God, man, and the nature of sin

[Rev7]

Key Word: CLOSE

[Corinthian]

Anyone can say we came 'close.'. We came 'close' to a nuclear war with the USSR. We came close to invading China. We came close to defeat in World War 2. Saying that we came 'close' is pointless and meaningless.

[Jvstice]

Actually it would have been a massacre if the mormons' 3rd leader hadn't had a sudden "revelation" from God the night before the invasion that God didn't want them to practice poligamy any more.

[tk102]

Topicality, please.

[Totenkopf]

I respect cockroaches as lifeforms, regardless if they are god created or not..

.

 

What does this mean exactly? Do you just collect them and take them back out to the wild if you find them in a house (where you say they don't properly belong) or just squash/exterminate them like most other people? Also, are you insinuating that people who believe in God/god are somehow immoral for not treating all other animals or insects they way they treat other humans (then again, would that even be a good thing seeing how we treat each other )? Also, what exactly do roaches do that make them indespensible to the "health of the planet" (such that their extinction could prove most harmful)?

[Prime]

Also, what exactly do roaches do that make them indespensible to the "health of the planet" (such that their extinction could prove most harmful)?

They are part of the food chain, so they help support other species that use them for food. And like other insects they eat and break down decaying matter, and play an important part of the overall ecosystem.

[Ray Jones]

What does this mean exactly?

It does mean, r-e-s-p-e-c-t towards lifeforms, no matter how different they are. You cannot just go out and kill life just because you cannot cope how it looks or whatever. There are also religions out there which say that every animal's soul was a human soul earlier, so basically, when you squash a big fat bug it could have been the stinking uncle Bob once. Respect means also that no matter what you think of some creature it doesn't mean it's useless.

 

Do you just collect them and take them back out to the wild if you find them in a house (where you say they don't properly belong) or just squash/exterminate them like most other people?

If possible I usually do not squash whatever insect found its way into my flat. I collect them and take them out. Of course, I life in Germany and there are not many if not no in any way toxic insects around here. Also, we're talking about single creatures here not a whole plaque where you have tons of ants or cockroaches running through your house.

 

Also, are you insinuating that people who believe in God/god are somehow immoral for not treating all other animals or insects they way they treat other humans (then again, would that even be a good thing seeing how we treat each other )?

When did I say they should treat any animals like they treat humans? That wouldn't even be possible, since I would not necessarily find it to be a good idea to try to shake hands with an ice bear or a black mamba. And frankly, I don't care if someone believes in whatever god.

 

Maybe I should try to make that clear once more: *if* someone believes in god and that this god created everything, and he respects his word, law, divinity, whatever, shouldn't it be a logical consequence that this person also respects what he believes to be god's work? At least in my book declaring it useless or unnecessarily doing harming to it shows a lack of respect for this "work of his god". Everywhere they go "respect god", "respect unborn life", "don't kill thy neighbour", "gayness is not what god wants us to do", "masturbation is murder", "obey god or else", "god has made this and that", "it's god's will" and what not and they yell at everybody who dares to think different, but when it comes to some small insect which is, according to their beliefs also a god made creature, it suddenly doesn't mean anything anymore that god made it, suddenly god's creation is called useless, worthless, and they ask "why is it there anyway".

 

Isn't that turning away from god already? Isn't that sin? No way, it's just a useless cockroach!

 

Also, what exactly do roaches do that make them indespensible to the "health of the planet" (such that their extinction could prove most harmful)?

Cockroaches are scavengers and do exactly what all scavengers do. Scavengers clean up the place from the rotting remains of any life, which is very important to a working eco-system. They eat the dead remains of other animals or plants. From that point of view they are as (un?)important as many other insects, hyenas, piranhas or even sharks. I've seen deep see sharks cleaning a dead 5 ton (sunken down to the ground to 1400m depth) whale down to the bones in like 2 days, what the sharks left over was then eaten by some eels and worms and the rest was done by a huge colony of bacterias. By the way, even early humans supposedly were scavengers to some degree, as they were waiting to get a hold of what the big predators left over from their prey.

 

Also, if no one would clean up the place, pretty much every lake, river or ocean would be filled with toxic water, full of bacterias and germs for any illness one can think of. For instance.

 

However, what do animals or plants do massively productive anyway, besides eating each other, making loo and poo, standing in the way and disturbing our peace?

[Jvstice]

Maybe I should try to make that clear once more: *if* someone believes in god and that this god created everything, and he respects his word, law, divinity, whatever, shouldn't it be a logical consequence that this person also respects what he believes to be god's work? At least in my book declaring it useless or unnecessarily doing harming to it shows a lack of respect for this "work of his god". Everywhere they go "respect god", "respect unborn life", "don't kill thy neighbour", "gayness is not what god wants us to do", "masturbation is murder", "obey god or else", "god has made this and that", "it's god's will" and what not and they yell at everybody who dares to think different, but when it comes to some small insect which is, according to their beliefs also a god made creature, it suddenly doesn't mean anything anymore that god made it, suddenly god's creation is called useless, worthless, and they ask "why is it there anyway".

 

Isn't that turning away from god already? Isn't that sin? No way, it's just a useless cockroach!

 

Actually, the book of Genesis claims exactly this. After Noah and his family survive the flood and are released from the Ark, God tells them that they can eat meat and lays down a prohibition against murdering other humans.

 

The prohibition against murder is spelled out as not destroying the image of God, since humans are created in the image of God, and people are required to kill animals that they eat in a respectful way.

[Totenkopf]

@Prime/Ray---I get the whole "chain of life" thing, but if every animal and/or insect were that important (afterall, we're all part of that chain), then extinctions of any species should have proven catastrophic to the planet. I suspect if the cockroach disappeared overnight, something would take its place.

[Ray Jones]

Err, but that is not something new, either. Except for small and micro-organisms, which are at the lower end of the food chain, every species will easily have an successor who will fill the gap it would leave and almost nothing would happen. That's the whole concept of life and evolution, after all. Also, that still does not render a species useless, just because it could be "replaced". I mean name an animal whose extinction would cause a catastrophe. And what's that "catastrophe" anyway?

[Totenkopf]

Well, I'm not arguing that cockroaches don't make some contribution, just that killing them is not a moral issue just b/c they were "created by God". Seems like a kind of specious argument that theists shouldn't hurt any lifeform b/c "god" might be somehow offended (ie. sin). I will grant you that taping a cockroach to a hammer is frivilous, just not "sinful". Curious, though, to what extent do you "respect" plant life? It's also living, afterall.

[Ray Jones]

Well, I'm not arguing that cockroaches don't make some contribution, just that killing them is not a moral issue just b/c they were "created by God".

I did not talk about moral issues or killing them. I just wondered why one would respect a god and consider this god's word to be "law" and say what god does stands without question, and then on the other hand label some of his god's creatures "useless" and "a hair above dirt", nothing more. It just makes no sense to say "we cannot comprehend what god has in his mind when he does something and he has reasons for everything and is omniscient anyways" and so forth, and at the same time, he questions what he did and shows no respect for it.

 

 

Seems like a kind of specious argument that theists shouldn't hurt any lifeform b/c "god" might be somehow offended (ie. sin).

Huh? I thought religion is all about "not to sin", in other words not to do something that might offend your god? I can imagine that god does not consider it to be OK if you're going to do harm unto his creatures without any given reason but that one where you think "these are just some lousy bugs, I pee all over those worthless beings."

 

 

I will grant you that taping a cockroach to a hammer is frivilous, just not "sinful".

So, why doesn't he just take that cockroach, duct tape it to a hammer, shout out loud "See god, this is what I do with your creation, **** that creepy insect, it's worthless, you made it, I'll kill it, for no other purpose than [insert personal motive here], so why don't you shove it up your omnilala anus!! -- Oh, by the way, god, my little brother is very ill, please care for him so he'll be well again real soon, pleeaase????", and then crash its exoskeleton into thousand pieces.

 

 

Curious, though, to what extent do you "respect" plant life? It's also living, afterall.

I do respect plant life to the same extend I do respect animal life, what else?

[Corinthian]

First of all, that incident never actually happened. I was making a very poor excuse for a joke. Yes, if I had done it, it would have been sinful, as I was essentially torturing the creature before snuffing it, but I didn't. I do my best to kill them quickly...they give me the creeps, anyway, I can't handle them long enough to get tape on them. Can we move on? This really isn't germane.

[Ray Jones]

I do my best to kill them quickly...they give me the creeps

Some worms or slugs give me the creeps, too, but that doesn't mean I must kill them.

[Corinthian]

Worms and slugs don't crawl on your leg at night, unless you're sleeping in a Hobbit Hole.

[Jae Onasi]

Topicality, please.

 

Amen, brother. I'm trying to figure out how slugs and Hobbit holes are related to the nature of sin, and I'm just not seeing the connection, so let's return to the topic before it travels way off course.

[Ray Jones]

The question currently was: is calling any of gods creatures useless considered sin? Humans, god, sin. There you go.

[Corinthian]

No. Can we move on now?

[Jvstice]

You can make a pretty strong case that not showing respect for God's creation is a sin in either New or Old Testament. There's nothing that says that killing any kind of plant or animal is a sin though, no matter how you slice it.

[Ray Jones]

You can make a pretty strong case that not showing respect for God's creation is a sin in either New or Old Testament.

OK. Thanks for clarifying that (again).

 

There's nothing that says that killing any kind of plant or animal is a sin though, no matter how you slice it.

Killing itself cannot be a sin, and I don't think this was a point in question at any time. Especially since we all have to eat something, at least from time to time.

[Totenkopf]

I did not talk about moral issues or killing them. I just wondered why one would respect a god and consider this god's word to be "law" and say what god does stands without question, and then on the other hand label some of his god's creatures "useless" and "a hair above dirt", nothing more. It just makes no sense to say "we cannot comprehend what god has in his mind when he does something and he has reasons for everything and is omniscient anyways" and so forth, and at the same time, he questions what he did and shows no respect for it.

 

Well, if you don't consider killing them/cavalier treatment to be potentially sinful (sin being a breach of morality), then that explanation falls short somehow. By that rationale, we shouldn't walk on the grass (it's a life form) or dig holes in the ground b/c we might disturb the integrity of some "lifeform" already preexisting there, and that might be an offense (however negligent) against God/god.

 

Huh? I thought religion is all about "not to sin", in other words not to do something that might offend your god? I can imagine that god does not consider it to be OK if you're going to do harm unto his creatures without any given reason but that one where you think "these are just some lousy bugs, I pee all over those worthless beings."

 

Kinda of like suggesting good civic behavior is primarily about mindlessly obeying the laws on the books.

 

So, why doesn't he just take that cockroach, duct tape it to a hammer, shout out loud "See god, this is what I do with your creation, **** that creepy insect, it's worthless, you made it, I'll kill it, for no other purpose than [insert personal motive here], so why don't you shove it up your omnilala anus!! -- Oh, by the way, god, my little brother is very ill, please care for him so he'll be well again real soon, pleeaase????", and then crash its exoskeleton into thousand pieces.

 

Such mellowdramatics. I dunno?

[Ray Jones]

Well, if you don't consider killing them/cavalier treatment to be potentially sinful (sin being a breach of morality), then that explanation falls short somehow.

No it doesn't. Because that explanation does not address moral issues of killing or whether it is potentially sinful. It never did. It didn't even address killing in the first place.

 

 

By that rationale, we shouldn't walk on the grass (it's a life form) or dig holes in the ground b/c we might disturb the integrity of some "lifeform" already preexisting there, and that might be an offense (however negligent) against God/god.

It always depends on why respective how you walk on the grass or why respective how you dig a hole. What might offend god does not (and cannot) solely depend on the fact that someone steps onto grass or digs a hole. But again, that was not the point.

 

 

Kinda of like suggesting good civic behavior is primarily about mindlessly obeying the laws on the books.

More like suggesting coherent and consequent behaviour, especially when it comes preaching god's will onto others.

 

 

Such mellowdramatics.

A rather colourful illustration of what it actually means when a firm believer talks about animals being "one hair above dirt".

[Totenkopf]

No it doesn't. Because that explanation does not address moral issues of killing or whether it is potentially sinful. It never did. It didn't even address killing in the first place.

 

Not killing exclusively. However, killing something that doesn't threaten you directly (swatting a fly, stepping on a bug) seems to fall under what you appear to be railing about: the cavalier and seemingly hypocritical treatment of God's/god's creatures b/c they fail to satisfy some arbitrary (from your pov anyway) assessment of the value of God's/god's "lesser" life forms. As this thread is about the nature of sin, it's not unfair to conclude that you were questioning a "a firm believer's" sense of sin via your cockroach example.

 

It always depends on why respective how you walk on the grass or why respective how you dig a hole. What might offend god does not (and cannot) solely depend on the fact that someone steps onto grass or digs a hole. But again, that was not the point.

 

It may not have been your point, but this isn't one dimensional yes/no either. The underlying assumption w/in your challenge is the idea that all life is equal in value in God's/god's eyes, regardless of whatever your personal belief system is. You imply that it may well matter to God/god, but then insist that it shouldn't/can't. Don't know what to make of that. So, why assume that a God/god you don't believe in anyway would be offended that you kill/hurt/disrespect a cockroach simply b/c He/he created it? Who's to say why such things were put here in the first place.

 

 

More like suggesting coherent and consequent behaviour, especially when it comes preaching god's will onto others.

 

Meh........more like an overly simple, if consistent, view of interpreting God's/god's will. To each his own, I suspect.

 

 

A rather colourful illustration of what it actually means when a firm believer talks about animals being "one hair above dirt".

 

Right. Colorful as in mellowdramatic and over the top.

[Corinthian]

I don't see it as being a problem when you destroy a creature that invaded your territory. Just about every other predator on Earth does it. Dogs don't mark their territory because it inflates their ego, you know.

 

Now, can we get off this little tangent?

[RobQel-Droma]

A rather colourful illustration of what it actually means when a firm believer talks about animals being "one hair above dirt".

 

Oh, nice....

 

I was talking about cockroaches - which, BTW, I tend to not kill insects either, simply because I just feel slightly guilty about killing other creatures. Especially when they are some kind of mammal. Did you know that? I respect creatures. But compared to humans, I wouldn't even think twice. Perhaps you could find that out before you go out trying to make us all look like sadistic hypocrites with your little rant....

 

Secondly, what would you do? Would you treat your brother better than an insect? If it was a choice, which would you choose? Would you choose one simply because the species has survived longer than the other? That's no reason to call something better. Sure, rocks have been around longer than cockroaches, even according to evolution. Doesn't say anything about the rocks.

 

Well, I think I'm going to sign out of the discussion. Since Ray Jones and True_Avery both are speaking on the claim of evolution, it is kind of hard to argue when their viewpoint is that creatures have been evolving on the Earth for 250 million years - and I believe something totally different. Which is ok with me. I mean, evolution is really a topic for another thread. Which, I'd be more than happy to join in if it was started.

 

So, I think that I've said what I've needed to (although I might chime in).