adam and Eve a choice whether or not to eat the apple of the tree of knowledge, so in a certain perspective God created sin. I think that that just depends on the way you look at it. Definitions sometimes just don't make sense, and in this reply and the one before this, I thought that specific definition was an alternitive way to look at the word sin.

[Sabretooth]

In a certain perspective sin was created by man(and woman). God, IMO, gave Adam and Eve a choice whether or not to eat the apple of the tree of knowledge, so in a certain perspective God created sin. I think that that just depends on the way you look at it. Definitions sometimes just don't make sense, and in this reply and the one before this, I thought that specific definition was an alternitive way to look at the word sin.

 

See, that's why religion irritates me. It doesn't have hard, tangible facts and definitions like science does.

[Ray Jones]

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

-- "Hey, son, you know, I have to put you through some pain, because, you know, I am so understanding, and those people out there did something horrible, and you gonna pay for that, that okay with you?"

 

Seriously, on the planet where *I* come from, we (at least seek to) punish those who did the crime.

 

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

Huh? Everybody is responsible for what he does, why burden it to one single person? It just makes no sense. It's not loving and caring, to let those get away who originally did bad things and let someone else suffer for this. It's unjust. And it's pointless to hold people responsible for long gone things done. I'm not saying forget past things, as we should not do that, to learn from that and not make a mistake twice.

 

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?

No, you don't understand. Because if you did, you'd not talk about "automatons". Corinthian has yet to make plausible that removing sin from existence means we'd have to be "automatons". Also he has not but once made a statement to my question how we have a choice to sin or not if it is determined that "all humans have sinned" from the begin with, even new born babies.

 

Where is that choice you are talking about?

 

At what point in *her* live had my daughter the choice to whether "stay clean" or to "become a sinner". If we can chose freely, then when is that?

 

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.

No. Not the capacity to sin is to be taken from us (with sin itself remaining), sin itself has to be removed. The concept of sin, the idea of sin, Satan, NO SIN AT ALL.

[True_Avery]

Anybody considered the thought that right and wrong, good and evil, sin and just are relative terms used to describe the opinions and actions of others that we may or may not agree with, and that law and punishment is simply in place for people that society as a whole has deemed "bad" by a largely accepted set of modern day morals that most of it's people don't even pay attention to?

 

I honestly hope to see the day when people take responsibility for their own actions and the actons of others instead of blaming it on two naked people who decided to eat an apple six-ten thousand years ago. You cannot remove sin from a society, from humanity because sin has no true definition. You would end up removing humanity, and if you wanted to take it a step further, all life from he universe. Because, you know, rocks cannot sin.

 

Sigh. I don't even know why I try.

[Ray Jones]

Anybody considered the thought that right and wrong, good and evil, sin and just are relative terms used to describe the opinions and actions of others that we may or may not agree with, and that law and punishment is simply in place for people that society as a whole has deemed "bad" by a largely accepted set of modern day morals that most of it's people don't even pay attention to?

Why, yes, of course, I did.

 

I honestly hope to see the day when people take responsibility for their own actions and the actons of others instead of blaming it on two naked people who decided to eat an apple six-ten thousand years ago.

Bravo!!

 

You cannot remove sin from a society, from humanity because sin has no true definition. You would end up removing humanity, and if you wanted to take it a step further, all life from he universe.

I think an omnipotent god would find another way.

 

Because, you know, rocks cannot sin.

I'm not sure if the god of rocks would see that in a different light.

 

Sigh. I don't even know why I try.

Because you know you want to...

[Corinthian]

No, Avery. I believe Moral Relativity is a load of bunk.

 

-- "Hey, son, you know, I have to put you through some pain, because, you know, I am so understanding, and those people out there did something horrible, and you gonna pay for that, that okay with you?"

 

Jesus wasn't an unwilling participant in the plan. He agreed to it. And considering they are the Trinity, Three as One, it was likely as agonizing for the Father as it was Jesus.

Seriously, on the planet where *I* come from, we (at least seek to) punish those who did the crime.

Yes, that is usually how it works. But since God is merciful, he doesn't want us all to go to Hell. Or are you complaining that you still have to pay the price for Adam and Eve? Then here's two words, guaranteed not to make you feel better. Too bad.

 

Huh? Everybody is responsible for what he does, why burden it to one single person? It just makes no sense. It's not loving and caring, to let those get away who originally did bad things and let someone else suffer for this. It's unjust. And it's pointless to hold people responsible for long gone things done. I'm not saying forget past things, as we should not do that, to learn from that and not make a mistake twice.

Everyone does bad things, firstly. So you wouldn't get off the hook anyway. Besides, original sin has more to do with Eve bringing sin into the world. Before sin, the world was perfect. Then when Adam and Eve sinned, that perfection got thrown out of whack.

 

And, why shouldn't you pay for the sins of your forebears? The concept is practically hardwired into your consciousness. "My dad doesn't like your dad."

 

Besides, how do you propose that Adam and Eve are punished for their sin while their descendants are free of it? Warp them to another planet after they gave birth to Seth? Oh, wait. Seth was born after Cain murdered Abel, so that wouldn't work...

No, you don't understand. Because if you did, you'd not talk about "automatons". Corinthian has yet to make plausible that removing sin from existence means we'd have to be "automatons". Also he has not but once made a statement to my question how we have a choice to sin or not if it is determined that "all humans have sinned" from the begin with, even new born babies.

To choose Christ or Sin is the most important choice a man will ever make. It pretty much decides every significant choice from then, until your death. You still have choices, but none of them are at all significant. Yes, you would still have a marginal amount of choice, but you wouldn't have real free will. You'd be an Asimov Robot. Good old Three Rules.

Where is that choice you are talking about?

 

At what point in *her* live had my daughter the choice to whether "stay clean" or to "become a sinner". If we can chose freely, then when is that?

 

The Choice comes during your life. You're always a sinner. We haven't had the choice to start from a clean slate since Eve. The choice is in whether you hold onto that sin, or you let God handle it. I believe I've said this several times already.

No. Not the capacity to sin is to be taken from us (with sin itself remaining), sin itself has to be removed. The concept of sin, the idea of sin, Satan, NO SIN AT ALL.

Why should God do that? Why should we have our crimes washed away before we serve our punishment? Besides, Sin is an integral part of our free will: Without sin, we no longer have the capacity to choose something over God. We can choose insignificant things, like which pants to wear and what movie to see, but what's Free Will when the only choices you're able to make are meaningless ones?

 

And who are you to tell God what to do with his power, anyway?

[Sabretooth]

Without sin, we no longer have the capacity to choose something over God.

Considering that choosing anything over God is going to send you to eternity's worth burning Alcatraz, I hardly think that capacity even matters, in the end. Imagine this: A king establishes democracy in his kingdom, but states only the king can be leader and decide the law.

 

We can choose insignificant things, like which pants to wear and what movie to see, but what's Free Will when the only choices you're able to make are meaningless ones?

Ah, so I have a rather "meaningful" choice of not sinning and sinning if I have Free Will. Now, I choose not sinning, I'm happy, God's happy - everyone's cool. I "choose" to sin, I get sent to Hell. So, I'm walking on a road and someone gives me this choice: Hi man, you can go to your place, if you want. But I offer you a choice of killing me and not killing me. He does not explain further. I choose the other option. He falls, bleeding and says "Oh man, too bad. You'll have to go to jail now, sorry." What use is this free will if one option is going to screw you up real bad, and you know it.

 

And who are you to tell God what to do with his power, anyway?

A sensible thinking, democracy-believing, anti-monarchy individual. God's "kingdom" can go to hell, I want a democracy. (semi-serious statement, don't think over it)

[Ray Jones]

Jesus wasn't an unwilling participant in the plan. He agreed to it. And considering they are the Trinity, Three as One, it was likely as agonizing for the Father as it was Jesus.

Fairy tales next door please.

 

Yes, that is usually how it works. But since God is merciful, he doesn't want us all to go to Hell.

No all of us. Those who are full of sin. Like Satan.

 

Or are you complaining that you still have to pay the price for Adam and Eve? Then here's two words, guaranteed not to make you feel better. Too bad.

Complaining? Naaaaah. I don't complain. Disagreement yes, complain, no. Or do you want plead guilty and take responsibility regarding cruel and death bringing historic events like the ... crusades???

 

And, why shouldn't you pay for the sins of your forebears? The concept is practically hardwired into your consciousness. "My dad doesn't like your dad."

Because it's crap like that which causes wars and fights, and thus more unnecessary sin. Why should I care about your dad doesn't liking my dad? Our dads might be sinful idiots, and we could be BFFs free of sin.

 

The Choice comes during your life. You're always a sinner.

Huh? During life? How can I choose not to be a sinner when I am always a sinner? poppycock. Also, when the choice comes during lief, how come that even unborn babies are considered sinners?

 

We haven't had the choice to start from a clean slate since Eve.

Aha? Nonsense. Eve is dead since forever now, how does that relate to me?

 

The choice is in whether you hold onto that sin, or you let God handle it. I believe I've said this several times already.

Since I have not done that sin, I hard can hold onto it.

 

Why should God do that?

Because sin displeases him, and it brings death and suffering. Would you stop death and suffering if you could? I bet as a good Christian you would, eh? Is god not a good Christian.

 

Why should we have our crimes washed away before we serve our punishment?

Without sin, no crimes to wash away...

 

Besides, Sin is an integral part of our free will: Without sin, we no longer have the capacity to choose something over God.

What's so bad about it? Also, without sin, choosing something over god would be no sin anymore.

 

We can choose insignificant things, like which pants to wear and what movie to see, but what's Free Will when the only choices you're able to make are meaningless ones?

So the only important choice, and the only proper reason for free will to exist is to choose god? How..colourful.

 

And who are you to tell God what to do with his power, anyway?

Name's Ray Jones. I'm the new one. I worked upstairs at the sales dept. before. I've always dreamed of working at the Brazilian wax test range and now I'm finally here. Thank you.

[Corinthian]

Hey, fine. You want to be flippant about your soul, that's fine by me. I personally don't really care. I think we've about explored every corner of this. Besides, I'm tired of trying to explain the basics of the Christian faith and half the Bible to someone who doesn't even try to understand.

 

~~~

[Ray Jones]

Well, I don't want you to explain Christian faith to me, and I got my own view on things already, thank you. As for being flippant with my soul, you got your deal with god, I got mine: I must not sneak secretly into her shower room I can come in openly at any given time - for that I had to swear I will never stop being curious and always be as sexey as I am .. and I have to tell her everything 'bout Plan E.

 

See, basically I wanted to explore the hows and whys of what's behind that Christian faith you propose so eager. With my doubting and questioning I wanted to gain knowledge not faith.

[tk102]

Sabretooth, you are Warned for ad hominem remarks even after I was kind enough to nudge.

 

Godwin's Law is not on topic.

 

Thread re-opened for now...

[Jae Onasi]

OK, I'm going to make a few assumptions before starting this whole discussion and answer some of the questions here.

1. There is a God. If there is no God, then sin/good/evil become irrelevant in this particular discussion.

2. I'm looking at it through the Christian paradigm, because that's what I'm most familiar with.

3. With those 2 above in mind, we then move to the nature of God--omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and holy/all-good.

4. Christ was the physical embodiment of God, and came to serve as the substitute of payment for our sin.

5. God created us because He wanted to have a relationship with us (the only human equivalent I can think of is deciding to have children because you have love to share with children and want to have a family, and that's probably an incomplete approximation).

6. This is my opinion.

 

What is sin? The antithesis of good, and more importantly, our choice to willfully do that which we know is wrong. If you've ever intentionally done something to hurt someone, you've sinned. If you whacked your brother/sister/cousin on the head in anger or said something hurtful to someone, you've sinned. In that respect, we've all sinned--I don't think any one of us can say we've _never_ done something hurtful to someone else. Our capacity/ability to sin is something we've 'inherited' from our forebears, but our choice to commit sin is still very much our own, and thus we are all individually responsible for those sins that we ourselves commit. This is why very young children are not condemned to hell despite having 'inherited' the capacity to sin. They have to be mentally mature enough to have the understanding that what they're doing is wrong in order to be held accountable. So, I don't believe babies or the mentally disabled are sent to hell. This is also the reason why the fruit (legend says it's an apple, the Bible doesn't specify) itself wasn't important--it was Adam and Eve's willful disobedience of God's requirement not to eat the fruit that was the problem. Learning what was good and evil meant they (and us) were now responsible for doing what was good and not doing what was evil.

 

In terms of God and sin, sin is doing what God has asked us not to do, or not doing something God does want us to do. God's not sitting up in heaven waiting for us to do something wrong so that He can zap us into hell. He wants to have a relationship with us. You cannot force someone to have a relationship with you. They have to choose to have that relationship with you. You cannot force someone to love you, they have to choose that. God has extended His love to us, but He cannot force us to love Him, otherwise it's not really love, it's at best forced worship and at worst a falsehood. That is the nature of free will--the choice to love/have a relationship with Him or not. I chose that relationship initially as a way to avoid the ultimate consequences of sin--being 11 at the time, it was pretty black-and-white thinking. Some people do choose that for the 'get out of hell free' card. I continue in that relationship because I choose to express love back to Him. The fact that following rules like 'don't kill' and 'don't steal' are also generally beneficial to my life is an added plus.

 

The lust thing--there's a big difference between appreciating someone's attractiveness and obsessing about a sex act with that person. The verse mentioned previously referenced in particular lusting after a neighbor's wife. Acting on that lust would involve harming the relationship between that husband and wife, aside from the paternity issues should she have gotten pregnant from someone acting on their lust.

 

Can God take away sin? Yes. Does He? No. Why? Taking away sin takes away our choice to do that which is good or evil. God doesn't want automatons and Stepford wives saying "Oh, yes, we love you God" in emotionless droning. He wants people to actually mean what they say and choose Him because they want to, not because they have to. I can't force my kids to love me, nor would I want to force them, because if I did, I know the love wouldn't be genuine. Part of love is the choice to give that love or not. If you take away the choice, you've taken away an integral part of love and rendered it worthless. God longs to have a relationship with all of us, but we each have to make the choice whether or not to have that relationship with Him, too.

 

What's the deal with Christ dying on the cross for us?

Christ is the physical embodiment of God, and He chose to do that for our benefit. Christ had the power to walk away from the crucifixion had He chosen to do so. He could have fled Jerusalem, He could have prevented Judas from identifying him to those who came to arrest him, and He could have gotten down from the cross if He wanted to. He opted to give Himself as a sacrifice--offering His spiritual purity as payment for our spiritual imperfection. The Bible tells us He did that because He loved all of us. I would give my life if it meant my children could escape death. Why would God not want to do the same for all of us?

 

Theologians have studied these concepts extensively and written countless books on these subjects. It's hard to do that any kind of justice in a short post.

[True_Avery]

Interesting.

 

I like your definition of Sin, but I can only see that really applying to human beings. Humans, as we assume we are the most intelligent being on this planet, also assume greatly that we are all important through being made, or through evolution, or survival. That God(s) truly looks down upon us, with the rest of the world created directly for us. So, I ask... Why humans?

 

If you believe in both evolution and are spiritual, then consider the fact we are not all that evolved compared to most animals. Humans, or at least humans as we know them, have been evolving for over 10,000 years, about the end of the last Ice Age, and our "species" has been around for a good 200,000. Why love something so new, so selectively? Sharks have been nearly unchanged 100s of millions of years.

 

The cockroach is one of the most evolved creatures on the face of this planet. Taking a line from the TV show Heroes, cockroaches are far more evolved than us, have lived far longer than us, and will be around for millions of years after humans are gone. If the cockroach is the near pinnacle of evolution, couldn't you say that God(s) would be a cockroach? Don't we have a long way until we can claim to have the form and selective love from "our" God(s) when we are so incredibly new to a planet we show no respect for?

 

Survival of the Fittest, afterall, is by no means a merciful part of nature. Human beings try this on eachother now and then, but it usually ends in failure. The Nazi's, the Spartans, Religious cleansing. We try, but we really have no idea what we are doing.

 

If you believe that all other animals aren't mentally stunted by God, then you will can choose to see that many animals show incredible signs of intelligence and social patterns similar to humans.

 

Bonobo Chimp:

"Bonobos are capable of passing the mirror-recognition test for self-awareness. They communicate through primarily vocal means, although the meanings of their vocalizations are not currently known; however, humans do understand their facial expressions[7] and some of their natural hand gestures, such as their invitation to play. Two Bonobos at the Great Ape Trust, Kanzi and Panbanisha, have been taught a vocabulary of over 3,000 words which they can type using a special keyboard of lexigrams (geometric symbols), and they can respond to spoken sentences. Some, such as bioethicist Peter Singer, argue that these results qualify them for the "rights to survival and life," rights that humans theoretically accord to all persons."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

 

They are almost as smart as us, plus they have a better social structure than we do. They are a female run society, they almost never fight or go to war with each other or other tribes, and they constantly engage in social sex with each other as a pastime, the majority of the time being homosexual. If any intelligent animal is more deserving of having a kind face upon them, it would probably be the Bonobo.

 

But, on the other side, I can see why God(s) would pay attention to us. We are the babies of the planet. The new kids who don't know what they are doing and still have a long, long way until we have the stable social abilities of many other animals. We need a kind hand on our shoulder to help us get through the hard times if we don't destroy ourselves in the meantime.

 

Although, if you believe, like many of the religious people I know of, that animals are below us than everything I just said went out the window. Oh well.

 

Christ, in religious lore, gave him life to save us all. I am rather confused on how murdering the son or embodiment of God saves any of us. Doesn't that just prove that we may be beyond the capability to "save"? He may have "died for us", but we still killed him. Did he save us from the devil? Did everybody before christ go directly to hell? Please explain more, as the more I think on it the more I feel like an ant with a magnifying glass aiming at me.

 

And whats with Hell? Where does God have the right to send some people to a gated community and throw others into eternal torment for some sins they did because God either made them born that way, or let them do some stupid stuff in the 70 or so years they existed. 70 years isn't even the blink of an eye to eternity and I failed to see how sending people to feel pain for all time solves ANYTHING. I do understand that many people, even the religious, do not believe in a hell. But if God is going to choose who is naughty and who is nice, then I am not sure I like this God. Sounds more like a demented Santa with a complex. If you can, please explain more of this.

 

Lust is a interesting topic. We may disregard it completely, but how do we know that isn't a bad thing? The common chimpanzee, which regularly treats its females terrible and more than often "rapes" them, keeps females away from each other and has tight social groups and a tight rope on sexuality, constantly having wars with other chimps and fighting CONSTANTLY over who gets what... much like humans, actually. The Bonobo on the other hand, which has a much free'er social branch with the female leading the group instead, has recreational homosexual sex and relations... they are one of the most peaceful animals on this green earth. So, how bad can lust be when giving into it completely ends up with what the Bonobos have? All I can currently see is humans acting like the common chimp which is not a peaceful existence at all. We have ruled homosexuality as "unnatural" when it obviously is not, though many will disagree, and our men have a god complex and more often than not rule over the female of our species. We fight over money, food, and power and hide love and sex like it is a completely terrible thing. I think nature has some of the point I am trying to make backed up.

 

If fact, I might just make a thread on that topic...

 

It was Adam and Eve's willful disobedience of God's requirement not to eat the fruit that was the problem.

And that was a bad thing? You speak of robots, who simply say "We love you God." Before Adam and Eve discovered Sin and disobedience they were those robots. Living day by day, loving God and what God did for them. Then, one day, they took the Apple against Gods will. God became angry that he didn't have completely obedient servants anymore. If he became angry over those two and cursed all of humanity, what in the world makes you think for a second that he cares about you at all? It sounds more like a parent finding out their son is gay and throwing him out of the house for not being what they wanted him to be. He didn't even give them a second chance! If he said screw them, what makes you think that we simply are not all going straight to hell? Or, is that why Christ died for us? Did it really take him 8 thousand years to stop sending souls straight to hell?

 

Many may point at Adam and Eve and blame our problems on them, but if Adam and Eve were in front of me right now I would be one of the few to hug them and thank them endlessly for taking that apple. Because they took the apple, they became free from Gods servitude. Because Eve was cursed with pains of childbirth, humanity is not as big as it could be if women could pop out babies like nothing had ever happened. Because they did that, Cain killed his brother and brought death into our world... Death, which was not part of the human world before then. He gave us the gift of survival of the fittest, of the ability to kill for our own needs and the needs of our family.

 

Woman is cursed to submit to her husband... pfft. It may possibly be a misunderstood passage, but that most of all ticks me off for the fact that it brought forth so much oppression by the ignorant. You know, chimps oppress their woman and look where they are.

 

I am confused on many of these topics, so if someone could clear them up for me I would gladly read what you have to say.

[Ray Jones]

Okay Jae, that all sounds good too me. Although I am still not convinced why an omnipotent god would not find a way to remove sin from existence without that he would take the choice for a relationship with him.

[Jae Onasi]

Interesting.

 

I like your definition of Sin, but I can only see that really applying to human beings. Humans, as we assume we are the most intelligent being on this planet, also assume greatly that we are all important through being made, or through evolution, or survival. That God(s) truly looks down upon us, with the rest of the world created directly for us. So, I ask... Why humans?

I don't know 'why humans'. I know animals don't have the same capacity for sin because they don't truly know the difference between right/wrong--sure, some of them can be 'naughty' now and then, but so can 3 year olds, and we don't hold them accountable. The Bible implies animals end up in heaven, but otherwise it's not been addressed other than man's (generic humankind) authority over the animal world.

 

If you believe in both evolution and are spiritual, then consider the fact we are not all that evolved compared to most animals.

I think God at the very least guided evolution, so I don't consider that an issue.

Why love something so new, so selectively? Sharks have been nearly unchanged 100s of millions of years.

Simply because He made us that way.

 

 

If the cockroach is the near pinnacle of evolution, couldn't you say that God(s) would be a cockroach?

I don't consider cockroaches to be the pinnacle of evolution. Far from it.

Don't we have a long way until we can claim to have the form and selective love from "our" God(s) when we are so incredibly new to a planet we show no respect for?

The Bible is designed to elaborate on God's relationship with humans. Since God declared His creation 'good', I'm assuming He cared about all of it, not just us, but we're the ones who have the capacity to have the relationship with Him rather than animals, hence the focus on us as humans.

 

Survival of the Fittest, afterall, is by no means a merciful part of nature. Human beings try this on eachother now and then, but it usually ends in failure. The Nazi's, the Spartans, Religious cleansing. We try, but we really have no idea what we are doing.

Well, I agree we do a fine job of royally screwing things up sometimes, but I'm not 100% sure where you're going with this.

 

If you believe that all other animals aren't mentally stunted by God, then you will can choose to see that many animals show incredible signs of intelligence and social patterns similar to humans.

They were made the way they were. I don't view them as 'mentally stunted'.

 

Bonobo Chimp:

They are almost as smart as us, plus they have a better social structure than we do. They are a female run society, they almost never fight or go to war with each other or other tribes, and they constantly engage in social sex with each other as a pastime, the majority of the time being homosexual. If any intelligent animal is more deserving of having a kind face upon them, it would probably be the Bonobo.

How did you come to the conclusion that this is 'better' than humanity (except war)? Maybe it's 'better' for that chimp, but unprotected promiscuity at least in humanity causes a number of health issues and unwanted pregnancies. What's good for a chimp may not be what's good for us humans and vice-versa.

 

Although, if you believe, like many of the religious people I know of, that animals are below us than everything I just said went out the window. Oh well.

God created the entire universe, and none of it is unimportant. We may have authority over animals, but we're supposed to be their caretakers.

 

Christ, in religious lore, gave him life to save us all. I am rather confused on how murdering the son or embodiment of God saves any of us.

Actually, Christ chose to allow that to happen to Him. There has to be punishment for ultimate evil. We do the same here on earth--evil is not allowed to go unpunished (at least theoretically). Something pure had to be the sacrifice to serve as the substitution for the bad/evil we do during life. I suppose He could have chosen toenail clippings as a sacrifice, but that's not very much of a sacrifice, is it? Giving up one's life is the ultimate sacrifice.

 

Doesn't that just prove that we may be beyond the capability to "save"? He may have "died for us", but we still killed him.

He didn't have to die for us. He chose to do that.

 

Did he save us from the devil?

He saved us from our own individual sinfulness.

 

Did everybody before christ go directly to hell?

No. We look back to Christ for salvation, people prior to Christ looked forward to His salvation. Those who've never heard of Jesus can still see God in His very amazing universe, and acknowledging the Creator serves as their salvation, but that's a long discussion in itself.

 

Please explain more, as the more I think on it the more I feel like an ant with a magnifying glass aiming at me.

 

And whats with Hell? Where does God have the right to send some people to a gated community and throw others into eternal torment for some sins they did because God either made them born that way, or let them do some stupid stuff in the 70 or so years they existed. 70 years isn't even the blink of an eye to eternity and I failed to see how sending people to feel pain for all time solves ANYTHING. I do understand that many people, even the religious, do not believe in a hell. But if God is going to choose who is naughty and who is nice, then I am not sure I like this God. Sounds more like a demented Santa with a complex. If you can, please explain more of this.

Let me ask this--would you allow a sadistic serial killer to go unpunished? Most likely not, because there are consequences for evil behavior. Should God be disallowed from passing judgment on evil because He's God? We all sin, we all do bad, we all are imperfect. I think what God is asking is if we're going to acknowledge and have a relationship in love with Him, or if we're going to utterly reject a relationship with Him. If we reject Him completely, He's going to respect that, and He's going to remove His presence from those who don't want Him. Now imagine a place completely devoid of God's love and goodness, a place of utter evil and hatred. That's hell right there. However, it will be by that person's own choosing. They will have chosen to completely reject God, and they will experience the results of that decision. God won't be punishing them so much as He will be respecting their decision to live entirely without His presence, and removing Himself from that person.

 

Lust is a interesting topic. We may disregard it completely, but how do we know that isn't a bad thing?

Obsessing about having an intimate relationship with someone who's already involved in another relationship, or who maybe doesn't want a relationship with the luster, is a problem. Thinking about doing a sin leads to actually doing that sin with some frequency. You have to think about doing a sin before you actually commit it, which is why we're told to maintain pure thoughts as well as actions.

 

The common chimpanzee, which regularly treats its females terrible and more than often "rapes" them, keeps females away from each other and has tight social groups and a tight rope on sexuality, constantly having wars with other chimps and fighting CONSTANTLY over who gets what... much like humans, actually. The Bonobo on the other hand, which has a much free'er social branch with the female leading the group instead, has recreational homosexual sex and relations... they are one of the most peaceful animals on this green earth. So, how bad can lust be when giving into it completely ends up with what the Bonobos have? All I can currently see is humans acting like the common chimp which is not a peaceful existence at all. We have ruled homosexuality as "unnatural" when it obviously is not, though many will disagree, and our men have a god complex and more often than not rule over the female of our species. We fight over money, food, and power and hide love and sex like it is a completely terrible thing. I think nature has some of the point I am trying to make backed up.

We are not chimps, so this doesn't apply, as I noted earlier. I have a friend who has been a male prostitute and was so promiscuous I could never keep up with who was visiting him what night. I'm very happy to hide his sexual proclivities from my kids right now--they're too young to be exposed to his 'appetites'. I appreciate honesty in sexual discussion but not abject raunchy obscene (grandma's dirty jokes notwithstanding), and there is a big difference.

 

And that was a bad thing? You speak of robots, who simply say "We love you God." Before Adam and Eve discovered Sin and disobedience they were those robots. Living day by day, loving God and what God did for them. Then, one day, they took the Apple against Gods will. God became angry that he didn't have completely obedient servants anymore.

They had the choice to obey God or not--they weren't robots.

 

If he became angry over those two and cursed all of humanity, what in the world makes you think for a second that he cares about you at all? It sounds more like a parent finding out their son is gay and throwing him out of the house for not being what they wanted him to be. He didn't even give them a second chance! If he said screw them, what makes you think that we simply are not all going straight to hell? Or, is that why Christ died for us? Did it really take him 8 thousand years to stop sending souls straight to hell?

God is loving. God is also just. Sin can't go on without consequences, just like we can't allow a serial killer to go on killing unchecked. He acknowledges that humans are going to do stupid hurtful things. He also provided a way out for everyone of us. As I noted before, salvation hasn't been limited to just those who came after Christ.

Many may point at Adam and Eve and blame our problems on them, but if Adam and Eve were in front of me right now I would be one of the few to hug them and thank them endlessly for taking that apple. Because they took the apple, they became free from Gods servitude. Because Eve was cursed with pains of childbirth, humanity is not as big as it could be if women could pop out babies like nothing had ever happened. Because they did that, Cain killed his brother and brought death into our world... Death, which was not part of the human world before then. He gave us the gift of survival of the fittest, of the ability to kill for our own needs and the needs of our family.

Well, having gone through childbirth, I can tell you I'm so not thankful for labor pains. Labor sucks. Given that we had perfection prior to sin's entry into the world, we lost out, not gained. We went from perfection to imperfection. You don't need 'survival of the fittest' when you already have perfection. However, what's done is done. We live in a world where sin is reality and all we can do is deal with the now.

Woman is cursed to submit to her husband... pfft. It may possibly be a misunderstood passage, but that most of all ticks me off for the fact that it brought forth so much oppression by the ignorant. You know, chimps oppress their woman and look where they are.

Living in trees and eating bananas and ants?

I am confused on many of these topics, so if someone could clear them up for me I would gladly read what you have to say.

I don't know that I can clear it up for you. C. S. Lewis is far more articulate on the subject--Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain are great at explaining some of these issues.

 

 

@Ray--I wasn't 100% sure what you were meaning with your post--thought about 3 different interpretations of it, so if you could clarify for me, that'd be cool.

[True_Avery]

I don't know 'why humans'. I know animals don't have the same capacity for sin because they don't truly know the difference between right/wrong--sure, some of them can be 'naughty' now and then, but so can 3 year olds, and we don't hold them accountable. The Bible implies animals end up in heaven, but otherwise it's not been addressed other than man's (generic humankind) authority over the animal world.

Simply because He made us that way.

Hmm, interesting.

 

But why is a human's capability to think any more advanced than another animals? What makes us special? There are other animals capable of many of the things our minds are capable of. It sounds selfish to say that we are gods children when you in fact have never met god, do not know gods true motives, and get this information from a very old book. I am not trying to be a b**** here, but just stating the obvious.

 

Saying that humans are the guardians of the world is basically saying that we rule over it, which is the words of ignorant humans thousands of years ago that assumed that they were on a flat planet in the center of the universe. Evolution works on survival, and I think a bug that can live for weeks without a head is a little more ahead than us.

 

Our intelligent minds help us survive, but it is killing everything around us.

 

I don't consider cockroaches to be the pinnacle of evolution. Far from it.

The Bible is designed to elaborate on God's relationship with humans. Since God declared His creation 'good', I'm assuming He cared about all of it, not just us, but we're the ones who have the capacity to have the relationship with Him rather than animals, hence the focus on us as humans.

Hmmm

 

Animals are capable of feeling compassion and love though. Humans just absorb more information.

 

I'd think that something that has survived for hundreds of millions of years longer than us has the right to say that is it more evolved than us. Intelligent mind is not the highest point in evolution. It is something that is being tried, and in a few million years may be proven to be ineffective and thrown out of the gene pool.

 

 

How did you come to the conclusion that this is 'better' than humanity (except war)? Maybe it's 'better' for that chimp, but unprotected promiscuity at least in humanity causes a number of health issues and unwanted pregnancies. What's good for a chimp may not be what's good for us humans and vice-versa.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=183210

 

God created the entire universe, and none of it is unimportant. We may have authority over animals, but we're supposed to be their caretakers.

We are doing a terrible job so far. Absolutely apalling job. I can see God forgiving us for a lot, but we are ALL murderers and we all destroy this planet willingly and fully aware of what we are doing. I think that is deserving of a nice stay in hell if anything.

 

Actually, Christ chose to allow that to happen to Him. There has to be punishment for ultimate evil. We do the same here on earth--evil is not allowed to go unpunished (at least theoretically). Something pure had to be the sacrifice to serve as the substitution for the bad/evil we do during life. I suppose He could have chosen toenail clippings as a sacrifice, but that's not very much of a sacrifice, is it? Giving up one's life is the ultimate sacrifice.

But why him? Couldn't any old person do that? God came down, died, then went back up. Acomplishing nothing but a new religion into place that would cause further drama and death along the road. He brought morals that were already common sense to the human race, and even after that people still sinned.

 

He didn't have to die for us. He chose to do that.

I'm still not clear on why.

 

He saved us from our own individual sinfulness.

What do you mean by saved?

 

No. We look back to Christ for salvation, people prior to Christ looked forward to His salvation. Those who've never heard of Jesus can still see God in His very amazing universe, and acknowledging the Creator serves as their salvation, but that's a long discussion in itself.

"Never heard od Jesus" sounds like a punch to nearly all other religions to me. It seems selfish to say that your belief system is the only true one in the universe, when it is quoite possible our feeble human minds cannot comphrehend what a god would actually think, if a god can even think as thinking is an animal behavior, electronic signals in the brains that travel from place to place.

 

Let me ask this--would you allow a sadistic serial killer to go unpunished? Most likely not, because there are consequences for evil behavior. Should God be disallowed from passing judgment on evil because He's God? We all sin, we all do bad, we all are imperfect. I think what God is asking is if we're going to acknowledge and have a relationship in love with Him, or if we're going to utterly reject a relationship with Him. If we reject Him completely, He's going to respect that, and He's going to remove His presence from those who don't want Him. Now imagine a place completely devoid of God's love and goodness, a place of utter evil and hatred. That's hell right there. However, it will be by that person's own choosing. They will have chosen to completely reject God, and they will experience the results of that decision. God won't be punishing them so much as He will be respecting their decision to live entirely without His presence, and removing Himself from that person.

As far as I am concerned, we live in both heaven and hell at this very moment. I am still not quite sure what you mean by hell. A place devoit of God? You know, if my son or daughter were to say they didn't want to be around me anymore I probably wouldn't say "screw it, go ahead and do what you want to" and then punish them for eternity when they come back later after doing something stupid. That is playing my children like a game, not as a parent.

 

Eternal damnation doesn't sound like "He will be respecting their decision." It sounds more like a cop out in saying that people who do "bad" thing will eventually be punished. A scare tactic for people to do "good", and even if hell existed that simply proves that god does not love all. I can respect someones wishes by shooting them in the head if they don't like being around me but that doesn't make for good equality.

 

I could start an arguement about good and evil relativity, but it seems a moot point right now.

 

Obsessing about having an intimate relationship with someone who's already involved in another relationship, or who maybe doesn't want a relationship with the luster, is a problem. Thinking about doing a sin leads to actually doing that sin with some frequency. You have to think about doing a sin before you actually commit it, which is why we're told to maintain pure thoughts as well as actions.

Fair enough.

 

We are not chimps, so this doesn't apply, as I noted earlier. I have a friend who has been a male prostitute and was so promiscuous I could never keep up with who was visiting him what night. I'm very happy to hide his sexual proclivities from my kids right now--they're too young to be exposed to his 'appetites'. I appreciate honesty in sexual discussion but not abject raunchy obscene (grandma's dirty jokes notwithstanding), and there is a big difference.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=183210

And technically, we are simply hairless chimps. But thats an evolutionary debate topic.

 

They had the choice to obey God or not--they weren't robots.

He created them, told them what to do, and then watched over them. When they disobeyed him, he cursed all of humanity. Sounds like an "evil" monarchy to me.

 

God is loving. God is also just. Sin can't go on without consequences, just like we can't allow a serial killer to go on killing unchecked. He acknowledges that humans are going to do stupid hurtful things. He also provided a way out for everyone of us. As I noted before, salvation hasn't been limited to just those who came after Christ.

I'm still confused on the Christ part. If he was giving salvation this entire time, why come down in the first place to simply die and go back up?

 

Well, having gone through childbirth, I can tell you I'm so not thankful for labor pains. Labor sucks. Given that we had perfection prior to sin's entry into the world, we lost out, not gained. We went from perfection to imperfection. You don't need 'survival of the fittest' when you already have perfection. However, what's done is done. We live in a world where sin is reality and all we can do is deal with the now.

Perfection is a relative term. What is perfection to one is imperfect to another. In my opinion, Adam and Eve were imperfect before eating the apple. Then they became humans, they became animals, and they became part of nature. You wouldn't exist if they hadn't of eaten the apple. I think nature, as of now, is in its own way perfect. All the math, all the physics, all the evolution and selection. It is a system of near perfection that strives for perfection, and creating someone who already had everything, I think, would be cheating the system god set up in the first place. Why set up all those rules if he could just make perfection and be done with it. Is this some kind of game to him? It sure sounds like something I'd do in The Sims.

 

Living in trees and eating bananas and ants?

Civil war, death, destruction, slavery, rape, murder, etc . They are more like humans than you assume. We arn't alone in this world of intelligence, and saying we are is slapping gods work in the face. By saying that you alone are important, you disregard all of what God has done to put -yourself- in the spotlight, screaming "I want you to love me more!". The little kid who wants mommy and daddy to pay attention to it while the little kid's better siblings run around doing what must be done to continue the circle of life.

 

I'm sorry, but thats all I can see out of that.

 

I don't know that I can clear it up for you. C. S. Lewis is far more articulate on the subject--Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain are great at explaining some of these issues

I'll look them up.

 

Edit: Some of my comments may have come off as hateful. Know that I am merely throwing topics out for debate and not to anger anyone.

[Ray Jones]

@Ray--I wasn't 100% sure what you were meaning with your post--thought about 3 different interpretations of it, so if you could clarify for me, that'd be cool.

Yeah, right, as if I would, at least today, be able to abstract my posts in a way so they do not gush out into the ocean of thousand meanings.

 

Although I am still not convinced why an omnipotent god would not find a way to remove sin from existence without that he would take the choice for a relationship with him.

 

If I got it right, then you (and also others) said that god could remove sin from existence, but would not do it because he wants us humans to (more or less) actively choose between him and sin, and without sin there would be nothing to choose between anymore. (Regardless of when and how, or whatever this means to free will or not.)

 

I say, if god is really omnipotent, and omni-this, and omni-that, the must be able to find a way to have both: to remove sin from the universe and keep the choice for having a relationship with him or not, even more, he must already know of a method to achieve this. It is also totally irrelevant if this does sound illogical and makes no sense at all to the common human being because "how can someone choose between two things if one is nonexistent".

[Jae Onasi]

Yeah, right, as if I would, at least today, be able to abstract my posts in a way so they do not gush out into the ocean of thousand meanings.

 

How do you keep the choice to reject God when taking away sin? That's what sin really boils down to--that rejection. The types of sin are outworkings of that rejection.

[Ray Jones]

By striking sin out of the universe, how can "rejection" of god be sin? How can something be something that does not exist?

[Corinthian]

Rejecting God IS sin. That's what Sin boils down to. You can't reject God and not Sin. It's impossible, because Sin is Rejecting God, and Rejecting God is Sin. You can't have one without the other.

[tk102]

By striking sin out of the universe, how can "rejection" of god be sin? How can something be something that does not exist?

"Striking sin out of the universe" -- no need to be mysterious about it. Aren't you just saying, why doesn't God eliminate the whole reward/punishment system? God doesn't need magic to change the laws of the universe to remove sin -- he could just change his mind and say it's all good. Right?

[Ray Jones]

When sin is a non-existent thing, nothing can be sin. Nothing. You cannot even say something is sin. Because it's just not there.

[Corinthian]

But removing Sin would mean removing defiance of God. They're one and the same. Synonyms. What you're suggesting is that God make Sin not Sin. I shouldn't have to explain why that is both ridiculous and impossible.

[tk102]

It's only sin if God says it's a sin.