|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Hill Billy.
Hill Billy writes: Why is the correct answer to "what is 2+2" 4? Is it cause someone said so? Is it cause that would help you achieve your goals? Of course not. The equation is an observation of our reality... Sin is a byproduct of choice. It would not exist without the freedom to choose it. You seem to be arguing with me for no reason at all: we are both describing the same thing (but, only one of us apparently realizes it). In the above quote, the conditions you are describing are deterministic conditions. Mathematical formulas are deterministic, because there is no alternative sum that can be made with two 2's. By comparing sin to a mathematical equation, you are stating that sin is deterministic. Or, you are saying that God could not have created the universe we have without creating sin. Thus, the existence of sin is out of God's control. The question I'm asking is whether (a) God created a bunch of laws and defined "sin" as breaking those laws; or (b) "sin" already existed, and God created a bunch of laws to protect us from it. Here's a series of questions the approximate the scenario I'm getting at:
I suspect you would answer:
If I am wrong, please explain to me what I got wrong. ----- As it stands, I am interpreting your remarks as saying that sin is a natural part of reality, rather than something that God invented. I am calliing this viewpoint, the "deterministic sin" viewpoint. Running score:
[indent]Deterministic Sin: 1 God-invented Sin: 0[/indent] -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes: BTW I was just as specific about sin as I could be. Well, that doesn't bode well for the discussion. Perhaps this question can help: If God hadn't given us a law, would there still be sin? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Hill Billy.
Hill Billy writes: Bluejay writes: By comparing sin to a mathematical equation That's the thing Jay, I wasn't comparing sin to the equation. I was comparing wrongness of sin to the correctness of the particular equation. Okay, whatever. And, in doing so, you state that sin is a deterministic part of a universe that contains free will. In other words, you are stating that God did not voluntarily create sin within this universe (which contains free will): He had no choice but to create sin within this universe (because it contains free will). -----
Hill Billy writes: See, sin exists because of an individual's freedom to choose. If you were to subtract all the individuals with free will from the universe you would still be left will an awful lot of universe...... but no sin. Just like the very beginning of this universe. So it's not a pre existing part of the universe.I think. A principle of the universe doesn't have to apply to every piece of the universe: it only has to be a natural part of it. A shadow over one place in the universe doesn't negate the fact that light is a natural part of the universe. Even if the shadow covered 99.9% of the universe, light would still be a natural part of the universe. Likewise, 99.9% of the matter in the universe not being involved in sin doesn't mean sin isn't a natural part of the universe. Both neutrons and electromagnetism are parts of our universe, even though they do not have much to do with one another. -----
Hill Billy writes: Bluejay writes: The question I'm asking is whether (a) God created a bunch of laws and defined "sin" as breaking those laws; or (b) "sin" already existed, and God created a bunch of laws to protect us from it. And my answer is...None of the above. GOD did however, create some laws to protect us from sin. The options are essentially (a) God created sin, or (b) God did not create sin. And, your answer is, "none of the above"? It's a dichotomy: either He did it, or He didn't. There can't be a third option! -----
Hill Billy writes: Sin is a natural part of a reality that contains free will, that was created by GOD. "Sin is a natural part of [fill in the blank]" = "the stuff Bluejay is calling 'deterministic sin'" Edited by Bluejay, : Clarifications and syntactical improvements -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Woodsy.
Woodsy writes: You might like to add one to your list: cynical-priest-and-king-invented sin. What's the score for that one? You might like to add one to your list: cynical-priest-and-king-invented sin. What's the score for that one? I'm trying to determine what sin means to Christians. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Woodsy.
Woodsy writes: I would think that "cynical-priest-and-king-invented sin" would be a prominent feature of what you want to discuss. Well, it certainly can be, and should be considered. I would prefer to establish first what Christians think. After we know the general consensus among Christians, then I suppose anyone who wants to take what's left of the thread to discuss the relationship between sin and objective evidence can do so. But, as a partial answer to your question, I would lump the "cynical-priest" concept with the "created-by-God" concept into a category called "arbitrarily-defined sin," because the principle is the same: an entity in authority created rules, and defined "sin" as an infraction to those rules. Granted, it's not quite the same thing, but the general idea is close enough for me to associate them, I think. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ICANT.
To paraphrase you (correctly, I hope), you do not see sin as a definition that God made up, but as an inevitable part of our free-willed existence. However, you do not agree with me that sin leads deterministically to damnation. ----- If, as you say, failing to be "born again" results in damnation, then it seems to me that damnation is the default position for humans (i.e. you don't have to do anything to go to hell, but you do have to do something to prevent going to hell). So, humans, by default, go to hell, unless God saves them. This confuses me bit. How does sin play in to your belief system? Is it simply an indication of your "spiritual purity" (or whatever you call it), such that, if someone sins, then you know that they were not truly "born again"? ----- Running score, from my standpoint:
[indent]"Sin as a natural part of the universe": 2 "Sin as an artificial construct of God": 0[/indent] -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes: How were these rules originally decided upon, ascertained or othersie derived? Why not just postulate the "rules" as the First Uncaused, rather than unparsimoniously postulate some unevidenced, other Uncaused that created them? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ICANT.
Basically, it sounds like you do not believe sin to be an arbitrarily-defined concept, but something that is a real, natural part of reality. We disagree on the nature of the afterlife, but we agree that sin has real consequences that are not determined by an arbitrary decree from God. ----- Running score (including Mormons and Hill Billy, pending his approval):
[indent]"Sin as a natural part of the universe": 4 "Sin as an artificial construct of God": 0[/indent] Do any other Christians wish to comment? If not, I guess the only question left to answer is whether or not the objective evidence supports our view that sin has real consequences. Good luck to us with that, I suppose . -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Stile.
Stile writes: For the sake of arguement, let's define a hypothetical person as "someone who strives to avoid sin exactly as a Morman believer would", but doesn't actually believe in the Morman religion itself. What does the Morman religion believe will happen in the afterlife to such people? That's an interesting question. Mormonism also holds that there are certain ordinances that need to be performed as part of the process of attaining salvation, so it would be difficult for someone who does not believe in God to achieve godhood. Unfortunately from your standpoint, this basically means you must believe in God: so I suppose you would consider Mormonism to have also failed this test. However, we do have a compensatory mechanism: for those who weren't given a legitimate chance to accept God in this life, an opportunity to have the ordinances done in the next life will be provided. So, there is still hope for you, from a Mormon standpoint. Don't ask me to explain how ordinances fit into the objective, natural process of human progression towards godhood, though, because I will fail, and I hate being set up for failure. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Perdition.
Perdition writes: If sin is what keeps a person from attaining godhood, and not believing in god is a sin, then it would seem to argue against sin existing independently of god. It would bring it back to arbitrary rules put in place by a jealous god. Unfortunately, you're probably right. I have no way of rebutting this. {AbE: It's often said, in Mormon circles, that the ordinances for everybody will be done during the 1000 years Phage mentioned earlier, so everybody will have a chance to accept or reject them. I'm not sure how canon this viewpoint is, though.) Edited by Bluejay, : Addition -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes: I put forth that the only way to get from here to there is by God's grace + nothing... ...The consequences of personal sin will not be involved in determining where mankind spends eternity. It will determine how many rewards a born again sinner gets in the afterlife. This is not all that different from Mormon beliefs in principle. Mormons believe that all but the most horrific people will get to go to heaven. But, "good behavior" grants you perks and blessings beyond the mere baseline gift of going to heaven. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Stile.
Stile writes: Bluejay writes: ...for those who weren't given a legitimate chance to accept God in this life, an opportunity to have the ordinances done in the next life will be provided. ...Now a pass/fail of my test all depends on how strictly one defines "legitimate." This would almost have to be a subjective determination, in my opinion. It would require the ability to know what would constitute enough evidence to convince you of the validity of Mormonism. So, if you were one of those sensitive/spiritual types, the merest thing (like the miracle of a sunny day) might constitute sufficient evidence of God. But, if you were one of those skeptical, scientific types I've been warned about at Church, more substantial evidence might be required before a chance was considered "legitimate." But, for the most part, we leave it up to God to make that determination, and just assume that it will somehow be worked out in the next life. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes: Why won't the most horrfic people get to go to heaven? What did the ones that get to go do that the HP people did not do? Does "HP people" mean "horrific people people"? If you think everyone should o to heaven, why don't you teach that from the pulpit? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes: Why do atheist like yourself spend so much of your life argueing about something you do not believe exists. Just bogles my mind. I'm not an atheist, as you know. But, this shouldn't boggle your mind:
Disbelief in something is a very common and legitimate reason to argue about it. What else do you expect somebody to do but argue for what they perceive as truth?And, how can they do that without arguing against what they perceive as falsehood? Edited by Bluejay, : Capitalization -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024