Reasoning On Sin?

[tayla]

Much is made of the idea that sin originally meant missing the mark. This implies that one was trying to hit a mark in the first place. And if so, the appropriate corrective response would be informative rather than punitive.

Good observation.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Wow, sounds like a tricky theological system. Sounds like someone trying to dig out of a hole.

Nope, not at all, sounds more like people would like to have God to know all things before they happen, just to have someone to blame for their actions.
But seeing there's no where in the Bible that says God knows all things before they happen.
It's people twisting the bible into what they wish it did say.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Usually they are reading the Bible and interpreting it according to the standard Christian interpretations. Are individual Christians supposed to come to their own conclusions? That is a bad practice; it resulted in my abandoning Christianity as being historically unreliable and, therefore, false.

Your right about that, that's exactly what I am saying, those Christians twist God's word into what they wish it did say.

Those Christians, have no idea or clue what God's word actually does say.

All because those Christians would rather follow the teachings of their Pastor's, than the teachings of Christ Jesus.

I know what your saying in abandoning Christianity, But as for me, I don't belong to any church, for that simple reason that those Christians is taking God's word and twisting into what they want it to say.
but I didn't abandoned Christianity,
I just abanded the teachings of that Christianity.
Those Christians will say, that God is all knowing all things before they happen.
But the question is, Where does God say that in his word,
That's the question to ask, those Christians,
But then again they will take God's word and twisting it into what they wish it would say.
So as it is, people looks at God and bames him, for what those Christians are saying, not realizing it's not God saying it in his word, But those christians twisting God's word into what they want it to say,

So people should put the blame where it's do, on those Christians that's twisting God's word into what they want it to say.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You can't prove free will because it exists in the spiritual realm, and nothing there can be proven. Only things in the physical universe can be proven via the scientific method.

Free will could be be proven scientifically, but all predictions free will makes about behavior fall short because of the many things--both biological and sociological--that influence, effect, and often times determine our behavior. If free will were to exist, we could expect such things to play a far lesser degree in determining our behaviors than what they do. But I meet a new child client the other day, and I can tell he's been emotionally beaten and battered by the way he was behaving. I can reason that because kids with good self esteem who are occasionally told "good job" and aren't bullied don't act like he was.

uhmn....so He should have designed us WITHOUT the freedom to make our own choices?

He could have redesigned humans. Such as "humans 2.0" after Adam and Eve, another "update" after the flood, and worked to prevent the situations that provoked him into things such as destroying Sodom and Gomorrah and ordering the army of Israel to go launch bloody and viciously brutal wars.

 

[dianaiad]

Someone created this cozy family you refer to. Someone created this "God" you refer to.

(Grin)

Well, you ARE talking to a Mormon.

 

[dianaiad]

Free will could be be proven scientifically, but all predictions free will makes about behavior fall short because of the many things--both biological and sociological--that influence, effect, and often times determine our behavior. If free will were to exist, we could expect such things to play a far lesser degree in determining our behaviors than what they do. But I meet a new child client the other day, and I can tell he's been emotionally beaten and battered by the way he was behaving. I can reason that because kids with good self esteem who are occasionally told "good job" and aren't bullied don't act like he was.

"Free will" isn't about being free to do anything we want. It's about being able to pick between available choices. We cannot, for instance, choose to jump off a cliff (without a parachute, hang glider or wingsuit) and fly simply by flapping our arms really hard. It's not an available choice. So yeah, things outside our control affect our choices. Notice, however, that your example is about free will and it's consequences; the people who were emotionally beating and battering that child were using THEIR free will....and the consequences of their use of it limited the child's use of it. That's the problem with free will. Choices have consequences for everybody around. Do you think it would be a good idea to imprison his parents (or whoever was responsible for the damage) BEFORE they could hurt the child? BEFORE they could prove their poor choices?

Yes, that child was hurt. Now it is YOUR job to help that child. YOUR free will choice.

He could have redesigned humans. Such as "humans 2.0" after Adam and Eve, another "update" after the flood, and worked to prevent the situations that provoked him into things such as destroying Sodom and Gomorrah and ordering the army of Israel to go launch bloody and viciously brutal wars.

How do you think He should have done that, Shadow Wolf? Do you think you could have done a better job? Without knowing everything He does? (this is assuming, for the sake of the argument, that He exists and actually did "design" us)

Remember that if He DOES exist, and most of the beliefs that go with that are also 'true, 'then there is an afterlife that will last a good deal longer than this mortal life does. Take that into consideration.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Notice, however, that your example is about free will and it's consequences; the people who were emotionally beating and battering that child were using THEIR free will.

I can't say about the others. All I know is I could reasonably assume my client has been emotionally traumatized based on his posture, behavior, and affect. And sure enough it came out that he is bullied at school, and his step-dad is a prick.

Yes, that child was hurt. Now it is YOUR job to help that child. YOUR free will choice.

If I didn't have Asperger's, I probably would have had no desire to go into this field, but because you don't get far in life where I was socially I followed a path that will help myself tremendously with improving my social skills and abilities.

Do you think you could have done a better job?

I don't know if I could have. However, my solutions to my flawed creations would not have included genocide, destroying entire cities, and striking a person dead here-and-there, and I certainly would not have made things infinitely more difficult by instantly confusing the languages and making it suddenly impossible for people who were just communicating with each other suddenly not being able to do so. And, yes, I have made and programmed things that failed. But I didn't hit delete, destroy, or place the blame squarely on what I made. At the absolute worst it's been "I have no idea what it's doing and what's going on to make it do/not do this." Such as a robot I made, which was mobile on carpets but not a wooden board, and had some control issues that made it go forward and pretty no other direction, not even stopping. I wrote programs for the TI graphing calculators to solve algebra, geometry, and other mathematical equations. Sometimes they worked the first time and I had no problems with them, other times they didn't work right. But even though I had to admit there was a flaw in the program, because factually there was, I had to accept that I didn't do something right and I went back to review the code to find and fix any errors. Throughout the Bible, especially the OT, god is not that patient or willing to accept his own faults and shortcomings. He didn't even try to fix this so-called "sinful nature," he just decided to start killing people, and demanded people accept they are flawed and have to ask for god's forgiveness for being flawed, even though god should apologize to us for not correcting the problem.

 

[dianaiad]

I can't say about the others. All I know is I could reasonably assume my client has been emotionally traumatized based on his posture, behavior, and affect. And sure enough it came out that he is bullied at school, and his step-dad is a prick.

If I didn't have Asperger's, I probably would have had no desire to go into this field, but because you don't get far in life where I was socially I followed a path that will help myself tremendously with improving my social skills and abilities.

You could have chosen another field that would have done the same things FOR YOU. You chose a field that would help others. Your choice. Your job. Good choice.

I don't know if I could have. However, my solutions to my flawed creations would not have included genocide, destroying entire cities, and striking a person dead here-and-there, and I certainly would not have made things infinitely more difficult by instantly confusing the languages and making it suddenly impossible for people who were just communicating with each other suddenly not being able to do so. And, yes, I have made and programmed things that failed. But I didn't hit delete, destroy, or place the blame squarely on what I made. At the absolute worst it's been "I have no idea what it's doing and what's going on to make it do/not do this." Such as a robot I made, which was mobile on carpets but not a wooden board, and had some control issues that made it go forward and pretty no other direction, not even stopping. I wrote programs for the TI graphing calculators to solve algebra, geometry, and other mathematical equations. Sometimes they worked the first time and I had no problems with them, other times they didn't work right. But even though I had to admit there was a flaw in the program, because factually there was, I had to accept that I didn't do something right and I went back to review the code to find and fix any errors. Throughout the Bible, especially the OT, god is not that patient or willing to accept his own faults and shortcomings. He didn't even try to fix this so-called "sinful nature," he just decided to start killing people, and demanded people accept they are flawed and have to ask for god's forgiveness for being flawed, even though god should apologize to us for not correcting the problem.

OK, I read the whole rant. Now consider that part I suggested you consider: that this life is very short and IF there is a God AND He created us AND the stuff attributed to Him, then our 'afterlife' is real, and THIS life is very, very, very short. Temporary. When God 'kills' people, he's not ending our lives. He's just moving us from one existence to another one; a much longer one. That's what comes WITH God, should He exist. When we kill, we have to consider that, no matter how strong our belief in God is, we could be ending that person's existence utterly. So WE, when we murder someone, are truly committing murder. When GOD does it...it's not.

When GOD ends a life, He's just moving someone from one 'room' to another. Another analogy, flawed, certainly, but useful here....consider a video game or a 'trainer' cockpit for an aircraft. You get into the 'virtual reality,' and experience the flight, or the fantasy world, and in that virtual world, can crash or get beheaded...you die there. But you don't really die, do you? You just get kicked out of the 'game.' You end up in front of the game system or in the training facility, mad at yourself or irritated at your opponent...but there you are, still there. You are just....not in the virtual world any more.

Of course our lives here are not 'virtual reality,' but the basic idea is still there. IF God is AND He created us AND there is an afterlife, then when HE does something to us here, we just end up elsewhere. We aren't the sort of 'dead' that you are thinking about.

It's temporary, in other words. The choices we make here are vital to US, but God knows more than we do. He has, obviously, a very different perspective than we do. We can't make judgments about Him based only upon what WE might think we know.

 

[tayla]

He could have redesigned humans. Such as "humans 2.0" after Adam and Eve, another "update" after the flood, and worked to prevent the situations that provoked him into things such as destroying Sodom and Gomorrah and ordering the army of Israel to go launch bloody and viciously brutal wars.

I reject these quaint Bible stories. I accept scientific evolution.

 

[InChrist]

God is within the universe and the spiritual ream, and participates in the constraints of time and space along with everyone and everything else. It/she/he is unfolding from moment to moment as is everything else.

That is not the biblical God, who created the universe, who is eternal so not confined by time, who is omnipresent, but also apart from creation.

 

[JustWondering]

As you can see, I am not making that claim nor am I one of them.

Just because God is omniscient, does not mean that God can not choose not to know things before they happen.

There are times that God has chosen not to know things before they happen.

You do know what the word ( till ) means.
It means a less formal way of saying
( Until ) like saying I can't be there
( Till ) tommorow ( until ) tomorrow.

Like saying, I didn't know he was going to do that ( till ) it was found in him.

Now in the book of Ezekiel 28:15--"You was perfect in your ways from the day that you was created, till Iniquity was found in you"

Notice here the word ( till )
Therefore God did not know that Satan was going to rebellion against him ( till ) ( until )
Iniquity was found in Satan.

So how long, do you suppose Satan was poltting his rebellion against God, (till) (until) it became evidence what Satan was up to ?

So God didn't know ( till ) ( until ) it became evidence what Satan was up to.

Therefore, there are times that God may choose not to know things ( till ) ( until ) they happen.

First off, it says twice in Ezekiel 28 itself (28:2 and 28:9), quite plainly, that the prince of Tyrus is a man. The talk of Eden is a poetic way off describing how wealthy he was and covering cherub seems like a poetic description as well. Second, Ezekiel's prophecy of the destruction of Tyre was a failed prophecy. So you are using twisted "logic" (god knows everything except when he doesn't) and misinterpreted verses from a book with a failed prophecy in it to defend your position. You lost before you even began.

 

[Faithofchristian]

First off, it says twice in Ezekiel 28 itself (28:2 and 28:9), quite plainly, that the prince of Tyrus is a man. The talk of Eden is a poetic way off describing how wealthy he was and covering cherub seems like a poetic description as well. Second, Ezekiel's prophecy of the destruction of Tyre was a failed prophecy. So you are using twisted "logic" (god knows everything except when he doesn't) and misinterpreted verses from a book with a failed prophecy in it to defend you position. You lost before you even began.

There is nothing in Ezekiel 28, That suggest anything as being poetic as you say.
You lost before you even got out the gate.

God used king of Tyrus as an example of how Satan thinks of himself.

Of course you speak, but have no idea or clue what your talking about and that's evidence.
You have no idea or clue as to how to put anything in the Bible together, to make any Sense of it and that's absolutely positively evidence. As you keep Just Wondering like someone lost in a desert Wondering. Having no idea where their at or any sense what their saying.

 

[JustWondering]

That is not the biblical God, who created the universe, who is eternal so not confined by time, who is omnipresent, but also apart from creation.

When I see people arguing about the traits of god on these forums, sometimes it reminds me of people I know arguing over the traits of their favorite comic book characters. If a god exists, I don't think there is any human being on earth that actually KNOWS anything about it.

 

[JustWondering]

There is nothing in Ezekiel 28, That suggest anything as being poetic as you say.
You lost before you even got out the gate.

God used king of Tyrus as an example of how Satan thinks of himself.

Of course you speak, but have no idea or clue what your talking about and that's evidence.
You have no idea or clue as to how to put anything in the Bible together, to make any Sense of it and that's absolutely positively evidence.

*Yawn* then explain why god calls the prince of Tyrus a man, TWICE. Not once, TWICE. Your reading comprehension skills need work friend. When the bible lines up with your interpretation its meant to be taken literally, when it doesn't it's just meant to be poetic. Which is it? Because if you take everything in Ezekiel 28 literally it doesn't make any sense at all, it's saying the prince of Tyrus is a man and a cherub at the same time. So is everything in Ezekiel 28 meant to be taken literally?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You could have chosen another field that would have done the same things FOR YOU. You chose a field that would help others. Your choice. Your job. Good choice.

Not many fields educate you about how people function and then has you working with people in varied and unique ways. But, for me, it's a goal with no end point. And it's working out very well towards many goals. And I don't think I could have done too many other jobs, because I hate a lack of autonomy and doing the same thing in the same place over and over and over. Even in a science lab, I would get tired of seeing the same people every day.
Could I have chosen another? I don't know. More often than not, I have questions, not answers. People try to give me answers, but they often do not hold up to scrutiny.

That's what comes WITH God, should He exist.

It's not just "If god exists," it's your god specifically exists. If someone has the pay the Ferryman's toll for you, looks like you're gonna be stuck.

We can't make judgments about Him based only upon what WE might think we know.

I can, and I did.

 

[Faithofchristian]

*Yawn* then explain why god calls the prince of Tyrus a man, TWICE. Not once, TWICE. Your reading comprehension skills need work friend. When the bible lines up with your interpretation its meant to be taken literally, when it doesn't it's just meant to be poetic. Which is it? Because if you take everything in Ezekiel 28 literally it doesn't make any sense at all, it's saying the prince of Tyrus is a man and a cherub at the same time. So is everything in Ezekiel 28 meant to be taken literally?

Why does God call the prince of Tyrus a man, Seeing how you can't figure that out.

Because he is a man. What do you think the prince of Tyrus is, other than a man.

You probably didnt know that even the angels in heaven are called a man.
As the sons of God. Seeing how the angels are called the sons of God, that means, they are a man.

 

[JustWondering]

Why does God call the prince of Tyrus a man, Seeing how you can't figure that out.

Because he is a man. What do you think the prince of Tyrus is, other than a man.

You probably didnt know that even the angels in heaven are called a man.
As the sons of God. Seeing how the angels are called the sons of God, that means, they are a man.

Please cite examples of this from the bible.

 

[dianaiad]

Not many fields educate you about how people function and then has you working with people in varied and unique ways. But, for me, it's a goal with no end point. And it's working out very well towards many goals. And I don't think I could have done too many other jobs, because I hate a lack of autonomy and doing the same thing in the same place over and over and over. Even in a science lab, I would get tired of seeing the same people every day.
Could I have chosen another? I don't know. More often than not, I have questions, not answers. People try to give me answers, but they often do not hold up to scrutiny.

It's not just "If god exists," it's your god specifically exists. If someone has the pay the Ferryman's toll for you, looks like you're gonna be stuck.

I can, and I did.

Yes, you did, and you are correct. My 'theory' only holds true if "my god, specifically, exists.' But then I don't see a need to defend beliefs in a god I don't think exists....and you, sir, in order to disprove that any God at all exists, or that every idea of God is as unjust, unfair or just incompetent as you claim, have to disprove EVERY idea of God presented to you. It's a problem.

True, you MIGHT be able to disprove my particular beliefs, but I've been around awhile and nobody has managed to do so yet. The critics all aim wrong. They usually set up their own straw god and disprove that. They then figure that they have disproven all iterations of deity, including mine.

So, er...no. Not so much. True, I can't prove that God exists, empirically....but you can't prove that He does not. What's more important, you can't decide Who and What God IS, and then by debunking THAT, figure that you have debunked all ideas of Him.

Sorry.

So you did make a judgment. The problem is, your judgment wasn't logical.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

have to disprove EVERY idea of God presented to you. It's a problem.

Theists are the ones who claim god exists. It is up to them to prove it. If I say little green alien exist, you don't have to do anything to disprove ever idea of extra terrestrial life that has been thought of. That would because it would be up to me, the one who presented the claim, to provide evidence of their existence. Just like I don't have to disprove every incarnation of the Tooth Fairy back to it's Norse origins to disprove the idea at all.

 

[dianaiad]

Theists are the ones who claim god exists. It is up to them to prove it. If I say little green alien exist, you don't have to do anything to disprove ever idea of extra terrestrial life that has been thought of. That would because it would be up to me, the one who presented the claim, to provide evidence of their existence. Just like I don't have to disprove every incarnation of the Tooth Fairy back to it's Norse origins to disprove the idea at all.

I just told you that I cannot prove,. empirically, that God exists. If I can't prove, empirically and objectively, that God exists, period, then obviously I can't prove that MY VERSION of Him does.

However, I don't have to. I didn't claim that one does. I didn't claim that my version of Him is the 'right' one. What you are doing is something I have run into fairly often; a discussion will be started with the premise that...just for the sake of the discussion...that God exists and that my version of Him is the right one. I wasn't claiming that God IS, and that I'm RIGHT about him, just that IF He is AND I am right about Him, then your arguments regarding Him are invalid.

.............and they are.

This does not prove that I'm right about Him, nor does it prove that God does indeed exist; just that there is one version of Him that isn't going to 'go down' because of your arguments.

....................and I'm sorry, but turning around and saying 'oh, YEAH? Well, you have to prove that your God exists before I'll admit that my ideas might not apply to your beliefs." That's moving the goalposts...changing the question...all sorts of logical fallacies.

Because I'm not trying to prove God's existence to you: just that your ideas regarding God don't apply to all versions of beliefs in Him.