Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:00:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com...

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God's first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

Regards
DL
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:13:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To be fair God didn't condemn the human race. The Eve did when she ate the fruit and shared it with Adam. Supposedly the fruit gave them knowledge but also allowed things like rape, and war to happen.
#BlackLivesMatter
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:13:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, transfer punishment is immoral. In the olden days tribes used to confess their sins to a goat then kill the goat to "cleanse" themselves. Also, princes had "whipping boys" who would take the punishment when the prince misbehaves. Obviously, transfer punishment is immoral. Jesus's punishment should have nothing to do with me.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:19:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If someone eats an apple, and the judge decides to ignore all precedence (or futurecedence, seeing as he's omniscient and all that jazz) and sentence them to any form of punishment past a scolding, at most a fine, the judge is at fault. If the judge, regarding any crime, states then that the children of that person is going to be punished as well, then they stop being a reasonable authority.

If God was real, in the way people describe him (tri-omni) he would not commit such horrible atrocities.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 8:56:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So far, all any one comes up with, is a way to relate God and his decisions to things we would do, and situations we experience in our lives..

We are not Gods, and aren't perfect; of course it trips us out, because we are all imperfect and can't imagine judging another imperfect person as "completely" bad, since we are all pretty bad to an extent.

Doesn't really matter though.. why argue about how things ought to be, especially when we have no way of changing them. We are twisted, perverted little creatures, and should just be happy God provided this way out for us; wether we like it or not.

God is not like us, he is perfect.. His decision to sacrifice his son(himself) is completely moral.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 11:10:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:00:10 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
As an example of sacrificial atonement, I like the last video in which the Christian uses the story of a thief before a judge, ; and, the implication is the judge's saying, "I got let's hang my son!"
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:54:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:13:46 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
To be fair God didn't condemn the human race. The Eve did when she ate the fruit and shared it with Adam. Supposedly the fruit gave them knowledge but also allowed things like rape, and war to happen.

No, Eve could not condemn anyone as she (and all women) are not accountable to God as Adam (and men) are:

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.


Satan went STRAIGHT to Eve, (feminism, equality!) and God straight to Adam, who condemned Eve by not taking the wrap.
The Cross.. the Cross.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 5:03:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:00:10 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

No, Adam CHOSE to sin.







I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

You think God is guilty but that Jesus, who is God, is innocent?

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

Name one..

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Explain your concept of righteousness..

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

No, only God Himself can do it; Jesus.

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

Vicars wife in The Simpsons: "will someone PLEASE think of the children! (as the ultimate expression of the SELF righteous)

http://blog.ted.com...

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God's first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

Regards
DL

That question is unanswerable simply because your theology is so confused; I don't wish to continue to take such a strong line with you but if you will not humble yourself I will do it for you:

John 9:41
Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
The Cross.. the Cross.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:02:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:12:48 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
You have no clue what the Bible says.

Such good apologetics says that you are the one who fits that bill.
Chastisement without correction is just cruelty. Thanks Christian for showing your true colors.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:06:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:13:46 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
To be fair God didn't condemn the human race. The Eve did when she ate the fruit and shared it with Adam. Supposedly the fruit gave them knowledge but also allowed things like rape, and war to happen.

Wow.
Eve had the power to condemn the human race.
Then how can God have the power to reverse such power?
If he can then she obviously did not condemn anyone unless she is now our judge and God is superfluous and useless.

You are right though that she is shown as giving man free will and not God.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:08:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:13:49 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Yes, transfer punishment is immoral. In the olden days tribes used to confess their sins to a goat then kill the goat to "cleanse" themselves. Also, princes had "whipping boys" who would take the punishment when the prince misbehaves. Obviously, transfer punishment is immoral. Jesus's punishment should have nothing to do with me.

+ 1

I too reject taking profit through the murder of an innocent man.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:10:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:19:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
If someone eats an apple, and the judge decides to ignore all precedence (or futurecedence, seeing as he's omniscient and all that jazz) and sentence them to any form of punishment past a scolding, at most a fine, the judge is at fault. If the judge, regarding any crime, states then that the children of that person is going to be punished as well, then they stop being a reasonable authority.

If God was real, in the way people describe him (tri-omni) he would not commit such horrible atrocities.

I agree.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:17:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 8:56:40 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
So far, all any one comes up with, is a way to relate God and his decisions to things we would do, and situations we experience in our lives..

We are not Gods, and aren't perfect; of course it trips us out, because we are all imperfect and can't imagine judging another imperfect person as "completely" bad, since we are all pretty bad to an extent.

Doesn't really matter though.. why argue about how things ought to be, especially when we have no way of changing them. We are twisted, perverted little creatures, and should just be happy God provided this way out for us; wether we like it or not.

God is not like us, he is perfect.. His decision to sacrifice his son(himself) is completely moral.

All you have of God is assumption and opinion. No facts or knowledge.

Strange that you would think that having one's son needlessly murdered is moral.

I hope for your childrens sake that you are not a Muslim with a gay son.

I take it that you do not agree with harm/care being the first rule of morality.
What is your first rule?

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:20:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 11:10:26 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/1/2012 7:00:10 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
As an example of sacrificial atonement, I like the last video in which the Christian uses the story of a thief before a judge, ; and, the implication is the judge's saying, "I got let's hang my son!"

Yes and that would be just as immoral as with what God is said to have done.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:29:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:54:17 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/1/2012 7:13:46 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
To be fair God didn't condemn the human race. The Eve did when she ate the fruit and shared it with Adam. Supposedly the fruit gave them knowledge but also allowed things like rape, and war to happen.

No, Eve could not condemn anyone as she (and all women) are not accountable to God as Adam (and men) are:

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.


Satan went STRAIGHT to Eve, (feminism, equality!) and God straight to Adam, who condemned Eve by not taking the wrap.

Now you even have God discriminating in his justice by sex.
You are completely devoid of any moral sense.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:39:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 5:03:03 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:


I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

Name one..


2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Explain your concept of righteousness..

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

No, only God Himself can do it; Jesus.


How can God sacrifice himself to God?

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

Vicars wife in The Simpsons: "will someone PLEASE think of the children! (as the ultimate expression of the SELF righteous)


How is thinking of others self righteous?

http://blog.ted.com...

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God's first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

Regards
DL

That question is unanswerable simply because your theology is so confused; I don't wish to continue to take such a strong line with you but if you will not humble yourself I will do it for you:

LOL. My theology is confused?
All I have done is put words to yours immoral theology.


John 9:41
Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.


If harm/care is not you and your God's first rule of morality then what is?

Regards
DL
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 7:22:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The human race was "condemned" when it was given free will (whenever they gained it through evolution). God didn't "condemn" us, per se. He gave us free will, and it is up to us to do what is right or wrong. As for the whole Jesus thing, I'm no longer Christian, but when I was (Catholic to be exact) we were taught that Jesus gave himself up for sacrifice, God didn't force him to do anything. I personally don't believe in Catholicism anymore, but I know at least some of it's doctrine. Jesus was never forced to do anything. And the story of Adam and Eve was a myth, used to explain things like the first humans and explain why humans have evil. It logically couldn't have happened that way, however.

My point is that, as story goes, Jesus wasn't forced to be sacrificed, it was, for whatever reason, the only suitable atonement for our sins, and he accepted it. And secondly, humans weren't "condemned" by God, but instead were simply given free will. And if we are condemned, it is of our own doing, because God didn't force us to do anything evil or wrong, we made those choices ourselves. Just my opinion...
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:52:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:06:54 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 6/1/2012 7:13:46 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
To be fair God didn't condemn the human race. The Eve did when she ate the fruit and shared it with Adam. Supposedly the fruit gave them knowledge but also allowed things like rape, and war to happen.

Wow.
Eve had the power to condemn the human race.
Then how can God have the power to reverse such power?
If he can then she obviously did not condemn anyone unless she is now our judge and God is superfluous and useless.

You are right though that she is shown as giving man free will and not God.

Regards
DL

no. That's not what I'm saying. We were condemned the moment she ate the peach. And she did not give free will. She already had free will
#BlackLivesMatter
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 7:22:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 7:22:55 PM, EvanK wrote:
The human race was "condemned" when it was given free will (whenever they gained it through evolution). God didn't "condemn" us, per se. He gave us free will, and it is up to us to do what is right or wrong. As for the whole Jesus thing, I'm no longer Christian, but when I was (Catholic to be exact) we were taught that Jesus gave himself up for sacrifice, God didn't force him to do anything. I personally don't believe in Catholicism anymore, but I know at least some of it's doctrine. Jesus was never forced to do anything. And the story of Adam and Eve was a myth, used to explain things like the first humans and explain why humans have evil. It logically couldn't have happened that way, however.

My point is that, as story goes, Jesus wasn't forced to be sacrificed, it was, for whatever reason, the only suitable atonement for our sins, and he accepted it. And secondly, humans weren't "condemned" by God, but instead were simply given free will. And if we are condemned, it is of our own doing, because God didn't force us to do anything evil or wrong, we made those choices ourselves. Just my opinion...

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Being sent is not volunteering.

Thomas Paine, in Age of Reason, wrote:
If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge.

This single reflection will show that the doctrine of redemption is founded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which another person might pay; and as this pecuniary idea corresponds again with the system of second redemptions, obtained through the means of money given to the church for pardons, the probability is that the same persons fabricated both the one and the other of those theories; and that, in truth, there is no such thing as redemption; that it is fabulous; and that man stands in the same relative condition with his Maker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatest consolation to think so.
Emphasis mine.

So not only is the killing of an innocent man immoral, but it shows that the redemption allegory being used is that of a financial debt. Which is an interesting parallel to the practice of purchasing 'pardons'.

[It is] not good that the man should be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him. (Gen. 2:18) KJV Story book

Free will to me is the ability to make a choice without coercion.
A choice made while under coercion, (especially under threat of pain and suffering), is not a freely made choice, ergo it is not free will. In fact there is a name for it; it's called extortion and it is a criminal offense precisely for the reason that it is not a free choice but a forced one.

"Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense." Wikipedia

"Test all things"
1 Thessalonians. 5:21

No noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 7:24:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 7:22:55 PM, EvanK wrote:
The human race was "condemned" when it was given free will (whenever they gained it through evolution). God didn't "condemn" us, per se. He gave us free will, and it is up to us to do what is right or wrong.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or " it's all man's fault".

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for bein available to us. Wherever it came from. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 7:30:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:52:18 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:06:54 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 6/1/2012 7:13:46 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
To be fair God didn't condemn the human race. The Eve did when she ate the fruit and shared it with Adam. Supposedly the fruit gave them knowledge but also allowed things like rape, and war to happen.

Wow.
Eve had the power to condemn the human race.
Then how can God have the power to reverse such power?
If he can then she obviously did not condemn anyone unless she is now our judge and God is superfluous and useless.

You are right though that she is shown as giving man free will and not God.

Regards
DL

no. That's not what I'm saying. We were condemned the moment she ate the peach. And she did not give free will. She already had free will

If she had the free will to exercise, then why did God condemn us all the first time A & E did their will and not God's?

God indicates that Eve was deceived by a supernatural entity that she could not resist. Did she deserve any punishment at all?

Regards
DL
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 8:01:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 7:24:38 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 6/2/2012 7:22:55 PM, EvanK wrote:
The human race was "condemned" when it was given free will (whenever they gained it through evolution). God didn't "condemn" us, per se. He gave us free will, and it is up to us to do what is right or wrong.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or " it's all man's fault".

First off, I'm not Christian, just fyi.


That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

I never said God wasn't blamworthy, but I believe us humans get most of the blame for our actions, nearly all of it. Why? I believe God get some blame for making evil possible, however, he didn't plan out the world, and make it so that John kills Jack, without John having any choice in the matter. It was John that chose to kill Jack, God didn't influence him. God made murder possible, but didn't hold a gun to John's head, so to speak.


But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Again, I am not Christian, and personally don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve. I believe humans were always capable of evil. I don't believe that we sin due to original sin given to us when Eve ate of the forbidden tree. I believe that since Eve was capable of disobeying God, it can be concluded humans were always capable of wrong doing. She did so because she could. But again, I believe this story is a myth.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

There's no "sin nature". We do have our own personal problems, though, usually as the result of being raised wrongly. We are capable of sin, because we have the capability to make a choice. We make that choice based off of the way we were raised. Some of our problems may be health related, but I don't believe the majority are. For example, some have the urge to harm people, or to sexually abuse them. Some because of mental problems, most because of mental problems linked to their past. Not because God implanted it into their DNA. What I'm trying to say is, it isn't genetic.



Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Evil is in this world because God didn't create us as mind numb robots, only capable of doing good. He allows us to make our own decisions. For example, making us mortal creatures, means at some point we must die. How do we die? We die when part of our bodies fail. Because we have free will to do whatever we wish to do, it is possible to harm someone in a way that would kill them. This is evil, capable due to our free will. Why is it possible though? Because it is a possibility, due to the way our bodies were created, and because we have the free will to harm someone that way. This explains evil to me. Free will and flawed species capable of doing such things.


Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for bein available to us. Wherever it came from. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

I'm not sure what this competition you speak of is, you didn't list any examples, but like I said, evil is here because it is a possibility. I don't blame God, because he gave us the ability to choose what to do. I believe God has to share some of the blame for making it possible, but without evil, there would be no free will, as we could only do good. I hope my arguments made sense. :D


Regards
DL
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 8:26:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:17:12 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 6/1/2012 8:56:40 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
So far, all any one comes up with, is a way to relate God and his decisions to things we would do, and situations we experience in our lives..

We are not Gods, and aren't perfect; of course it trips us out, because we are all imperfect and can't imagine judging another imperfect person as "completely" bad, since we are all pretty bad to an extent.

Doesn't really matter though.. why argue about how things ought to be, especially when we have no way of changing them. We are twisted, perverted little creatures, and should just be happy God provided this way out for us; wether we like it or not.

God is not like us, he is perfect.. His decision to sacrifice his son(himself) is completely moral.

All you have of God is assumption and opinion. No facts or knowledge.

Isn't that all anyone has in regards to God?

Strange that you would think that having one's son needlessly murdered is moral.

Needlessly? according to who?

I hope for your childrens sake that you are not a Muslim with a gay son.

I'm not muslim, and I'm pretty sure my son, or any future kids, won't be gay. Call it fathers intuition ;p

I take it that you do not agree with harm/care being the first rule of morality.
What is your first rule?

Love God with all of your mind, heart, and soul.

Regards
DL
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 8:30:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 7:24:38 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 6/2/2012 7:22:55 PM, EvanK wrote:
The human race was "condemned" when it was given free will (whenever they gained it through evolution). God didn't "condemn" us, per se. He gave us free will, and it is up to us to do what is right or wrong.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or " it's all man's fault".

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for bein available to us. Wherever it came from. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Regards
DL

Desires are the result of choice. I don't subscribe to hard determinism.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 9:01:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 8:40:05 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
This entire thread is at step 27 of the Christian faith when most refuse to understand step 1.

Just curious, what do you mean?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 9:06:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 9:01:16 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 6/5/2012 8:40:05 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
This entire thread is at step 27 of the Christian faith when most refuse to understand step 1.

Just curious, what do you mean?

For a different thread- not this one. Oops
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 11:23:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 8:30:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:


Desires are the result of choice. I don't subscribe to hard determinism.

You have it backwards.

Desire leads to choice. If we did not desire one thing over another, we would not bother to choose one over the other.

Did Eve not desire to eat before she choose to eat?
Yes she did.

Regards
DL