God, man, and the nature of sin

[Corinthian]

Yess..., you know, He's God. What he says goes. That's how a monotheistic religion usually works.

[Samuel Dravis]

That's where the Euthyphro dilemma I talked about earlier comes in. Why does God = Good? So he doesn't have to decide what sin is!

[Corinthian]

I have no real desire to debate God's morality. Although by many of the standards around here, God is good because his actions according to his culture are good. But I really hate Moral Relativity.

 

However, my point was not that God = Good, it's that God = All Powerful.

[Samuel Dravis]

I had actually posted in reply to TK's post but that's ok.

 

Corinthian, I was actually supporting your point that God couldn't remove sin. Further that that, he doesn't - and even can't! - decide what sin is arbitrarily.

[Corinthian]

Ah. It was difficult to tell.

[Sabretooth]

But removing Sin would mean removing defiance of God.

And if that did happen, God cannot be defied anymore, at least in theory. I don't see how that is bad.

 

Also, I think I'll lay down straight something that I was approaching from the sides throughout this thread:

If God is All Powerful, he should be able to devise methods, especially sublime ones to discipline men, or to at least show them His way without instituting a human-esque law system. Sin is identical to Crime and so on, but the human legal system was invented when it was gound that humans are all equal, and it is necessary to discipline them, hence creating a set of rules everyone agreed to. But in God's model, he would not need such a legal system, as he can invent ways to purge our sin instantly, or change our minds to be good-thinking, good-doing sorts. Why resort to such a primitive government?

[Jae Onasi]

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

 

The argument is predicated on the assumption that God exists (which I noted in my initial response). If God does not, then there is no such thing as 'sin'.

 

edit--I see where you were going now.

 

If you strike out sin by striking out the ability to reject God, you've just made it mandatory to accept God. That eliminates free will and the choice to love God or not.

[Corinthian]

And if that did happen, God cannot be defied anymore, at least in theory. I don't see how that is bad.

 

That's bad because it removes our choice. God wants our devotion by our own choice, even if it is something of a Hobson's Choice.

[tk102]

Yess..., you know, He's God. What he says goes. That's how a monotheistic religion usually works.

So then, he could say "It's all good, do as you please, I love everything" if he chose to and then sin effectively would have no meaning.

[Corinthian]

I suppose he could. But he doesn't love everything. He hates sin. God does have a personality, he's not some kind of floating Uberpower in subspace or something.

[tk102]

Having a personality seems to me to imply he is limited. You can say "he is like this but not like that". It sounds anthropomorphic to me. It could be necessary for him to take on a personality to interface with us finite beings. I won't press it further because I know this is our core belief difference (personal vs. impersonal).

 

But going back, you would concede that God could change his mind if he wanted to and effectively nullify sin? The upshot would be the same as what Ray suggested earlier.

[Corinthian]

How would having a personality limit God?

 

Hypothetically? Yes, I suppose God could, at the cost of our free will regarding Sin. But God would not. As he is omniscient and aware of all time, if he were going to do that, he'd have done it already. I believe that even after the Judgment, the idea of Sin will still exist, as Satan, his third of Heaven's Host, and the humans who followed him will still be paying for it. Furthermore, I don't think that Humanity is going to be the last thing God creates, and I doubt we were the first.

[Ray Jones]

I swear that post # 122 from tk was not there after I posted mine (now # 123).

 

"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?

Nööö. Removing sin would render punishment/reward because of sin/no sin useless, true, but I would not mind keeping it. It's like one of those crappy old PCs catching dust in the basement.

 

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?

But it's not the same to say it's all good. Bad example: removing sin means murder would not happen, saying it's all good would mean killing someone is OK.

 

 

The argument is predicated on the assumption that God exists (which I noted in my initial response).

Err, yes, yes, else I would not need to talk about god removing sin.

 

If God does not, then there is no such thing as 'sin'.

Oh, I think if god does not exist there still would be something like sin. Most probably it'd be called 'immoral act'.

 

edit--I see where you were going now.

OK, let's have a look. =)

 

If you strike out sin by striking out the ability to reject God, you've just made it mandatory to accept God.

Nope. I don't want to strike out sin by striking out the ability to reject god. I said, nothing can be a sin, when there is no such thing as sin. However, as a result, without sin humans could, but would not reject god. I don't think that means they have to accept him either.

 

That eliminates free will and the choice to love God or not.

As I see it, there are three options: (1) acknowledge god (positive relationship with god), (2) deny god (negative relationship with god), (3) no qualified statement regarding god (no relationship with god). If you remove sin from the equation, you still have two options left, and thus free choice to have a relationship with god remains.

 

 

Having a personality seems to me to imply he is limited.

How? I cannot see this.

 

You can say "he is like this but not like that". It sounds anthropomorphic to me. It could be necessary for him to take on a personality to interface with us finite beings.

Hm. But god doesn't interface with us? Also, maybe this 'personality' is something humans project onto god, so they have something to grasp about god.

 

I won't press it further because I know this is our core belief difference (personal vs. impersonal).

Oh, that is simple. If god is alone, she has no personality, if god has other god beings with her, she has personality. Either way, she's an eye catcher. ^^

 

The upshot would be the same as what Ray suggested earlier.

Uuh, "let's change numbers"???

[tk102]

How would having a personality limit God?

He is limited by choosing one personality over another instead of embodying all personalities at once or none (which is the same thing to me).

Hypothetically? Yes, I suppose God could, at the cost of our free will regarding Sin.

Only insofar that sin becomes a figment of our imaginations and not God's. We would only lose the ability to truly sin against God, though we might believe that we are.

But God would not. As he is omniscient and aware of all time, if he were going to do that, he'd have done it already.

Yes I suppose stubborn God is quite set in his God personality. Oh well if God is going to gnash his teeth at sin, I guess there's no changing him. Poor God. I wonder if he ever wishes that he was beyond such cares. But I guess he's heavily invested in the whole sin thing, what with sending Jesus to die and all. Imagine how pissed Jesus would be if he found out he died for nothing. You're right, there's no way the Christian God would do that.

Furthermore, I don't think that Humanity is going to be the last thing God creates, and I doubt we were the first.

We agree. I wonder if God sent Messiahs to sinful aliens...

 

 

How I cannot see this.

Answered above.

Hm. But god doesn't interface with us? Also, maybe this 'personality' is something humans project onto god, so they have something to grasp about god.

Interface with us? No. Partake in us as we partake in him, yes. I haven't see avatars of God or been spoken to by God. I am sure humans anthropomorphize God to try to understand him.

Oh, that is simple. If god is alone, she has no personality, if god has other god beings with her, she has personality.

You are thinking either-or, but what I am saying is both-and. The transcendent can be both one and many at the same time.

[Corinthian]

So, what, you believe God has no mind? His thoughts do not run along any particular pattern? You think God is just loony-toons? Because personality dictates actions, and not having a personality would either make you brain dead or you'd just go on tangents. God clearly has a personality from the Bible. He does not suddenly start talking in Ebonics to Abraham, nor does he recommend that Shem and Ham try the cannabis. His actions follow a somewhat predicable pattern, it's readily apparent that the same God is at work. If he had no personality or numerous personalities, his actions would vary a great deal, no?

[Ray Jones]

He is limited by choosing one personality over another instead of embodying all personalities at once or none (which is the same thing to me).

Where does it say so?

 

You are thinking either-or, but what I am saying is both-and. The transcendent can be both one and many at the same time.

I did not say 'exclusive or'. If god's both, one and many at the same time, god has both, no personality and personality at the same time.

[Prime]

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.

But it is also impossible not to sin even if you accept and worship him either...

[Corinthian]

True, but that is why we can confess our sins and ask forgiveness. Without being in a relationship with God and having Jesus in your heart, you can never get that forgiveness and you will go to Hell.

[tk102]

You think God is just loony-toons? Because personality dictates actions, and not having a personality would either make you brain dead or you'd just go on tangents...If he had no personality or numerous personalities, his actions would vary a great deal, no?

 

I believe that Brahman does not act at all because there is nothing external to act upon and has no personality. Individuals act in every which way as do subatomic particles in an inert stone -- so yes God is also these multiple personalities, some loony-toon, some genius, some orderly, some chaotic.

 

Where does it say so?

I could describe it set notation if that makes more sense. If set P describes the set of all personality traits and set Q describes a set containing only some personality traits, then set Q is a subset of set P and not the other way around, nor is set Q identical to set P.

 

f god's both, one and many at the same time, god has both, no personality and personality at the same time.

Yes. Though I'd pluralize that to say he has no personality and personalities at the same time.

[Corinthian]

Well, then we worship different Gods. The God I worship is always orderly, and more importantly always sane.

[tk102]

The God I worship is always orderly

Darn that 2nd law of thermodynamics, making things disorderly. It's a sin I tell you. (that was a joke, not a jab )

Well, then we worship different Gods.

Yes, set P is not identical to set Q. I suppose the Yahweh != Jehovah != Allah due to each god's personality differences.

[Corinthian]

Yahweh and Jehovah are the same God. Allah, on the other hand, is about as closely related as Kali is to Freyr.

[RobQel-Droma]

Fairy tales next door please.

 

Way to completely blow him off.

 

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?

 

First off, that is all what becoming a Christian is all about. Devoting your life to God and letting him take care of your sins. You will always sin, but if you repent and try to stay true to God, He will accept you. That was part of Jesus mission, you know, although you seem not to care.

 

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

 

You're claiming to be sinless?

 

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.

 

Without sin, no crimes to wash away...

 

Sin is usually defined as the absence of God. So the only way to stop this would be to limit our ability to stray from Him.

 

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

 

Thats so contradictory. Without sin, we would not choose anything but God, because without Him, we sin. Its our nature.

 

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

 

Well, it's not like He created you or the whole universe or anything.

 

Oh, I think if god does not exist there still would be something like sin. Most probably it'd be called 'immoral act'.

 

Er... no. Sin is a God-related term. Outside of God, it has no meaning. Anything we would term immoral would be based on our own society that we invented - and it would have no meaning because there would be no purpose in the universe except to just, well, live as whatever...

 

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.

 

First of all, this is based on evolution, which I do not believe in.

 

But anyways, your claim that our idea of being God's children is "immature", I guess, or based on ignorance, is interesting. You make a statement out of us getting it out of an "old book." Usually we call that book "God's Word". : That's why we believe it.

 

And besides, I don't understand your point about the bug. Ummm, yeah, it could survive without it's head (I'm tempted to do a sarcastic "Oh, that's amazing") but I'm not sure where that get's the bug.....

 

I mean, it can't read, talk, wonder about God, drive a mustang, get elected to bug president, or even sin. Especially without it's head.....

 

So I really don't know why the freakish ability to survive without your head can say something about yourself. Neither does happening to survive for a very long time (which again, get's into the idea of evolution).

[Corinthian]

Yeah, those cockroaches sure do build great cities. Oh, wait. The last time a cockroach used a tool, I had duct taped it to one.

[Ray Jones]

God made the cockroaches. You should at least respect his creations, now shouldn't you?