Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Yeah but you made a blanket statement. "Lust is sinful.. it is a damaging emotion." Why, then, is lust for your wife/husband/anyone a sin?
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Does God exist? (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter MoonlightSonata
- Start date
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Fair enough, but I'm forever being told that all humans will sin, we are born sinners and that it's not possible to not sin etc.
Granted, this is used to further the argument we need to accept Christ, not to support my argument, but still...
moll.
Learn to science.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,545
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Well I think it's less "we're born with sin" and more "it's a statistical impossiblity that we can evade temptation all our lives".
moll.
Learn to science.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,545
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Or so you've been told.
Honestly, are you arrogant enough to think that an omnipotent omniscient deity who created the entire fabric of space and time within our universe is going to give a crap if within the flash that is your lifetime you give into the pleasures of the flesh?
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
God has a plan for her.
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Then god is a moron who should mind his own goddamn business.
Seriously, this idea that we should strongly oppose acts that do no harm in the real world is so fucking backward and unconstructive.
People worldwide on a daily basis are constantly having their fundamnetal rights abused, and Christians are more worried that unmarried people are having a consensual shag.
Fucking disgusting is what it is.
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Prove it.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Hahaha. Translation: "I am going to call into question the basis of biological sciences because I don't like it!"
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
black_kat_meow
hihiwhywhy
oh my fucking god
Please listen to the intelligent people who are currently arguing with you (particularly Cat and Nolan).
Riet
Tomcat Pilot
SEEE SCIENCE MAKES US TAKE FOR GRANTED IRRATIONAL THINGS TOO. IT IS THE SAME AS RELIGION!
Qed.
black_kat_meow
hihiwhywhy
Were you at KYCK? Or another one? Just out of curiosity...
moll.
Learn to science.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,545
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Or he got bored and wanted to watch something funny...
[Enter the comedy of errors that is human civilisation]
justanotherposter
Epic Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2006
- Messages
- 677
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Watch Family Guy 711 Not All Dogs Go to Heaven Free Online
^Seems somehow relevant. Especially the ending scenes where the churchies are burning any novels that are 'against' god and one of the books is titled "Logic for 1st graders"
^Seems somehow relevant. Especially the ending scenes where the churchies are burning any novels that are 'against' god and one of the books is titled "Logic for 1st graders"
justanotherposter
Epic Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2006
- Messages
- 677
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Riet
Tomcat Pilot
watch this, shutup:
Bill Hicks - Revelations (1993)
Bill Hicks - Revelations (1993)
missanonymous7
Secretive Member
This is true. it is entirely possible to be a christian as well as an evolutionist (a fact that I think a lot of people tend to forget sometimes).
BradCube
Active Member
I feel quite privileged that you would specifically seek out my opinion on such questions, although I must confess that I feel quite under qualified in answering these questions with much sense of assurance.
I take it that the reason you have posed such a question (and inform me if I have assumed incorrectly) is essentially because of this problem, namely "how can God hold every person responsible for the original sin adam committed?" I will refer to this problem as [R] from here on to make referencing easier.
I have avoided taking your original question at face value because I don't think you really want to examine how it is possible (physical, spiritually or otherwise) for sin to be passed on. Such discussion would lead right into discussion of salvation and Jesus paying penalty for our sins. An interesting discussion to be sure (and also one I feel quite under qualified in tackling
) but I don't think this is at the heart of what you are asking.
The Fall
As a Christian, it seems to me that I am tied to the belief in a historical fall. That is to say that Adams original sin was a historic event that occurred in real life at some point in the past. As you know of course, this original sin is what most theologians refer to when they talk of "the fall" - the fall from sinlessness into the sinful. Now at the time of the fall, we note that sinfulness wasn't just a meaningless inconsequential new name for human existence. It represented a real change - most notably death, awareness of objective morality and a pre-disposition toward sinful acts.
Now in addressing [R], we must ask what, if anything, are humans today responsible or affected by in regard to this original sin? Unquestionabley of course, is the fact of death and to a lesser extent, awareness of objective moral values. Certainly this shows that we are still affected by the fall, but does it implicate us in responsibility for it? That is, are we held responsible for the sin adam, a completely different person, committed however long ago? The reasons associated with answering this question will make much headway in answering [R]
Typically, proponents of the affirmative to this question will say that the total depravity of man entails that man is guilty and in need of redemption from birth. The best verse I could find in my light research for you was:
Psalms 58:3: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."
However, such an affirmative view and reading of scripture is not universal amongst Christians. Indeed, I find the waters quite murky. I find it quite reasonable to look at Psalm 58:3 as a reading of how we are affected by our pre-disposition toward sin and not as our involvement in sinful acts before birth.
In my experience, most Christians I talk to seem to affirm this default state of guilt at birth although I am yet to find someone that would give a robust defense of this view. That's not to say that such a defense doesn't exist, only that I don't know of it. I point this out because most Christians also seem to affirm a view that if an infant is killed, they will go to heaven as they have some sort of innocence in that they are not able to make a free willed decision toward or away from God. Such a view seems contradictory to me. If a child is guilty of sin at birth (passed on from Adam) how can they be innocent in Gods eyes? Augustine seems to agree. Augustine believed that unless infants were baptized, they would be condemned to hell.
So how does this help us with [R], that is:
"how can God hold every person responsible for the original sin adam committed?"
Under this admittedly brief overview of Adams original sin, it remains unclear whether God does hold us responsible for Adams sin at all. Certainly, we don't doubt that this original sin has affected us (death, awareness of moral values and pre-disposition toward sinful acts) but does that imply that we are guilty before any of our own personally sinful acts have taken place? Until I see a robust defense of Adams guilt implicating us in guilt, my instinct answers in the negative. That is, I don't see any good reason for even having to worry about [R]. It is not clear that God does pass on this default guilt state from generation to generation.
More than that, [R] is doubly irrelevant since I have committed sinful acts via my own volition. What good is being concerned about Adams sin, if I know that I have sinned - I am just as fallen as he ever was!
What does this have to do with the issue? Well simply, that it seems that the christian who believes in Gods conservation of the world, is also tied to some sort of view of Gods concurrence with what goes on in the world. That is, how can God sustain the worlds existence without concurring and continuing the existence of certain actions within this world? How can someone commit murder unless God concurs with the physical actions of the blade and the response of the victims body? Is God an accessory to murder if he sustains the world in which murder is taking place? Similarly, your question asks: "For children born out of wedlock, would not God's actions in creating them make Him an accessory to adultery and bastardry?". How can God sustain the existence and growth of a child that was born out of sinful actions? Or even further, how could God sustain the existence of the act of adultery? What the theist wants to say here, is that God concurs with the physical properties of the world, but that does not entail the concurrence of moral values. The concurrence with morals would either defile God from being only good, or else would restrict free will in human persons. In most cases, neither of these is an acceptable outcome. Adding to that, I don't see any reason to think that God's concurrence with physical properties of the world implicates him in concurrence of the moral values of free agents within that world.
After thinking about this question, I think it may be far deeper reaching in its consequences than you may have expected. Not only that, but there is a huge amount of background knowledge in Christian doctrine that goes into addressing such an issue. As well as this, it has been a debated (as if anything hasn't been) issue over the history of the church. I fear that I will raise more questions than I will answer. Nevertheless lets jump in and have a look at some of the issues we are dealing with.
I take it that the reason you have posed such a question (and inform me if I have assumed incorrectly) is essentially because of this problem, namely "how can God hold every person responsible for the original sin adam committed?" I will refer to this problem as [R] from here on to make referencing easier.
I have avoided taking your original question at face value because I don't think you really want to examine how it is possible (physical, spiritually or otherwise) for sin to be passed on. Such discussion would lead right into discussion of salvation and Jesus paying penalty for our sins. An interesting discussion to be sure (and also one I feel quite under qualified in tackling
) but I don't think this is at the heart of what you are asking.The Fall
As a Christian, it seems to me that I am tied to the belief in a historical fall. That is to say that Adams original sin was a historic event that occurred in real life at some point in the past. As you know of course, this original sin is what most theologians refer to when they talk of "the fall" - the fall from sinlessness into the sinful. Now at the time of the fall, we note that sinfulness wasn't just a meaningless inconsequential new name for human existence. It represented a real change - most notably death, awareness of objective morality and a pre-disposition toward sinful acts.
Now in addressing [R], we must ask what, if anything, are humans today responsible or affected by in regard to this original sin? Unquestionabley of course, is the fact of death and to a lesser extent, awareness of objective moral values. Certainly this shows that we are still affected by the fall, but does it implicate us in responsibility for it? That is, are we held responsible for the sin adam, a completely different person, committed however long ago? The reasons associated with answering this question will make much headway in answering [R]
Typically, proponents of the affirmative to this question will say that the total depravity of man entails that man is guilty and in need of redemption from birth. The best verse I could find in my light research for you was:
Psalms 58:3: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."
However, such an affirmative view and reading of scripture is not universal amongst Christians. Indeed, I find the waters quite murky. I find it quite reasonable to look at Psalm 58:3 as a reading of how we are affected by our pre-disposition toward sin and not as our involvement in sinful acts before birth.
In my experience, most Christians I talk to seem to affirm this default state of guilt at birth although I am yet to find someone that would give a robust defense of this view. That's not to say that such a defense doesn't exist, only that I don't know of it. I point this out because most Christians also seem to affirm a view that if an infant is killed, they will go to heaven as they have some sort of innocence in that they are not able to make a free willed decision toward or away from God. Such a view seems contradictory to me. If a child is guilty of sin at birth (passed on from Adam) how can they be innocent in Gods eyes? Augustine seems to agree. Augustine believed that unless infants were baptized, they would be condemned to hell.
So how does this help us with [R], that is:
"how can God hold every person responsible for the original sin adam committed?"
Under this admittedly brief overview of Adams original sin, it remains unclear whether God does hold us responsible for Adams sin at all. Certainly, we don't doubt that this original sin has affected us (death, awareness of moral values and pre-disposition toward sinful acts) but does that imply that we are guilty before any of our own personally sinful acts have taken place? Until I see a robust defense of Adams guilt implicating us in guilt, my instinct answers in the negative. That is, I don't see any good reason for even having to worry about [R]. It is not clear that God does pass on this default guilt state from generation to generation.
More than that, [R] is doubly irrelevant since I have committed sinful acts via my own volition. What good is being concerned about Adams sin, if I know that I have sinned - I am just as fallen as he ever was!
This question ties into the doctrine of creation fairly heavily. Opinions vary, but in my brief studies of the doctrine of creation, the issue of Gods conservation of the world come up fairly regularly. That is to say that God created the world (which includes all of reality) and is responsible for it being sustained moment by moment. Without his will to sustain his creation, it would cease to exist - it relies upon him for existence.
What does this have to do with the issue? Well simply, that it seems that the christian who believes in Gods conservation of the world, is also tied to some sort of view of Gods concurrence with what goes on in the world. That is, how can God sustain the worlds existence without concurring and continuing the existence of certain actions within this world? How can someone commit murder unless God concurs with the physical actions of the blade and the response of the victims body? Is God an accessory to murder if he sustains the world in which murder is taking place? Similarly, your question asks: "For children born out of wedlock, would not God's actions in creating them make Him an accessory to adultery and bastardry?". How can God sustain the existence and growth of a child that was born out of sinful actions? Or even further, how could God sustain the existence of the act of adultery? What the theist wants to say here, is that God concurs with the physical properties of the world, but that does not entail the concurrence of moral values. The concurrence with morals would either defile God from being only good, or else would restrict free will in human persons. In most cases, neither of these is an acceptable outcome. Adding to that, I don't see any reason to think that God's concurrence with physical properties of the world implicates him in concurrence of the moral values of free agents within that world.
While I appreciate your humble gallantry, it should be made abundantly clear that I too am tainted by my own beliefs in some senses. Logic allows us to rise to common ground, but still, our experiences do impact many subconscious beliefs. Again, I would like to re-affirm my inadequacies in tackling topics such as these properly - I feel as though I should have a doctorate in theology to address these topics adequately. Nevertheless, it's all part of the learning experience eh?
Last edited:
Iron
Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,765
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Excellent postings! I mean, I have no patience with the evolution vs God debate anymore, but it's the quantity that's important!
Also Bravo Bradcube! You are an ornament to our stage. Excellent work but, perhaps...
too many notes?
Also Bravo Bradcube! You are an ornament to our stage. Excellent work but, perhaps...
too many notes?