Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are we prisoners of sin
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 454 (504596)
03-31-2009 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
03-31-2009 10:47 AM


Re: Prisioner of Sin
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 03-31-2009 10:47 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 03-31-2009 12:33 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 454 (504604)
03-31-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ICANT
03-31-2009 12:33 PM


Re: Prisioner of Sin
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:
Genesis 3:
Verse 6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
...
Verse 13: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
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:
Genesis 3:
2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
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:
Man could not be involved in the production of the flesh body Jesus had.
I think you are missing the point; we are all "man", even the women. That is why we are called "mankind".
ICANT writes:
Was Mary sinless? By no streach of the imagination.
I like that you acknowledge that it is imagination, but was she sinful by original sin or by sinful actions?
ICANT writes:
Is there some things that are right and others wrong?
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.
Hi Phaqe,
It is Phage, from the Greek "to eat" or "to consume".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 03-31-2009 12:33 PM ICANT has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 454 (504617)
03-31-2009 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cedre
03-31-2009 2:09 PM


Re: Prisioner of Sin
Cedre writes:
Jesus was simply implanted into Mary's womb like you were to slip a letter into an envelope. He has nothing of Mary's...
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?
Cedre writes:
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)
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.
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:
1: Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
...
4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
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:
22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cedre, posted 03-31-2009 2:09 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Cedre, posted 04-01-2009 5:56 AM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 90 by Peg, posted 04-04-2009 4:43 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 454 (504674)
04-01-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Cedre
04-01-2009 5:56 AM


Re: Prisioner of Sin (Phage0070)
Cedre writes:
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.
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.
Cedre writes:
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:
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.
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:
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.
I know it might be too much to ask for logical arguments, but reading comprehension for a bible-thumper seems pretty important.
Cedre writes:
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.
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?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Cedre, posted 04-01-2009 5:56 AM Cedre has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 454 (504772)
04-02-2009 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Phat
04-02-2009 12:34 PM


Re: Was Hell Created By God?
Phat writes:
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?
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.
Phat writes:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Phat, posted 04-02-2009 12:34 PM Phat has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 454 (504807)
04-03-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Cedre
04-03-2009 7:10 AM


Re: Definition of morality
Cedre writes:
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.
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.
Cedre writes:
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.
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.
Cedre writes:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Cedre, posted 04-03-2009 7:10 AM Cedre has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 454 (504809)
04-03-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Cedre
04-03-2009 9:16 AM


Re: Definition of morality
Cedre writes:
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.
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.
Cedre writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Cedre, posted 04-03-2009 9:16 AM Cedre has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 454 (504824)
04-03-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Cedre
04-03-2009 10:22 AM


Re: Returning to our original topic of Sin
Cedre writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Cedre, posted 04-03-2009 10:22 AM Cedre has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 454 (504827)
04-03-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Cedre
04-03-2009 10:24 AM


Re: Definition of morality
I think this is called "Retroactive Continuity" which is often shorted to "retcon". It is quite common in serial fiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Cedre, posted 04-03-2009 10:24 AM Cedre has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 454 (504897)
04-04-2009 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Peg
04-04-2009 4:43 AM


Re: Prisioner of Sin
Peg writes:
His intent was to keep, not 'man' but 'Adam' from the tree of Life.
So that is what is inside the women's restroom, the Garden of Eden. Also it explains all those immortal women.
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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Peg, posted 04-04-2009 4:43 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by SammyJean, posted 04-04-2009 10:48 AM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 95 by Peg, posted 04-05-2009 5:26 AM Phage0070 has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 454 (505004)
04-06-2009 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Cedre
04-06-2009 10:35 AM


Re: Prisoners of Sin - Not!
Cedre writes:
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Cedre, posted 04-06-2009 10:35 AM Cedre has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 454 (505081)
04-07-2009 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Cedre
04-07-2009 7:55 AM


Re: God demands Perfection
Cedre writes:
God is perfect and when he describes something as being very good, he is describing something that is perfect.
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".
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Cedre, posted 04-07-2009 7:55 AM Cedre has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 454 (505088)
04-07-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Cedre
04-07-2009 10:39 AM


Re: Prisoners of Sin - Not!
Cedre writes:
...is so pure and piercing in its current form that it is yet to be improved on...
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?
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:
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.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Cedre, posted 04-07-2009 10:39 AM Cedre has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 454 (505489)
04-12-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Straggler
04-12-2009 11:06 AM


Re: Confused
Straggler writes:
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.
Furthermore, Eve was punished for something she was allowed to do, and the snake (maybe Lucifer) was punished for telling the truth.
Is it too much to ask for fiction to be internally consistent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2009 11:06 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Straggler, posted 04-12-2009 3:01 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 454 (505622)
04-14-2009 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Cedre
04-14-2009 5:33 AM


Re: God's Law(s)
Cedre writes:
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Cedre, posted 04-14-2009 5:33 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Cedre, posted 04-14-2009 8:55 AM Phage0070 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024