|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are we prisoners of sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
It is because you inherited a body that is separated from God and the nature of that body is to sin.
Here is a question completely irrelevant in the real world, but fitting in the setting of this thread: Let's assume that inhabiting a human body connects you to original sin. Let us also assume that good deeds will not atone for your sins, and anyone with a sin, however slight, cannot be allowed into heaven. It follows then that Jesus was sinful and should not have been allowed into heaven unless under the "new deal". This is due to his dual origin, conceived by God and a woman; unless of course you assume women to be sinless. Where am I going with this?
I am working on being Christlike every moment of every day.
As an extension of above we can conclude that Christ was sinful and thus not a truly worthy scapegoat for all the rest of the sins of man. Living a life like Christ will not save you or even help you; good deeds cannot wipe away your sin, and there is no way that any human could ever be sinless. The fictional entity that you have chosen as your savior has you in a catch 22, you are screwed from the start. Attempting to emulate Jesus is pointless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: But in the Garden of Eden a man was given a direct order by God. That man chose on purpose to disobey God because the woman had eaten the fruit and was going to die. So he chose to eat and die with her. quote:Well my version of the Bible suggests that Adam was somewhat fooled by Eve, not the conscious choice for death that you suggest. In fact you imply that the woman was never told not to eat the fruit, which evidently she was and decided to disobey intentionally. quote:Are you suggesting that Adam was held responsible by God but that Eve was not? Are women capable of getting into heaven by living a virtuous life? Are women capable of sinning, or are your implying that women are incapable of being held accountable for their decisions? ICANT writes:
I think you are missing the point; we are all "man", even the women. That is why we are called "mankind".
Man could not be involved in the production of the flesh body Jesus had. ICANT writes:
I like that you acknowledge that it is imagination, but was she sinful by original sin or by sinful actions?
Was Mary sinless? By no streach of the imagination. ICANT writes:
As a fundamental aspect of reality? No. Right and wrong are completely dependent on the presence of intelligent life, namely humans, and by extension it is an artificial construct of that intelligent life. This also means that ethics are somewhat mutable as the intelligent life changes, but for a specific individual I think they are ingrained enough to be largely immutable.
Is there some things that are right and others wrong? Hi Phaqe,
It is Phage, from the Greek "to eat" or "to consume".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Cedre writes:
Then, being fully God and not of man, what connection to man would Jesus have that allowed him to take on the sins of man? Wasn't the entire point to have Jesus be a man and not a god?
Jesus was simply implanted into Mary's womb like you were to slip a letter into an envelope. He has nothing of Mary's... Cedre writes:
You need to back that statement up. In other areas of the Bible such differences are explained away by differences in phrasing, translation, or the narration method of the writer. It is quite the leap to assume that because the quote is not word-for-word that Eve was not told by God not to eat from the tree; after all, she got the gist of the idea correct. In any case if she was not told to avoid the tree then why would God punish her for eating from it? I am familiar with the Christian accepted godly douchbaggery, but that is pretty cold.
Eve had not heard it from God directly, because in her reason to Satan not to eat the fruit she misquoted God in a handful of ways.(Gen 2:17; Gen 3:3) Cedre writes:
To make it worse Adam was there standing right next to Eve (Gen 3:6) and didnt bother to warn her against eating the fruit or to stop her from listening to the father of lies and what's more he too ate of the tree.quote:They had no reason to mistrust the serpent. After all, the "father of lies" had done nothing wrong in the history of existence. Which brings me to my other point: God is punishing Adam and Eve unfairly. Sure, God warned them not to eat the fruit, but before eating the fruit Adam and Eve were incapable of recognizing the difference between good and evil! God punishes them not just with the necessary curse and blessings of free will, but also *spitefully* by increasing the pain of childbirth for Eve, and the pain of labor and eating dirt for Adam.
quote:God states specifically that his intent is to keep man from attaining eternal life. Why then would you possibly believe that he bent over backwards trying to provide an easy method for attaining such a thing? If you believe such a story then you must conclude that God is your enemy; it is he and his Cherubim with flaming swords that stand between you and eternal life, not his approval.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Cedre writes:
The text does not include exactly how Eve was informed to avoid the tree so you cannot conclude that she was making a mistake in her recollection of the ban. Also, you need to work on your reading comprehension as "lest ye" does not contain the doubt you think. It is simply pointing out an undesirable consequence to be avoided.
First of all she adds the following statement which is not found in God's statement and that is "neither shall ye touch it" secondly she is implying uncertainty to what God said "would happen if you ate it (the fruit) note God said for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Eve replaces the surely die with lest ye die, therefore displaying doubt about a command of God. Cedre writes:
First of all, there was no indication that the serpent was Lucifer. Even if it was you keep throwing around the "father of lies" moniker, get it through your head: It was the FIRST time it had done anything wrong! You cannot blame them for not knowing the reputation of something that *has* no reputation. They had every reason to mistrust the serpent (Satan). He was instructing them to do something that God their maker had informed them not to do. Frankly trusting in a father of lies is a dodgy move, look at what trusting in Satan got them into: Sure, the snake instructed them to do something they were told not to do, but how can you fairly blame them for that when they are denied the ability to distinguish good from evil? Before they ate the fruit they did not, by design, know that doing so and going against God's will would be evil! Also, stop ragging on the snake: It didn't even lie to them, it is God who lied to Adam and Eve. The fruit did not kill them, it did exactly what the snake said it would do.
Cedre writes:
I know it might be too much to ask for logical arguments, but reading comprehension for a bible-thumper seems pretty important.
The state your currently in death (spiritual death leading to hell) sickness sorrow suffering pain anguish this is all due to that one encounter with Satan in the garden. Cedre writes:
So how is punishing someone for doing something they didn't even know was wrong fair? Would you leave little "punishment land mines" out for your children, and punish them for arbitrary rules they don't know about? This is freewill, the freedom to make choices in accordance with one's will. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is exactly that a tree of knowledge. According to your system of belief the very definition of evil is that which goes against God's will, and the definition of good is that which is in accordance with God's will. Adam and Eve violated God's will by eating from the tree... but before they did they were unable to tell the difference between violating God's will and following God's will! God specifically designed them with the inability to obey his commandments, so how is any punishment for that failing fair?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Phat writes:
I would put forth the theory that it is because this account's version of God is an asshole. He designed beings with the express inability to follow arbitrary rules, and then tortures and kills them for this failing. In this respect God is quite possibly the most evil being in fiction according to present moral standards.
Why would God foreknow that Adam would disobey, thus setting up original sin and thus bringing about a need for jesus to fix the choice made on behalf of humanity? Phat writes:
Not quite. Humans can *sometimes* be good but they are arbitrarily tainted from the start because they are blamed for things they didn't do. This means that no matter their merit they are doomed to be tortured; the offer is simply a sort of "Lick my boots and I will forget to whip you" type of deal.
Next, if humans can never be good based on their own fallen nature, are you telling me that God has to do it for us by offering us the gift of salvation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Cedre writes:
Sure I can, because the society I live in frowns on lying. If you lie often then you will gain a reputation as a liar and people will not want to associate with, you which will cause problems for you (bad credit for example). I don't see any requirement for an invisible sky wizard to come kill your soul to enforce or establish such rules.
Words like must, ought to, should, or supposed to can only stem from a world governed by absolutes where transcendent good and wrong exist; you cannot tell me I mustn’t tell untruths, for even if I lied it would make no difference, seeing that it’s nowhere forbidden to lie. Cedre writes:
Well that is a shame, she was so close to overcoming her personal prejudices. There are many things which most societies agree on being right or wrong but there are exceptions all over if you look hard enough. There *may* be some things which are absolute in their acceptance as moral or immoral according to the society, but that is hardly condemnation against the concept. Societies naturally work better with certain rules; killing your fellow man for instance has significant impact if it were to be commonplace so it is almost universally condemned. Note though that it is only *almost* universally condemned.
You know what I think, I think this is rubbish. Your definition is rubbish because we all know that certain practices and behaviors are just plain wrong. Cedre writes:
This particular statement is debatable, since as I recall the actual death camps had a fair amount of secrecy and the majority of Germany was horrified when they found out what exactly was happening. However, assuming the truth of the quote then yes we can assume that Hitler was acting morally. For his own society rather, which may have only consisted of his top officers and the SS. For the rest of the world he was acting immorally. When Hitler killed all those Jews and the greatest part of Germany supported his actions, then to adhere to your definition of morality Hitler was acting morally since this was the moral consensus of his day in his country. See, in a non-absolute system it is possible for there to be a difference of opinion about morality without one of those views being "wrong" per se. I think that the inability to understand this concept causes a great number of wars.
Cedre writes:
Yes, yes, and yes! At the time, in the setting of their respective societies they were doing the moral thing. Surely you are capable of distancing yourself enough from an ancient Aztec priest during daily life to distinguish their societal norms from your own. Surely you won't argue that as that priest cut the still-beating heart from a willing human sacrifice and held the glistening trophy to the Sun so that it would keep moving, that deep in their hearts they all knew it was wrong and wanted jebus to save them. Because they didn't.
If the whole world agreed that the existence of the Jewish nation and people as an example is amoral and that everything Jewish for that matter should be eradicated would it be moral just because it is the majority view or societal view. Were the Aztecs morally correct by performing all those human sacrifices, was slavery morally correct because it used to be the majority consensus. By your definition of what is moral this acts were indeed moral seeing that the societies practicing them had agreed that they were.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Cedre writes:
This is simply not true. There are often clashes between cultures based on untruths or bargains not being upheld. If lying was the norm then you would be the exception and we would all be acting like your are crazy for demanding truthful interaction.
There is great mistrust in the world, that is why skepticism is so widespread, because people have distrust about many things or things that they are not easy with. But despite this society carries on unharmed. Cedre writes:
Yes, that is correct. There is nothing that is inherently good or bad except that which is defined by society. Within that society there can be differences of opinion and aims to shift public consensus, but there is no moral absolute imbued into the fabric of the universe.
But you haven't answered the core question which is are this things right just because a bunch of people say they are, this means that nothing is wrong because what is viewed as wrong by a group of people is viewed to be right by another group of people. this means that nothing is really wrong, it all boils down to opinion's, we think that this is wrong and that that is right because it suits us best that way. No good or bad just opinions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Cedre writes:
Sticking with the topic, I think we can conclude that sin is a concept restricted to those who believe in religion. As a religious believer you will of course maintain that sin is a factual reality, but will be similarly unable to provide evidence to back it up as you are unable to back up your religious beliefs as reality. The flip side of the argument can and has provided current, factual examples of cultural differences and their effect on popular morality within those cultures.
It is a fearful thing to land into the hands of an angry God, God is angered by sin. But the bible also says that he is slow to anger and quick to forgive, but his justice is a fact and it will in due course prevail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
I think this is called "Retroactive Continuity" which is often shorted to "retcon". It is quite common in serial fiction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Peg writes:
So that is what is inside the women's restroom, the Garden of Eden. Also it explains all those immortal women. His intent was to keep, not 'man' but 'Adam' from the tree of Life. Trying to steer this back on topic, can we agree that there is no evidence that sin is anything other than a mental construct? That the concept of sin is inherently linked to religion and thus must be taken "on faith"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Cedre writes:
This is simply untrue, and such a ridiculous statement that I wonder how it ever crossed your mind. The concept of morality exists in practically every religion and every society lacking a religious base as well. A reasonable person would then conclude that the concept of morality does not depend on a specific concept of a deity, rather it is an inherent element of society or organization. Thus something that is immoral cannot be fully defined as something that goes against that single deity's will. Purpledawn it is because of the problem of sin or doing wrong that people have that even a concept such as morality exists in the first place. Cedre, I don't think anyone is arguing that they never do things that some people, or even a majority of people, believe to be morally wrong. The point is that "sin" is not a universal concept and those who do not believe in the existence of that deity are similarly going to dismiss the possibility of going against its will. This has no bearing on if the fictional deity's will generally conforms to accepted morality; if the being does not exist then going against its will is similarly a fictional concept. I understand that you throw a tangle into this simple concept due to your steadfast dedication to your imaginary overlord. I am not asking for proof of sin, because I know you cannot give it. I am not asking for proof of your god's existence, because I know you cannot give it. I am not asking for you to join rational society and distinguish fantasy from reality because you have demonstrated that you are unable or unwilling to do so. What I AM asking is that you recognize the link between your religious beliefs and your claims of the existence of sin, and behave similarly when asserting their existence. I trust you do not doggedly repeat accusations that we all love Jesus in our hearts even when we deny it, so I will thank you to avoid claiming a similar knowledge of sin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Cedre writes:
Perfection is the inability to express oneself properly? One would think that if a perfect being described something as being "very good" then it would be describing something that is precisely "very good". God is perfect and when he describes something as being very good, he is describing something that is perfect. Also, please stop quoting scripture as if it had any bearing on the real world. Some people have a difficult time making the transition into make-believe without warning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Cedre writes:
So the latest and greatest version is the latest and greatest? Do you actually think these things before you write them, and if so does it hurt?
...is so pure and piercing in its current form that it is yet to be improved on... Cedre writes:
You should expect this about absolute laws. God's law is uncompromising it will not bend to make room for human imperfection. And I'm afraid unless you're perfect you will not enter into heaven.Cedre writes:
Durrr.... These quotes are RIGHT NEXT to each other! If you are going to make stuff up at least don't contradict yourself in the same paragraph!
God knows the hearts of men God is not an unrealistic or unreasonable tyrant I think if your motives for withholding the truth briefly are pure and not malicious in nature, then you may proceed to do just that because God will not reprimand you for such a trivial thing as wanting to pleasantly surprise a special person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Straggler writes:
Furthermore, Eve was punished for something she was allowed to do, and the snake (maybe Lucifer) was punished for telling the truth. So, according to you, the whole of human fate and man's sinful nature is a result of God's original law and it's application being wholly unclear to the original man. Is it too much to ask for fiction to be internally consistent?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Cedre writes:
So by your reasoning God deserves to define morality not only because he has a whole lot of power and we should be afraid he might assault us, but also because he is inherently good and loving. We supposedly know this because he told us so, and we can trust him because he also said he is good, so we can conclude that anything he does is good. God has all power on earth, in hell and in heaven, he is all powerful to be sure and you had better not cross him.Predictably many people will find such an idea as scary that an individual could single-handedly wield such enormous unlimited power; however is this fear justified? I would safely say no, for the reason that the bible, God’s own word, describes him (God) as a good and loving God. So God’s own love will never allow him to go on a rampage with his power. And thus Christians are confident in the Fact that God will always remain a moral and good God, and therefore we can also agree that all his past present and future actions issue(d) from somewhere in his love and not from an evil place. Therefore we can declare that whatever God does is moral and good. This particular logical fallacy is called begging the question, where you assume the conclusion as one of the premises. The conclusion is that everything God does is moral; you cannot conclude that God would not do anything immoral because he is inherently good, and use that as evidence that God is inherently good.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024