Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Mr. Magoo on April 09, 2012, 12:21:16 PM

Title: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Mr. Magoo on April 09, 2012, 12:21:16 PM
I'm not going to put much effort into this post for time restraints, but...

..where did sin come from? Most say Eve eating the fruit. But the Devil lied and tried to manipulate Eve, and that is a sin, so sin had to exist before Adam or Eve partook of the fruit. Some people believe (Not in the Bible I don't think...) that Satan was jealous of God's power and that's why he was thrown out of Heaven (I think this came from Dante, I'm not up on my literature). So if that was true, sin had to exist then.

I'll let a few respond before I go much further

So where did sin come from?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Butterbean on April 10, 2012, 08:40:13 AM
I believe it began w/Lucifer (Satan) and his free will choices.

Eze 28:12b - 17
“‘You were the seal of perfection,
   full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
   the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
   carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
   topaz, onyx and jasper,
   lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
   on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
   for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
   you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
   from the day you were created
   till wickedness was found in you.

16 Through your widespread trade
   you were filled with violence,
   and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
   and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
   from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
   on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
   because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
   I made a spectacle of you before kings.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Necrosis on April 11, 2012, 03:24:35 PM
I believe it began w/Lucifer (Satan) and his free will choices.

Eze 28:12b - 17
“‘You were the seal of perfection,
   full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
   the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
   carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
   topaz, onyx and jasper,
   lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
   on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
   for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
   you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
   from the day you were created
   till wickedness was found in you.

16 Through your widespread trade
   you were filled with violence,
   and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
   and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
   from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
   on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
   because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
   I made a spectacle of you before kings.

so then who created sin or the tangential concept we have of it now? it seems your passage suggests the devil found something indicating it previously existed. So the devil had this potential, who created this potential, or is " sin" something that merely exists on another plane which was first accessed by the devil?

clearly and logically if the devil found the capacity for evil then it pre-dates him, if god is the creator of all, then god created sin. This is only logical and your passage clearly supports my position as literally read.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on April 18, 2012, 05:23:01 AM
so then who created sin or the tangential concept we have of it now? it seems your passage suggests the devil found something indicating it previously existed. So the devil had this potential, who created this potential, or is " sin" something that merely exists on another plane which was first accessed by the devil?

clearly and logically if the devil found the capacity for evil then it pre-dates him, if god is the creator of all, then god created sin. This is only logical and your passage clearly supports my position as literally read.

Interesting thread, and very good questions and good points.  I do not know the answer, and there can be many different theories.

The Bible says that God is eternal, and the Bible says that God is good.  Therefore, it seems like good would be eternal as well, having no beginning and having no creator.

It has been said that good cannot exist without evil.  If that is true, and if good is eternal, then it would seem that evil is eternal as well, having no beginning and having no creator.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Necrosis on April 20, 2012, 08:20:00 AM
Interesting thread, and very good questions and good points.  I do not know the answer, and there can be many different theories.

The Bible says that God is eternal, and the Bible says that God is good.  Therefore, it seems like good would be eternal as well, having no beginning and having no creator.

It has been said that good cannot exist without evil.  If that is true, and if good is eternal, then it would seem that evil is eternal as well, having no beginning and having no creator.

evil and good are feelings which are relative, we can understand them due to polarity, however, i can imagine good without evil. I can envision a world free of suffering, i value suffering but i still see it as something which need not exist if i was all powerful.

However, your suggestion that evil and good predate or exist alongside god is unarguable really. I can't rebutt it as it's purely conjecture and i don't see how color, sadness etc can't likely be eternal. Also, the one thing you point out is that god is not all powerful, being all good i cannot fathom how he could allow evil if he could stop it. That's like saying you are a good person then return to work at auschwitz for routine rape and kill. It makes no sense, if he is standing by then he doesn't deserve praise he is impotent to me and if he can stop it and won't then he is not all good and if he cannot stop evil then he isn't allpowerful, in fact that logical conclusion is that evil is in fact more powerful.

logic and the argument for god will never co-exist by the very nature of what we are talking about. I can accept that something advanced has a bigger picture in mind, but if i could stop my dog from suffering with my superior intellect and power i would, to not seems evil.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on April 20, 2012, 12:28:36 PM
Also, the one thing you point out is that god is not all powerful, being all good i cannot fathom how he could allow evil if he could stop it.

I did not point that out, you did.  I believe that God is both good and all powerful.  He can be, and He is both.

I have seen your argument before:

"If God is good and all powerful, then why does God not stop evil?  Therefore it must follow that God is either not good or God is not all powerful."  

That is a fallacy, as if that were the only possible explanation or the only possible answer.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Mr. Magoo on April 21, 2012, 08:19:16 AM
I did not point that out, you did.  I believe that God is both good and all powerful.  He can be, and He is both.

I have seen your argument before:

"If God is good and all powerful, then why does God not stop evil?  Therefore it must follow that God is either not good or God is not all powerful."  

That is a fallacy, as if that were the only possible explanation or the only possible answer.

No, it's not. I've posted an article on the problem of evil on this forum before but it never got any replies to it. The only two people who replied said "i'll read it later and reply", but never did.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=388227.0
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Mr. Magoo on April 21, 2012, 08:26:22 AM
Interesting thread, and very good questions and good points.  I do not know the answer, and there can be many different theories.

The Bible says that God is eternal, and the Bible says that God is good.  Therefore, it seems like good would be eternal as well, having no beginning and having no creator.

It has been said that good cannot exist without evil.  If that is true, and if good is eternal, then it would seem that evil is eternal as well, having no beginning and having no creator.

False. God is good without evil and he has free will, right? And he exists. Heaven is a place where there is good, no evil, and free will, right? Heaven exists. Those 3 (bold part above=1, two listed in this reply=2) beliefs cannot consistently be held.

For a longer discussion on this point, see the article in that thread I linked to in my previous post.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Mr. Magoo on April 21, 2012, 08:42:28 AM
Interesting thread, and very good questions and good points.  I do not know the answer, and there can be many different theories.

The Bible says that God is eternal, and the Bible says that God is good.  Therefore, it seems like good would be eternal as well, having no beginning and having no creator.

It has been said that good cannot exist without evil.  If that is true, and if good is eternal, then it would seem that evil is eternal as well, having no beginning and having no creator.

I feel like arguing for the next minute or so, so I'll respond once more  ;D

"God is good"

Time to revisit some Plato lol. Is God good because 1) whatever he does, it will be good? Or is God good because  2) he does good (and only good) things?

Now, I think most christians believe #1. (you might not). Whatever God chooses to do, it will be good. If God ordered tomorrow that it is morally good to kick babies, then beginning tomorrow it will be morally good to kick babies. Morality is dependent on God's will. BUT: This presents a problem. If whatever God chooses to do will automatically be good, then why praise him? Anything he does will automatically be good, he cannot not do good, so why praise him doing good? ALSO, some people react a little hastily to the "if God said tomorrow that kicking babies is morally good, then it would be morally good" and they reply "But God would never do that", which takes us to #2

Some people believe God is good because he does good things. God would never say that kicking babies is morally good because, quite simply, doing that is NOT morally good and God wouldnt ever do something not morally good. BUT this also presents a problem. This implies a morality that is INDEPEDENT of God's will (contrast with #1 above). In this sense, there is "good" and all of God's actions fit under that title. But if this is the case, then God isn't the source of all things (in this case: the source of good) and therefore not all creating. (A similar thing is usually said about the statement "God loves.." because to say that God has the attribute of 'love' implies that 'love' exists independent of God. Though this may be true of me and you, love cannot exist independently of the person who created love., etc)

Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on April 23, 2012, 11:01:26 AM
No, it's not. I've posted an article on the problem of evil on this forum before but it never got any replies to it. The only two people who replied said "i'll read it later and reply", but never did.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=388227.0

As one of the two that replied before I actually told you I've studied most of this previously, that I would read your article in more detail later on (which I did) and I responded right then....thx!!!
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on April 24, 2012, 10:22:22 AM
False. God is good without evil and he has free will, right? And he exists. Heaven is a place where there is good, no evil, and free will, right? Heaven exists. Those 3 (bold part above=1, two listed in this reply=2) beliefs cannot consistently be held.

For a longer discussion on this point, see the article in that thread I linked to in my previous post.

You say it is false, but you did not tell me why it is false.  I do not know whether or not this is false.  But you just did not make any sense.

Wasn't Lucifer in Heaven until he was expelled?

Does Lucifer not appear before the presence of God from time to time?

Is Lucifer not evil?  Does Lucifer not exist?  Does evil not exist?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on April 24, 2012, 12:28:32 PM
You say it is false, but you did not tell me why it is false.  I do not know whether or not this is false.  You just did not make any sense.

Wasn't Lucifer in Heaven until he was expelled?

Does Lucifer not appear before the presence of God from time to time?

Is Lucifer not evil?  Does Lucifer not exist?  Does evil not exist?

You're required to read the article in order to unravel the mysteries behind the problem of evil.  Everything one needs is contained in said article.   You must study the article, absorb it and then you can discuss it here.  Although before any discussions can truly begin you must first ensure that all the answers you seek aren't already contained in "the article".  Any questions directed at Mr. Magoo concerning his opinion on the problem of evil will be referred to "the article".  Mr. Magoo is "the article" and "the article" is Mr. Magoo...."the article" and Mr. Magoo are one.  

If this is unclear please consult "the article".
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on April 24, 2012, 02:53:05 PM
You're required to read the article in order to unravel the mysteries behind the problem of evil.  Everything one needs is contained in said article.   You must study the article, absorb it and then you can discuss it here.  Although before any discussions can truly begin you must first ensure that all the answers you seek aren't already contained in "the article".  Any questions directed at Mr. Magoo concerning his opinion on the problem of evil will be referred to "the article".  Mr. Magoo is "the article" and "the article" is Mr. Magoo...."the article" and Mr. Magoo are one.  

If this is unclear please consult "the article".

LOL     ;D
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Mr. Magoo on April 24, 2012, 05:48:31 PM
You say it is false, but you did not tell me why it is false.  I do not know whether or not this is false.  But you just did not make any sense.

I thought I made this clear in my previous answer, but I'll try better.

3 Beliefs that can be held. (But cannot all be true at once)
1. Good cannot exist without evil. For any object x, if it exists and it is good, then evil must be present in it. (∀x)(Gx>Ex) where Gx= x has the property of good, Ex= x has the property of evil (Simple Translation= All G's are E's/Everything that is G is an E)
2. God exists, is good, and has no evil (∃x)(Gx & -Ex) (Simple translation= Something exists that is a G and is not an E)
3. Heaven exists, is good, and has no evil (∃x)(Gx & -Ex) (Simple translation= Something exists that is a G and is not an E)

#1 cannot consistently be held with either #2 or #3 (see the contradiction?). If you want to deny the conditional in #1 and say "well, some things can exist that are good with no evil" then you have to deny "good cannot exist without evil".  Now I think the best way to get out of it would be to deny the "in it" part in #1. But then an easy reply would be "Well fastfoward past the end times, when we are living in heaven with God and Satan is no more, then there is a time when there is no evil at all, yet good, so it is possible. If it's possible then #1 is false.

That is why those 3 beliefs (Numbered 1,2,3 for your convenience) cannot consistently be held, and why a possible reply to it is not adequate. I chose #1 because you mentioned it, I chose #2 and #3 because I'm pretty sure you believe those two.

Simple enough?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on April 24, 2012, 06:29:04 PM
I thought I made this clear in my previous answer, but I'll try better.

3 Beliefs that can be held. (But cannot all be true at once)
1. Good cannot exist without evil. For any object x, if it exists and it is good, then evil must be present in it.

I stopped reading right there.  Who said that in order for good to exist, evil must be present in it?      ::)

Way to spin, distort and put words in people's mouth! 
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Mr. Magoo on April 24, 2012, 07:05:21 PM
I stopped reading right there.  Who said that in order for good to exist, evil must be present in it?      ::)

Way to spin, distort and put words in people's mouth! 


Shoulda kept on reading stud...

..
Now I think the best way to get out of it would be to deny the "in it" part in #1. But then an easy reply would be "Well fastfoward past the end times, when we are living in heaven with God and Satan is no more, then there is a time when there is no evil at all, yet good, so it is possible. If it's possible then #1 is false.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on April 25, 2012, 04:10:21 AM
Shoulda kept on reading stud...

..

Why would you even bring that up when I never said that I believe that for good to exist, evil must exist "in it"?  You sure love reading your own words and your own long posts.     ::)

There is no time when "Satan is no more."  Satan, his demons, the anti-Christ and the false prophet will exist in The Lake of Fire for eternity.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Necrosis on April 26, 2012, 04:08:21 AM
Why would you even bring that up when I never said that I believe that for good to exist, evil must exist "in it"?  You sure love reading your own words and your own long posts.     ::)

There is no time when "Satan is no more."  Satan, his demons, the anti-Christ and the false prophet will exist in The Lake of Fire for eternity.

why can't god destroy him/them? i don't understand why he wouldn't unless he cannot.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on April 27, 2012, 07:14:06 AM
I thought I made this clear in my previous answer, but I'll try better.

3 Beliefs that can be held. (But cannot all be true at once)
1. Good cannot exist without evil. For any object x, if it exists and it is good, then evil must be present in it. (∀x)(Gx>Ex) where Gx= x has the property of good, Ex= x has the property of evil (Simple Translation= All G's are E's/Everything that is G is an E)
2. God exists, is good, and has no evil (∃x)(Gx & -Ex) (Simple translation= Something exists that is a G and is not an E)
3. Heaven exists, is good, and has no evil (∃x)(Gx & -Ex) (Simple translation= Something exists that is a G and is not an E)

#1 cannot consistently be held with either #2 or #3 (see the contradiction?). If you want to deny the conditional in #1 and say "well, some things can exist that are good with no evil" then you have to deny "good cannot exist without evil".  Now I think the best way to get out of it would be to deny the "in it" part in #1. But then an easy reply would be "Well fastfoward past the end times, when we are living in heaven with God and Satan is no more, then there is a time when there is no evil at all, yet good, so it is possible. If it's possible then #1 is false.

That is why those 3 beliefs (Numbered 1,2,3 for your convenience) cannot consistently be held, and why a possible reply to it is not adequate. I chose #1 because you mentioned it, I chose #2 and #3 because I'm pretty sure you believe those two.

Simple enough?

Would you define evil for me?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: 240 is Back on May 02, 2012, 12:18:54 PM
its just how we're built.   what makes us improve/strive also makes us sin.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: B_B_C on May 02, 2012, 12:21:53 PM
Sincinnati
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on May 02, 2012, 02:46:02 PM
why can't god destroy him/them? i don't understand why he wouldn't unless he cannot.

God allows Satan loose in our lives so that we may choose to draw closer to or pull from God based on the choices we make.  God works within the context of our lives, the parameters we set and the choices we make so that our free will is kept intact.  Given the timelessness of God his perception of past, present and future in one state transcends our ability to comprehend.  That said, our desire to have God move in accordance with our desires is not part of our free will.  Our free will is out of scope in terms of his divinity.  Our desire for God to act now doesn't negate a single quality about God, but it does highlight our need to draw closer to God and his will while still preserving our own free will.  Its the Holy Spirit that works in our lives helping guide us, but those that refuse to acknowledge the Holy Spirit will never grasp this.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on May 06, 2012, 12:50:23 AM
God allows Satan loose in our lives so that we may choose to draw closer to or pull from God based on the choices we make.  

Why do we have to choose? The "test" seems to be geared more for the benefit of God than anything else. Isn't God omniscient, and therefore, already knows what each of us will choose anyway? Why would an omniscient and omnipotent God go through such a ridiculous and laborious process?


God works within the context of our lives, the parameters we set and the choices we make so that our free will is kept intact.  Given the timelessness of God his perception of past, present and future in one state transcends our ability to comprehend.  That said, our desire to have God move in accordance with our desires is not part of our free will.  Our free will is out of scope in terms of his divinity.  Our desire for God to act now doesn't negate a single quality about God, but it does highlight our need to draw closer to God and his will while still preserving our own free will.  Its the Holy Spirit that works in our lives helping guide us, but those that refuse to acknowledge the Holy Spirit will never grasp this.

The idea of free will is incompatible with a basic attribute assigned to Christian God: omniscience. If God knows everything, he knows what you will choose at every step in your life, and so your choices are predetermined. Indeed, this is stated in the Bible itself. In Revelation it is explicitly stated in no uncertain terms that only those whose names were already known at the foundation of the world and recorded in the "Book of Life" will be saved and all others will be doomed (Rev. 20:15). If this is true, then you don't have free will, since your fate is decided. At best you have the illusion of free will.

But let's assume - for the sake of argument - that you have actual free will: in a way, this makes it worse than before. Assuming Relevation is true, then we know that only those whose names were entered in the Book of Life at the foundation of the world will be saved. REGARDLESS OF THEIR FREELY-CHOSEN ACTIONS. So it doesn't matter what you do and what you choose. Salvation is like a Publisher's Clearing House lottery: your ticket has already been issued, whether you know it or not. What's left is to wait and see if you get the prize.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on May 06, 2012, 07:35:48 AM
Why do we have to choose? The "test" seems to be geared more for the benefit of God than anything else. Isn't God omniscient, and therefore, already knows what each of us will choose anyway? Why would an omniscient and omnipotent God go through such a ridiculous and laborious process?


The idea of free will is incompatible with a basic attribute assigned to Christian God: omniscience. If God knows everything, he knows what you will choose at every step in your life, and so your choices are predetermined. Indeed, this is stated in the Bible itself. In Revelation it is explicitly stated in no uncertain terms that only those whose names were already known at the foundation of the world and recorded in the "Book of Life" will be saved and all others will be doomed (Rev. 20:15). If this is true, then you don't have free will, since your fate is decided. At best you have the illusion of free will.

But let's assume - for the sake of argument - that you have actual free will: in a way, this makes it worse than before. Assuming Relevation is true, then we know that only those whose names were entered in the Book of Life at the foundation of the world will be saved. REGARDLESS OF THEIR FREELY-CHOSEN ACTIONS. So it doesn't matter what you do and what you choose. Salvation is like a Publisher's Clearing House lottery: your ticket has already been issued, whether you know it or not. What's left is to wait and see if you get the prize.

Everyone's name was written in the book of life...we're all God's creations...he gave us life and recorded it.  Remaining in the book is our choice - we blot out our own names.   God's knowledge of our choices doesn't negate our ability to choose nor does it mean he chose for us...it just means he already knows.  God orchestrated and recorded life, he predestined his will through Christ, but he didn't predestine his creation to choose one way or the other...that would be a lack of free will. Why it's all that surprising that our finite, human abilities render limited philosophical conclusions in comparison to divine perception is what confuses me.   Why the "ridiculous and laborious process"?  Given the notion of a laborious process it's hard to deny we aren't allowed ample time to make a choice, but considered within the scope of a timeless, all-powerful creator I see the labor aspect dissolve and the ridiculousness transitioned into divine order (on a scale we can't fully grasp).  So often it comes down to our finite perceptions within the scope of time and God's divine, infinite perceptions in a state of timelessness or transcendence beyond the expanse of time.  Atheists and agnostics fully-informed of God and his will for us often make the choice to dismiss God as nonsense; it's unfortunate, but it happens.  

Revelation 13:8 New King James Version (NKJV)
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Revelation 17:8  New King James Version (NKJV)
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.[a]


Revelation 20:15 New King James Version (NKJV)
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.


Revelation 3:3-5  New King James Version (NKJV)
Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. 4 You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. 5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on May 06, 2012, 10:55:54 AM
Everyone's name was written in the book of life...we're all God's creations...he gave us life and recorded it.

Even if that's the case, it still has considerable implications for free choice. Were your parents free to get together and copulate so that you may be conceived and born, if your name was written in the book of life at the foundation of the world? After all, if they didn't get together at just the right time, you would have never been conceived. Were they free to get together if you were predestined to be born?


God's knowledge of our choices doesn't negate our ability to choose nor does it mean he chose for us...it just means he already knows.

If you really believe this, then you don't believe in free will. You believe in the illusion of free will. If there's only the illusion of free will, you aren't making choices - you're just following a script.


God orchestrated and recorded life, he predestined his will through Christ, but he didn't predestine his creation to choose one way or the other...that would be a lack of free will.

So were your parents free to not get together on that fateful night? Remember that either your name was written in the book of life at the foundation of the world or it wasn't.


Why it's all that surprising that our finite, human abilities render limited philosophical conclusions in comparison to divine perception is what confuses me.

I'm not surprised. What's surprising is your willingness to accept such a "divine perception" which turns everything on its head: able to know what you'll do, before you do it, without affecting your freedom to actually choose what to do.


Why the "ridiculous and laborious process"?  Given the notion of a laborious process it's hard to deny we aren't allowed ample time to make a choice, but considered within the scope of a timeless, all-powerful creator I see the labor aspect dissolve and the ridiculousness transitioned into divine order (on a scale we can't fully grasp).

Why even have a process at all? If God knows who will choose what, what's the point in even creating those who will choose wrong and will "fail" the test?


So often it comes down to our finite perceptions within the scope of time and God's divine, infinite perceptions in a state of timelessness or transcendence beyond the expanse of time.  Atheists and agnostics fully-informed of God and his will for us often make the choice to dismiss God as nonsense; it's unfortunate, but it happens.


Revelation 13:8 New King James Version (NKJV)
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

This, to me, very clearly states that all whose names have not been written in the Book of Life will not worship the Christian God. So, are those people free to repent and accept Jesus? After all, remember, their names aren't just "blotted" from the book of life. From the above it's crystal clear that they aren't in the Book of Life.


Revelation 17:8  New King James Version (NKJV)
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.[a]

Again, this says that the names of some people weren't written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. So can those people repent and accept Jesus and be saved, even though their name wasn't added in the Book of Life at the time of the foundation of the world?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on May 07, 2012, 12:23:20 PM
Even if that's the case, it still has considerable implications for free choice. Were your parents free to get together and copulate so that you may be conceived and born, if your name was written in the book of life at the foundation of the world? After all, if they didn't get together at just the right time, you would have never been conceived. Were they free to get together if you were predestined to be born?


If you really believe this, then you don't believe in free will. You believe in the illusion of free will. If there's only the illusion of free will, you aren't making choices - you're just following a script.


So were your parents free to not get together on that fateful night? Remember that either your name was written in the book of life at the foundation of the world or it wasn't.


I'm not surprised. What's surprising is your willingness to accept such a "divine perception" which turns everything on its head: able to know what you'll do, before you do it, without affecting your freedom to actually choose what to do.


Why even have a process at all? If God knows who will choose what, what's the point in even creating those who will choose wrong and will "fail" the test?



This, to me, very clearly states that all whose names have not been written in the Book of Life will not worship the Christian God. So, are those people free to repent and accept Jesus? After all, remember, their names aren't just "blotted" from the book of life. From the above it's crystal clear that they aren't in the Book of Life.


Again, this says that the names of some people weren't written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. So can those people repent and accept Jesus and be saved, even though their name wasn't added in the Book of Life at the time of the foundation of the world?


I'm not quite as organized as you, but I'll respond briefly as I have a few minutes while I'm eating some lunch.  You make good points.  I think many folks often define free will in absolute terms....something like absolute autonomy with no restrictions.  I understand that definition, but that's not necessariliy what I'm trying to convey.  A person or community of people can have free will, but that free will is often granted to them yet subject to boundaries.  In this case our free will is granted by God, but we're still subject to the confines of the scope of his creation.  Ultimately this life is about one choice....it's preparation for eternity and whether we choose to spend eternity with God or without God.  As a believer I surrender completely to the will of my Lord and Savior, but I also understand that despite the free will I'm granted it's still subject to his boundries.  Much like I can choose to enter someone else's home without an invitation, but that choice to enter doesn't negate potential consequences of the choice if the owners don't want me there.  If it's absolute autonomy you seek you could probably find it someplace on Earth in a location in which you aren't subject to man's rules, but you'll still be subject to divine boundaries so you'll never escape that completely.  That said, you could interchange free will and volition; unless of course you're defining free will in absolute terms (which it seems you are).  My parents freely chose to conceive me, but understood that choice could result in something they didn't plan on.  They understood their volition and desires may not be completely compatible with God's will for our lives.  In so many of my disussions with nonbelievers I speak of the ability to freely choose or deny God, but then scenarios such as the "illusion of free will" or various circumstances are used to counter (ex: my conception being pre-planned by God doesn't mean I have free will).  I grasp the limits of free will, but more importantly I understand the primary choice we're supposed to freely make in this life...to accept or reject God...that's the point I routinely drive home.  I think it's obvious that I don't desire complete autonomy and a world of zero boundaries because I surrender to the will of my God and thank him for the life he's granted me.  His creation is based on an act of love.  He created us in his image and not some other.  He doesn't need us and didn't need to create us.  He did so because he can and because he loves us.  He works within the confines of our lives to help us draw closer to him and at the same time help us understand the error of our ways (2 birds, 1 stone I guess).  We can freely step away from God's will, but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences.  Why did he choose to design the way he did?  I can't answer that.

The bible verses I included were based on what you said about Revelation 20:15 initially.  I included other verses that included the wording you said was included in Rev 20:15 and actually wasn't.  I included the last verse about blotting our names from the Book of Life to add a bit of context to my response.  The verses are taken out of context so you should read the entire chapter with which they are included to get the full picture (if you're interested).  I can post the chapters if you like.

Good comments overall.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on May 07, 2012, 01:04:51 PM
A person or community of people can have free will, but that free will is often granted to them yet subject to boundaries.

This isn't correct: a community may impose sanctions for crossing boundaries (e.g. by stoning adulterers) but the people still can freely choose to commit the act or not. The very definition of free will is a will unencumbered by external force. Not a will that's not subject to consequences.

In this case our free will is granted by God, but we're still subject to the confines of the scope of his creation.

We either have free will or not. That doesn't mean that we aren't subject to the laws of nature (e.g. no matter how free my will is, I'll never be able to flap my hands and fly) or that we aren't subject to consequences (e.g. I choose to spend a full paycheck to buy a Rolex, and then can't afford to pay rent so I am evicted).


Ultimately this life is about one choice....it's preparation for eternity and whether we choose to spend eternity with God or without God.  As a believer I surrender completely to the will of my Lord and Savior, but I also understand that despite the free will I'm granted it's still subject to his boundries.

Are you free to surrender though? Or is your surrender meaningless, in that you could not possibly do anything else?


Much like I can choose to enter someone else's home without an invitation, but that choice to enter doesn't negate potential consequences of the choice if the owners don't want me there.

Right - but you are still free to actually choose to enter without an invitation, because the consequences of your action don't limit your choices; they only deal with the aftermath of actions.


That said, you could interchange free will and volition; unless of course you're defining free will in absolute terms (which it seems you are).

The definition of free will is really quite simple. I make my choices using the criteria I choose. Free will has nothing to do with whether those choices are good or bad, or even sensible. It only has to do with whether I can decide what to do when faced with a decision without being subjected to outside force.


My parents freely chose to conceive me, but understood that choice could result in something they didn't plan on.

Did they really freely choose? Consider what the Bible says (per your earlier post): all names were entered in the Book of Life at the foundation of the world. If that's the case how could they have freely chosen to conceive you? After all, by being in the Book of Life, your birth was preordained and predestined. And since only they could have produced you, by having sex on the exact time they did, it's hard to see how their choice was free.

If we are to believe that there is a Book of Life and that everyone's name is written there, then we can only reach two conclusions: either they didn't choose to have you (even if they thought they did), or they somehow freely chose to have you at some point before they were born, when some divine scribe was about to enter your name in the Book of Life. It's one or the other.

In so many of my disussions with nonbelievers I speak of the ability to freely choose or deny God

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I do actually have free will and am completely free to choose or deny God. This still doesn't make anything better: God knows what my ultimate choice will be. So when he "created" me, he knew what my ultimate fate will be. Why would he create me, knowing that I'll choose to deny him? Clearly it can't be because he wants to "give me a chance" -- he knows what my choice will be, and creates me knowing I'll be subjected to a punishment. So why would he, a God of Love, create me, so that I may be punished?


His creation is based on an act of love.

Again, let's take me as an example. I'm an atheist; I reject the notion of deities. This means I reject the Christian God. How is it an act of love to create me, knowing that I will reject him and will be subjected to punishment?


He created us in his image and not some other.  He doesn't need us and didn't need to create us.  He did so because he can and because he loves us.

I really don't see this love that you say is in the air. What I see is -- and this is from the Bible -- a God who creates humanity, isn't happy when his creation doesn't do what he wants it to do and punishes it by expelling it from Paradise and curses all subsequent generations with Original Sin. I see a God who then decrees that the wages of sin of death, and who admits that nobody can wipe the stain of sin. And then I see a God that sends himself down to earth, to be tortured and sacrified, so that his death may wipe the stain of sin that he decreed was punishable by death. How is this love? At best it's twisted sadomasochism.

Why wouldn't God just forgive us and say "Aww, shucks guys! It's ok!"? That's what parents the world over do. And yet, this simple act of forgiveness and unconditional love seems to be beyond the capacity of the God of Love.


The bible verses I included were based on what you said about Revelation 20:15 initially.  I included other verses that included the wording you said was included in Rev 20:15 and actually wasn't.  I included the last verse about blotting our names from the Book of Life to add a bit of context to my response.  The verses are taken out of context so you should read the entire chapter with which they are included to get the full picture (if you're interested).  I can post the chapters if you like.

This may surprise you, but I've read the Bible - and not just once - in English and Greek. I would venture to say that I'm more familiar with the Bible and what it says that most Christians.

I don't think any of the quotes you provide contradict my original assertion. But even if they did, they still don't support the argument that you're trying to make.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Mr. Magoo on May 07, 2012, 01:18:24 PM
I don't know who avxo is but he seems pretty smart.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on May 09, 2012, 10:42:32 AM
I don't know who avxo is but he seems pretty smart.

He's a very smart guy and I like how he thinks about things.  He fully disgrees with me, but he doesn't insult me....he replies openly.  I don't believe either of us have delusions about converting each other LOL, but I'm fairly certain we can reply back and forth without tempers flaring.  We may not agree with other each, but we don't have to hate each other either.....some on here just flat out hate me because of my beliefs. 
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on May 09, 2012, 10:44:59 AM
This isn't correct: a community may impose sanctions for crossing boundaries (e.g. by stoning adulterers) but the people still can freely choose to commit the act or not. The very definition of free will is a will unencumbered by external force. Not a will that's not subject to consequences.

We either have free will or not. That doesn't mean that we aren't subject to the laws of nature (e.g. no matter how free my will is, I'll never be able to flap my hands and fly) or that we aren't subject to consequences (e.g. I choose to spend a full paycheck to buy a Rolex, and then can't afford to pay rent so I am evicted).


Are you free to surrender though? Or is your surrender meaningless, in that you could not possibly do anything else?


Right - but you are still free to actually choose to enter without an invitation, because the consequences of your action don't limit your choices; they only deal with the aftermath of actions.


The definition of free will is really quite simple. I make my choices using the criteria I choose. Free will has nothing to do with whether those choices are good or bad, or even sensible. It only has to do with whether I can decide what to do when faced with a decision without being subjected to outside force.


Did they really freely choose? Consider what the Bible says (per your earlier post): all names were entered in the Book of Life at the foundation of the world. If that's the case how could they have freely chosen to conceive you? After all, by being in the Book of Life, your birth was preordained and predestined. And since only they could have produced you, by having sex on the exact time they did, it's hard to see how their choice was free.

If we are to believe that there is a Book of Life and that everyone's name is written there, then we can only reach two conclusions: either they didn't choose to have you (even if they thought they did), or they somehow freely chose to have you at some point before they were born, when some divine scribe was about to enter your name in the Book of Life. It's one or the other.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I do actually have free will and am completely free to choose or deny God. This still doesn't make anything better: God knows what my ultimate choice will be. So when he "created" me, he knew what my ultimate fate will be. Why would he create me, knowing that I'll choose to deny him? Clearly it can't be because he wants to "give me a chance" -- he knows what my choice will be, and creates me knowing I'll be subjected to a punishment. So why would he, a God of Love, create me, so that I may be punished?


Again, let's take me as an example. I'm an atheist; I reject the notion of deities. This means I reject the Christian God. How is it an act of love to create me, knowing that I will reject him and will be subjected to punishment?


I really don't see this love that you say is in the air. What I see is -- and this is from the Bible -- a God who creates humanity, isn't happy when his creation doesn't do what he wants it to do and punishes it by expelling it from Paradise and curses all subsequent generations with Original Sin. I see a God who then decrees that the wages of sin of death, and who admits that nobody can wipe the stain of sin. And then I see a God that sends himself down to earth, to be tortured and sacrified, so that his death may wipe the stain of sin that he decreed was punishable by death. How is this love? At best it's twisted sadomasochism.

Why wouldn't God just forgive us and say "Aww, shucks guys! It's ok!"? That's what parents the world over do. And yet, this simple act of forgiveness and unconditional love seems to be beyond the capacity of the God of Love.


This may surprise you, but I've read the Bible - and not just once - in English and Greek. I would venture to say that I'm more familiar with the Bible and what it says that most Christians.

I don't think any of the quotes you provide contradict my original assertion. But even if they did, they still don't support the argument that you're trying to make.

AHAHAHAH!!!  Wow, it's what I said in my PM....the schoolteacher's red pen all over my post....that's ok though.

Unfortunately my reply will have to wait for now....I read about half of what you responded with and when I have more time (this weekend most likely) I can reply.  Hey, it'll give me something to think about until then LOL!!
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on May 09, 2012, 12:32:57 PM
why can't god destroy him/them? i don't understand why he wouldn't unless he cannot.

Who said God can't destroy them?  That's just your opinion.  And you are assuming that they(Satan, the anti-Christ and the False Prophet) are Evil itself.  I thought your original statement was that evil is not a person and that it maybe eternal, that Satan allowed evil to control him.   Maybe I misunderstood you.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Necrosis on May 09, 2012, 03:19:37 PM
This isn't correct: a community may impose sanctions for crossing boundaries (e.g. by stoning adulterers) but the people still can freely choose to commit the act or not. The very definition of free will is a will unencumbered by external force. Not a will that's not subject to consequences.

We either have free will or not. That doesn't mean that we aren't subject to the laws of nature (e.g. no matter how free my will is, I'll never be able to flap my hands and fly) or that we aren't subject to consequences (e.g. I choose to spend a full paycheck to buy a Rolex, and then can't afford to pay rent so I am evicted).


Are you free to surrender though? Or is your surrender meaningless, in that you could not possibly do anything else?


Right - but you are still free to actually choose to enter without an invitation, because the consequences of your action don't limit your choices; they only deal with the aftermath of actions.


The definition of free will is really quite simple. I make my choices using the criteria I choose. Free will has nothing to do with whether those choices are good or bad, or even sensible. It only has to do with whether I can decide what to do when faced with a decision without being subjected to outside force.


Did they really freely choose? Consider what the Bible says (per your earlier post): all names were entered in the Book of Life at the foundation of the world. If that's the case how could they have freely chosen to conceive you? After all, by being in the Book of Life, your birth was preordained and predestined. And since only they could have produced you, by having sex on the exact time they did, it's hard to see how their choice was free.

If we are to believe that there is a Book of Life and that everyone's name is written there, then we can only reach two conclusions: either they didn't choose to have you (even if they thought they did), or they somehow freely chose to have you at some point before they were born, when some divine scribe was about to enter your name in the Book of Life. It's one or the other.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I do actually have free will and am completely free to choose or deny God. This still doesn't make anything better: God knows what my ultimate choice will be. So when he "created" me, he knew what my ultimate fate will be. Why would he create me, knowing that I'll choose to deny him? Clearly it can't be because he wants to "give me a chance" -- he knows what my choice will be, and creates me knowing I'll be subjected to a punishment. So why would he, a God of Love, create me, so that I may be punished?


Again, let's take me as an example. I'm an atheist; I reject the notion of deities. This means I reject the Christian God. How is it an act of love to create me, knowing that I will reject him and will be subjected to punishment?


I really don't see this love that you say is in the air. What I see is -- and this is from the Bible -- a God who creates humanity, isn't happy when his creation doesn't do what he wants it to do and punishes it by expelling it from Paradise and curses all subsequent generations with Original Sin. I see a God who then decrees that the wages of sin of death, and who admits that nobody can wipe the stain of sin. And then I see a God that sends himself down to earth, to be tortured and sacrified, so that his death may wipe the stain of sin that he decreed was punishable by death. How is this love? At best it's twisted sadomasochism.

Why wouldn't God just forgive us and say "Aww, shucks guys! It's ok!"? That's what parents the world over do. And yet, this simple act of forgiveness and unconditional love seems to be beyond the capacity of the God of Love.


This may surprise you, but I've read the Bible - and not just once - in English and Greek. I would venture to say that I'm more familiar with the Bible and what it says that most Christians.

I don't think any of the quotes you provide contradict my original assertion. But even if they did, they still don't support the argument that you're trying to make.

the simple fact is free will does not exist, to have free will you first have to assume consciousness is emergent and not epiphenomenal wrt the gooey shit in your head. Every thought has a neural correlate which occurs via simple action potentials thus your thoughts are generated via the brain, not the other way around. It may appear you have free will, but you choices can be changed via neurochemistry etc which clearly elucidates my point. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that thought arises de novo and then causes brain activity, when it couldn't be more wrong and is in fact the complete opposite. It is simply an illusion created by sophisticated software. what is perceived as choice is nothing more then something already chosen for you, by the brain, not the other way around, we are simply mechanistic things, rube goldberg shit shows.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on May 11, 2012, 08:01:42 AM
the simple fact is free will does not exist, to have free will you first have to assume consciousness is emergent and not epiphenomenal wrt the gooey shit in your head. Every thought has a neural correlate which occurs via simple action potentials thus your thoughts are generated via the brain, not the other way around. It may appear you have free will, but you choices can be changed via neurochemistry etc which clearly elucidates my point. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that thought arises de novo and then causes brain activity, when it couldn't be more wrong and is in fact the complete opposite. It is simply an illusion created by sophisticated software. what is perceived as choice is nothing more then something already chosen for you, by the brain, not the other way around, we are simply mechanistic things, rube goldberg shit shows.

Was trying to think of the perfect thing to write in my Mom's Mother's Day card.....thx for coming thru for me Necrosis!!
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Necrosis on May 11, 2012, 02:09:13 PM
Was trying to think of the perfect thing to write in my Mom's Mother's Day card.....thx for coming thru for me Necrosis!!

it's my the glass is half full rant :D, tell your mother that i said humans are nothing more then pointless drones just like ants but have the capacity to examine their inanity. I use to write hallmark cards.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on May 12, 2012, 11:46:28 AM
I thought I made this clear in my previous answer, but I'll try better.

3 Beliefs that can be held. (But cannot all be true at once)
1. Good cannot exist without evil. For any object x, if it exists and it is good, then evil must be present in it. (∀x)(Gx>Ex) where Gx= x has the property of good, Ex= x has the property of evil (Simple Translation= All G's are E's/Everything that is G is an E)
2. God exists, is good, and has no evil (∃x)(Gx & -Ex) (Simple translation= Something exists that is a G and is not an E)
3. Heaven exists, is good, and has no evil (∃x)(Gx & -Ex) (Simple translation= Something exists that is a G and is not an E)

#1 cannot consistently be held with either #2 or #3 (see the contradiction?). If you want to deny the conditional in #1 and say "well, some things can exist that are good with no evil" then you have to deny "good cannot exist without evil".  Now I think the best way to get out of it would be to deny the "in it" part in #1. But then an easy reply would be "Well fastfoward past the end times, when we are living in heaven with God and Satan is no more, then there is a time when there is no evil at all, yet good, so it is possible. If it's possible then #1 is false.

That is why those 3 beliefs (Numbered 1,2,3 for your convenience) cannot consistently be held, and why a possible reply to it is not adequate. I chose #1 because you mentioned it, I chose #2 and #3 because I'm pretty sure you believe those two.

Simple enough?

Right, because most people on here are going to be familiar with predicate logic ::).

I think it is usually more fruitful to avoid philosophical considerations and instead consider the history/anthropology of religion. Seeing Christianity's rather obvious man-made origins allows us to see that it is in the same class of theories as Greek mythology; then, we can ask, "Whatever claims it makes, why should we take this theory seriously at all?"

Only if there's some compelling reason to consider it over other forms of mythology should we begin indulging the more abstract, philosophical arguments offered in its favor.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on May 12, 2012, 12:01:09 PM
the simple fact is free will does not exist, to have free will you first have to assume consciousness is emergent and not epiphenomenal wrt the gooey shit in your head. Every thought has a neural correlate which occurs via simple action potentials thus your thoughts are generated via the brain, not the other way around. It may appear you have free will, but you choices can be changed via neurochemistry etc which clearly elucidates my point. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that thought arises de novo and then causes brain activity, when it couldn't be more wrong and is in fact the complete opposite. It is simply an illusion created by sophisticated software. what is perceived as choice is nothing more then something already chosen for you, by the brain, not the other way around, we are simply mechanistic things, rube goldberg shit shows.

So much of Christian theology surrounding sin seems predicated upon "free will," but when one analyzes the concept it ends up being incoherent (and as you say, the neuroscience is completely against it). Good post!
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on May 13, 2012, 10:25:27 AM
the simple fact is free will does not exist, to have free will you first have to assume consciousness is emergent and not epiphenomenal wrt the gooey shit in your head. Every thought has a neural correlate which occurs via simple action potentials thus your thoughts are generated via the brain, not the other way around. It may appear you have free will, but you choices can be changed via neurochemistry etc which clearly elucidates my point. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that thought arises de novo and then causes brain activity, when it couldn't be more wrong and is in fact the complete opposite. It is simply an illusion created by sophisticated software. what is perceived as choice is nothing more then something already chosen for you, by the brain, not the other way around, we are simply mechanistic things, rube goldberg shit shows.

Sorry for the delay in replying - I had to grade a lot of finals & get grades submitted, plus study for my own final.

We can argue whether consciousness is emergent of epiphenomenal if you want; I'd argue that it's emergent. But, as of now there's really no consensus on which it is, but the literature seems to suggest that emergence is the position that most scientists in the field lean towards. But let's assume, arguendo, that consciousness is indeed epiphenomenal. It's still entirely possible to have free will - it's just that the freedom is at a "lower" level, even if the process is largely (although not entirely) deterministic.

I don't buy the notion that changes in neurochemistry that affect the brain and the decision making process somehow invalidate free will. How, specifically, do they do that? And what does it prove? That altering the thought process effects decisions? How does that disprove free will?


So much of Christian theology surrounding sin seems predicated upon "free will," but when one analyzes the concept it ends up being incoherent (and as you say, the neuroscience is completely against it). Good post!

Actually, I see no part of Christianity that seems predicated upon free will, except perhaps on the surface in the "accept Jesus Christ" choice, which is followed by the implied "OR FACE ETERNAL DEATH AND DAMNATION" making the choice being offered bogus to begin with.

Indeed, a huge part of Christian theology centers around the notion of Original Sin – which we are supposedly born with; the concept is ridiculous and turns morality – which is predicated on choice – on it's head.

As for what neuroscience is (and isn't) against, I'd first caution you against making such blanket statements, and then I'd ask you to provide evidence to back your assertion up. What research do you have to quote that shows that neuroscience has conclusively invalidated free will and is against it?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on May 13, 2012, 12:23:07 PM

Actually, I see no part of Christianity that seems predicated upon free will, except perhaps on the surface in the "accept Jesus Christ" choice, which is followed by the implied "OR FACE ETERNAL DEATH AND DAMNATION" making the choice being offered bogus to begin with.

Indeed, a huge part of Christian theology centers around the notion of Original Sin – which we are supposedly born with; the concept is ridiculous and turns morality – which is predicated on choice – on it's head.

As for what neuroscience is (and isn't) against, I'd first caution you against making such blanket statements, and then I'd ask you to provide evidence to back your assertion up. What research do you have to quote that shows that neuroscience has conclusively invalidated free will and is against it?

1. I don't want to get into this too much because I never did like debates over free will ("solutions" to the problem seem to reduce to creating a new definition of free will, ala the wide variety of "compatibilist" views). I shall here assume a basic notion most people would agree with, i.e., our having free will is our being moral agents capable of making genuine choices that we can subsequently be held responsible for.

2. Assuming this is correct, most of Christian theology is indeed dedicated to our having free will, whether it be theologically liberal or conservative. The philosophically sophisticated work Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by evangelicals William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland claims "all Christians are agreed we have free will," (268) and subsequently argues that the Bible presupposes free will because: there are commands from God; God at certain points begs with sinners to repent and be saved; people are said to "rebel against" God; people receive divine rewards; and, followers are said to choose God. (561)

All of this is to be found in the Bible itself rather than the teachings of any particular theology. It very much seems to presuppose our having free will, because why else would we be rewarded for our right choices, punished for our wrong ones, given commands we may or may not obey, have someone beg for us to make the right choice, and so forth. None of this makes sense at all unless God gave us free will. Original Sin doesn't contradict this for we are still being lobbied to make a choice (accepting Jesus) in order to absolve that sin.

3. I think that (2) is correct. So do the majority of theological liberals: the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on sin claims that "God has endowed us with reason and free will, and a sense of responsibility," and that sin results when we "deliberately refuse to obey" God's will. Of course, being punished for such a choice implies we had the free will to avoid making it in the first place.

I'm not going to survey all of theology on this one but I'm confident that Christianity needs free will to make sense, given what the Bible says. Most theologies have realized this and therefore affirm free will.

4. I think that's the main point I'd like to make for now, but quickly on the matter of neuroscience: I didn't say that neuroscience "conclusively invalidates" free will, but rather that it is "against it." In any case, I don't think it matters because I don't think that there is any coherent definition of free will out there that isn't trivially true or trivially false.

Despite that, there are a variety of interesting reads that seem to militate against free will: there is the model of decision making by George Ainslie (Breakdown of Will 2003) that, if correct, raises serious difficulties for the notion of free will, plus the more neuroscience-oriented work of Benjamin Libet (Mind Time 2005), Daniel Wegner (Illusion of Conscious Will 2005), and more recently, Sam Harris (Free Will 2012).

Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: andreisdaman on May 13, 2012, 08:05:47 PM
Bumpity bump
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Necrosis on May 16, 2012, 03:59:44 AM
Sorry for the delay in replying - I had to grade a lot of finals & get grades submitted, plus study for my own final.

We can argue whether consciousness is emergent of epiphenomenal if you want; I'd argue that it's emergent. But, as of now there's really no consensus on which it is, but the literature seems to suggest that emergence is the position that most scientists in the field lean towards. But let's assume, arguendo, that consciousness is indeed epiphenomenal. It's still entirely possible to have free will - it's just that the freedom is at a "lower" level, even if the process is largely (although not entirely) deterministic.

I don't buy the notion that changes in neurochemistry that affect the brain and the decision making process somehow invalidate free will. How, specifically, do they do that? And what does it prove? That altering the thought process effects decisions? How does that disprove free will?




As for what neuroscience is (and isn't) against, I'd first caution you against making such blanket statements, and then I'd ask you to provide evidence to back your assertion up. What research do you have to quote that shows that neuroscience has conclusively invalidated free will and is against it?


well first i think we should define free will, I am arguing that the brain creates any thought or act you may wish to perform, studies bear this out. Free will as i understand if choice free of constraints, the brain applies the constraints as it produces the action, thought and feeling associated with choice. i'll provide my opinions without including the whole of neuroscience.

http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(11)00076-6

this paper elucidates my point (murine model), action appears to be simply awareness of possibilities obtained via the subconcious, that is, the brain determines the rate of inclusiveness. Free will as it were would determine that our actions are not pre-determined, however, they appear to be by the brain, how could they not? The hardware is providing options and we merely choose, and this choice can be skewed as i have said with drugs. For example, opiates/enkephalins etc bind in the PAG and reduce pain, increase dopamine in the nucleus accumbens, increase histamine via degranulation etc.. these neurochemical reactions change the decisions you would make if not under the influence. Euphoria, addictiveness, pleasure seeking, all choices that are impulse driven. Amphetamines, dissociatives, traquilizers can all change answers to test questions, in behaviour etc. Behaviour bears out the decisions we make, ever see someone on pcp? the brain is in control, we are along for the ride, dramatically reduce brain serotonin and you can induce massive intrusive thoughts, this all goes to show that thoughts are simple neurochemical reactions at the base level. every thought has a neuronal correlate, no thought is above this simple observation, vis a vis constraints are provided via the brain.

http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(11)00076-6

do you have a university access?

nothing i've said disproves free will truly, it's a complicated argument, but the fact that studies also indicate subjects can not tell the difference between impulsive and decided acts, brings the argument back to my position. You are only able to choose from options given, which is determined by the brain, how is that free will?


http://griceclub.blogspot.ca/2011/04/grice-and-brain.html





Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on May 16, 2012, 05:54:11 AM
nothing i've said disproves free will truly, it's a complicated argument, but the fact that studies also indicate subjects can not tell the difference between impulsive and decided acts, brings the argument back to my position. You are only able to choose from options given, which is determined by the brain, how is that free will?

The "you" who's making the choice is the brain. That's the critical point. You don't make decisions by having all your bodys' cells reach consensus. The root of what makes you you, the root of your consciousness is what emerges out of the blob of neurons in your cranium.







[/quote]
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Necrosis on May 16, 2012, 07:30:36 AM
The "you" who's making the choice is the brain. That's the critical point. You don't make decisions by having all your bodys' cells reach consensus. The root of what makes you you, the root of your consciousness is what emerges out of the blob of neurons in your cranium.









sure, there is no homoculus no you, it's the brain agreed, so what you are suggesting is that the brain is somehow not involved in the decision making process of the thing it creates. Neuroscience is on my side, how do you explain multiple personalities? many you's? there is no you, only a mass of material neurons trying to have it's way by generating a coherent picture of the world, which is not processed coherently, just look at spatial frequency analysis in vision, it's nothing like what we perceive yet you are none the wiser via introspection nor observation. The brain is a conglomerate of organs working in unison, many of the processes automated, many more then the conscious ones.

consciousness is not processed as one fluent picture, in fact we see the world in rapid snapshots, illusion is the name of the brain, it's very good at it.  Options are presented to your awareness and you get to pick from them, this can be skewed by drugs, illness (mania for example) etc.. it's a computer, self-awareness holds utility. So free will as defined by decision without constraints (as most define it, even many constraints) is not plausible in the brain. Perhaps a looser definition of the term free will fits the bill.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on May 20, 2012, 10:15:28 PM
sure, there is no homoculus no you, it's the brain agreed, so what you are suggesting is that the brain is somehow not involved in the decision making process of the thing it creates.

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I agree that the brain is responsible for the decision making process. The question is "what does that mean vis-ŕ-vis consciousness?" I suggest that consciousness is an emergent property, and that you have, in essence, a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.


Neuroscience is on my side, how do you explain multiple personalities? many you's?

Malfunctions (be the chemical, structural or electrical) of a ridiculously large and complex neural network?


there is no you, only a mass of material neurons trying to have it's way by generating a coherent picture of the world, which is not processed coherently, just look at spatial frequency analysis in vision, it's nothing like what we perceive yet you are none the wiser via introspection nor observation. The brain is a conglomerate of organs working in unison, many of the processes automated, many more then the conscious ones.

Right. And what does that mean?


consciousness is not processed as one fluent picture, in fact we see the world in rapid snapshots, illusion is the name of the brain, it's very good at it.

Right. Vision and persistence of vision is a perfect example of what our brain does in interpreting sensory input. But what does that mean in the greater scheme of consciousness? I am having a hard time seeing where you're going with this.

 
Options are presented to your awareness and you get to pick from them, this can be skewed by drugs, illness (mania for example) etc.. it's a computer, self-awareness holds utility. So free will as defined by decision without constraints (as most define it, even many constraints) is not plausible in the brain. Perhaps a looser definition of the term free will fits the bill.

Free will isn't defined by decision without any constraints: the notion is nonsensical, in that such a definition defines free will away. We all will die eventually - it's an immutable fact of reality - but it doesn't infringe on our free will because we can't choose not to die.

Free will is defined as the ability to make decisions free from some constraints.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: garebear on May 20, 2012, 10:49:37 PM
My favorite two parts of the bible discuss microbiology and dinosaurs.

A must read.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: IrishMuscle84 on May 23, 2012, 08:31:56 PM
God allows Satan loose in our lives so that we may choose to draw closer to or pull from God based on the choices we make.  God works within the context of our lives, the parameters we set and the choices we make so that our free will is kept intact.  Given the timelessness of God his perception of past, present and future in one state transcends our ability to comprehend.  That said, our desire to have God move in accordance with our desires is not part of our free will.  Our free will is out of scope in terms of his divinity.  Our desire for God to act now doesn't negate a single quality about God, but it does highlight our need to draw closer to God and his will while still preserving our own free will.  Its the Holy Spirit that works in our lives helping guide us, but those that refuse to acknowledge the Holy Spirit will never grasp this.
I thought GOD was GOOD and " GOD is LOVE ".........So having SATAN in our lives is GOOD/LOVE from GOD??
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: garebear on May 24, 2012, 03:51:28 AM
I saw Jesus in my cereal this morning.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on May 26, 2012, 04:03:51 PM
I thought GOD was GOOD and " GOD is LOVE ".........So having SATAN in our lives is GOOD/LOVE from GOD??

For believers, our primary choice in life is to choose or reject God.  Certainly there are others life decisions to be made, but that primary choice is the ultimate decision.   A pinhole of light is brightest when contrasted within a shroud of darkness.  A humble heart is a wonderful tool with which God can make great things happen.  Sometimes people have to be broken down to their core, have a foot in the grave and lose everything before they can see that pinhole of light and all the goodness, hope, grace, mercy and love that comes with it.  When the world attempts to consume us and the leader of this world desires to shroud our lives in darkness that pinhole of light become visible if we desire to see it and the grace of God will be become present in our lives providing a new option.....another path.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on May 26, 2012, 06:24:41 PM
For believers, our primary choice in life is to choose or reject God.  Certainly there are others life decisions to be made, but that primary choice is the ultimate decision.   A pinhole of light is brightest when contrasted within a shroud of darkness.  A humble heart is a wonderful tool with which God can make great things happen.  Sometimes people have to be broken down to their core, have a foot in the grave and lose everything before they can see that pinhole of light and all the goodness, hope, grace, mercy and love that comes with it.  When the world attempts to consume us and the leader of this world desires to shroud our lives in darkness that pinhole of light become visible if we desire to see it and the grace of God will be become present in our lives providing a new option.....another path.

Let's accept for a moment that your poetry here makes sense and actually describes the world. The fact is that is just leads to an endless set of questions that cannot be answered reasonably. Why did God wait so long to intervene, letting the species evolve slowly and, in its first 100-200 thousand years, suffer endlessly? Why did it choose the mechanism that produces the most suffering of all, evolution via natural selection? Since you clearly know the mind of the creator very well and in fact (I'm assuming) interact with it on a regular basis, you may also be able to tell me in why it's best plan of action was to send itself down to us in human form and then kill itself (???). Wasn't a more economical solution in order (such as, I don't know, being loving and forgiving).

Sensible answers must be proffered if Christianity is to be a justifiable position. Thus far in history, none have been given (especially not to the question of why God was silent for our first years as a species and decided to intervene only recently with, frankly, a tremendously stupid plan of action). Until such answers emerge the best explanation for all this remains that the stories are myth just like the rest of the religions emanating from that region and period, especially in light of their shared characteristics, i.e., just similar Christianity is to the rest of them.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Shockwave on May 30, 2012, 03:50:46 PM
I'm not going to put much effort into this post for time restraints, but...

..where did sin come from? Most say Eve eating the fruit. But the Devil lied and tried to manipulate Eve, and that is a sin, so sin had to exist before Adam or Eve partook of the fruit. Some people believe (Not in the Bible I don't think...) that Satan was jealous of God's power and that's why he was thrown out of Heaven (I think this came from Dante, I'm not up on my literature). So if that was true, sin had to exist then.

I'll let a few respond before I go much further

So where did sin come from?
Dante's trilogy was an excellent read.

Anyway, kind of unrelated thoughts.., could Lucifer be merely a product of unintended consequences? I.E., God created Lucifer out of necessity without fully understanding what he was doing? As in, he created this being without knowing he was creating his own equal and opposite?

I.E., there couldnt be a "good and just" God without an equal and opposite entity (In this case Lucifer). Could the concept of heaven even exist without hell?  Could the concept of good even exist without the concept of evil?

The only other explanation, would be that Lucifer was created INTENTIONALLY by God as an inherently evil being, if God is all powerful and all knowing, and created everything before him.

I think im stretching beyond myself here, but these are just thoughts that popped into my head while reading this thread.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Necrosis on June 01, 2012, 03:35:46 PM


 
Free will isn't defined by decision without any constraints: the notion is nonsensical, in that such a definition defines free will away. We all will die eventually - it's an immutable fact of reality - but it doesn't infringe on our free will because we can't choose not to die.

Free will is defined as the ability to make decisions free from some constraints.

That is one definition you are using, albeit a more liberal one. No constraints does not define free will away, nor does your definition clarify anything, what constraints? another definition :The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency.

yet another:

the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. oh but it is, there is nothing but the physical. Plus i can pile data on showing rats and humans altering choices under the influence of drugs, how is that free will. So entering a arm of a elevated plus maze while under the influence of diazepam is not demonstrating the physical constraint of neurochemistry on choice? it clearly is/does.

freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

let's use your's then. define the constraints that are included in the "some"?

the brain creates thought, it creates the options, it selects the options, this selection process is largely sub-conscious and changing ones physiological state as i tried to elucidate can predictably change the choices made. It is clockwork, neuroscience has shown time and time again people can't decipher thought out decisions vs impulsive ones. What you are suggesting is that thought arises before neuronal activation? it may seem that way but i assure you it's not the case.



Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 02, 2012, 10:57:16 PM
That is one definition you are using, albeit a more liberal one. No constraints does not define free will away, nor does your definition clarify anything, what constraints? another definition :The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency.

I want to be able to float in air and fly like Superman, but because of gravity, I cannot do that. That is, in a sense, a constraint. But it would be stupid to say that my free will is curtailed by gravity. Free will only comes into play when the choice is open to up to begin with.


the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. oh but it is, there is nothing but the physical. Plus i can pile data on showing rats and humans altering choices under the influence of drugs, how is that free will. So entering a arm of a elevated plus maze while under the influence of diazepam is not demonstrating the physical constraint of neurochemistry on choice? it clearly is/does.

I'm not arguing there's something beyond the physical.

let's use your's then. define the constraints that are included in the "some"?

As I said before, free will only comes into play when the choice is open to up to begin with.


the brain creates thought, it creates the options, it selects the options, this selection process is largely sub-conscious and changing ones physiological state as i tried to elucidate can predictably change the choices made. It is clockwork, neuroscience has shown time and time again people can't decipher thought out decisions vs impulsive ones. What you are suggesting is that thought arises before neuronal activation? it may seem that way but i assure you it's not the case.

No, it doesn't "create" the options. The options are what they are. If you are faced with a fork in the road, you have two options (three, if you consider backing up to be an option). Either you are free to choose which option to take, or you aren't. If you aren't free, there's no free will involved.

I'm not suggesting that thought arises before neuronal activation - that would be stupid. I don't disagree that thought is rooted in the brain, and is the result of brain processes. But so what? Your argument seems to be that because thought ultimately boils down to a physical process, it is deterministic. That is, at best, naive. The very argument you use (drugs affecting the brain) in support of your position, actually cuts against it. But even if that were the case (and not everyone agrees - there is research that shows there are significant quantum processes at work in the brain) it wouldn't change anything vis-ŕ-vis free will.

I want to understand your positions, so let's try a thought experiment: I grant you that we are computer simulations, with each one of us an instance of a program or a thread, executing a well-defined program (we are unaware of this program) and in the process of running we are accepting input and generating output. You argue that just because the rules are there, somehow this means there's no free will. Is that correct?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Agnostic007 on June 03, 2012, 10:32:44 AM
Isaiah 45:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

End of thread...

Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Mr. Magoo on June 03, 2012, 06:35:04 PM
Isaiah 45:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

End of thread...



I stopped reading the replies to this thread, but thanks for that quote. I wasn't aware of it.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 04, 2012, 05:15:01 AM
Isaiah 45:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

End of thread...

Maybe God created evil, or maybe not.  But Isaiah 45:7 is hardly the answer to the question.  The word "evil" there can mean many different things, none of them good, in Hebrew:

Isaiah 45:7
King James Version (KJV)

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Jeremiah 24:3
King James Version (KJV)

"Then said the Lord unto me, What seest thou, Jeremiah? And I said, Figs; the good figs, very good; and the evil, very evil, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil."

Same verses above, in a modern English version:

Isaiah 45:7
New King James Version (NKJV)

"I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things."

Jeremiah 24:3
New King James Version (NKJV)

Then the Lord said to me, “What do you see, Jeremiah?”  And I said, “Figs, the good figs, very good; and the bad, very bad, which cannot be eaten, they are so bad.”

Yet other versions:

Isaiah 45:7
New International Version (NIV)

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

Isaías 45:7
Reina-Valera 1960 (RVR1960)

que formo la luz y creo las tinieblas, que hago la paz y creo la adversidad. Yo Jehová soy el que hago todo esto.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Agnostic007 on June 05, 2012, 07:23:03 AM
Maybe God created evil, or maybe not.  But Isaiah 45:7 is hardly the answer to the question.  The word "evil" there can mean many different things, none of them good, in Hebrew:

Isaiah 45:7
King James Version (KJV)

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Jeremiah 24:3
King James Version (KJV)

"Then said the Lord unto me, What seest thou, Jeremiah? And I said, Figs; the good figs, very good; and the evil, very evil, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil."

Same verses above, in a modern English version:

Isaiah 45:7
New King James Version (NKJV)

"I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things."

Jeremiah 24:3
New King James Version (NKJV)

Then the Lord said to me, “What do you see, Jeremiah?”  And I said, “Figs, the good figs, very good; and the bad, very bad, which cannot be eaten, they are so bad.”

Yet other versions:

Isaiah 45:7
New International Version (NIV)

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

Isaías 45:7
Reina-Valera 1960 (RVR1960)

que formo la luz y creo las tinieblas, que hago la paz y creo la adversidad. Yo Jehová soy el que hago todo esto.


In an earlier passage in Isaiah he says nothing exists that god did not create. So if it exists....then God created it.. pretty much all inclusive.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 05, 2012, 07:44:05 AM
In an earlier passage in Isaiah he says nothing exists that god did not create. So if it exists....then God created it.. pretty much all inclusive.

Could easily mean that everything that was created, was created by God.  God Himself was not created.  God is eternal.  Earlier in the thread, Necrosis and I were discussing the possibility that Evil itself was not created, but that Evil may be eternal as well.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on June 05, 2012, 11:55:07 AM
Maybe God created evil, or maybe not.  But Isaiah 45:7 is hardly the answer to the question.  The word "evil" there can mean many different things, none of them good, in Hebrew:

Isaiah 45:7
King James Version (KJV)

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Jeremiah 24:3
King James Version (KJV)

"Then said the Lord unto me, What seest thou, Jeremiah? And I said, Figs; the good figs, very good; and the evil, very evil, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil."

Same verses above, in a modern English version:

Isaiah 45:7
New King James Version (NKJV)

"I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things."

Jeremiah 24:3
New King James Version (NKJV)

Then the Lord said to me, “What do you see, Jeremiah?”  And I said, “Figs, the good figs, very good; and the bad, very bad, which cannot be eaten, they are so bad.”

Yet other versions:

Isaiah 45:7
New International Version (NIV)

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

Isaías 45:7
Reina-Valera 1960 (RVR1960)

que formo la luz y creo las tinieblas, que hago la paz y creo la adversidad. Yo Jehová soy el que hago todo esto.


loco, the KJV of the bible is the atheist's playground.  As you indicated, modern translations clarify the dated language used without losing the context and meaning of scripture.  Modern translations better define the use of evil as calamity and disaster.  References to the creation of evil by God such as in the book of Amos is translated as calamity or destruction (as an example).  I've done this same dance with Agnostic before.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Skeletor on June 05, 2012, 12:41:07 PM
loco, the KJV of the bible is the atheist's playground.  As you indicated, modern translations clarify the dated language used without losing the context and meaning of scripture.  Modern translations better define the use of evil as calamity and disaster.  References to the creation of evil by God such as in the book of Amos is translated as calamity or destruction (as an example).  I've done this same dance with Agnostic before.

The Septuagint text in Greek mentions the words "darkness" and "evil".
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 05, 2012, 01:21:18 PM
loco, the KJV of the bible is the atheist's playground.  As you indicated, modern translations clarify the dated language used without losing the context and meaning of scripture.  Modern translations better define the use of evil as calamity and disaster.  References to the creation of evil by God such as in the book of Amos is translated as calamity or destruction (as an example).  I've done this same dance with Agnostic before.

So the inspired and inerrant word of God is "dated" and needs "modern translations" to help "better define" terms like "evil" to equal "calamity" and "disaster"? That sounds sensible. After all, I've read the New Testament in Greek, which is about as close to the original as you're gonna get for some portions of the text, and I can tell you: the text really needs all the help it can get.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 05, 2012, 02:03:12 PM
So the inspired and inerrant word of God is "dated" and needs "modern translations" to help "better define" terms like "evil" to equal "calamity" and "disaster"? That sounds sensible. After all, I've read the New Testament in Greek, which is about as close to the original as you're gonna get for some portions of the text, and I can tell you: the text really needs all the help it can get.

No, but human languages(English, Espańol, Greek, etc.) are.  
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Skeletor on June 05, 2012, 02:04:57 PM
No, but human languages(English, Espańol, Greek, etc.) are.  

So the "word of god" is divine but human languages cannot express it accurately?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 05, 2012, 02:08:02 PM
No, but human languages(English, Espańol, Greek, etc.) are.

I see... it's not the letter that's at fault, it's the ink. How convenient. ::)

Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that the omnipotent Christian God is hampered and constrained by something as insignificant and transient as human language? Perhaps he call J.R.R. Tolkien over for dinner; I'm sure he could help him develop a language that suits his godly needs.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Agnostic007 on June 05, 2012, 02:56:06 PM
I see... it's not the letter that's at fault, it's the ink. How convenient. ::)

Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that the omnipotent Christian God is hampered and constrained by something as insignificant and transient as human language? Perhaps he call J.R.R. Tolkien over for dinner; I'm sure he could help him develop a language that suits his godly needs.

Which moves us into the area of "If it is truly the "word of god" and the Holy Spirit is there to assist us with discerning it, as well as the author being alive to answer questions, why the confusion over it's context to the point there are hundreds of denominations and horrible atrocities were committed because of misinterpretation?"   

What is more likely? It IS the word of god and we are just horrible at reading, or it is a compilation of  manuscripts written thousands of years ago that contain what one would expect from the time period,,,
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: OzmO on June 05, 2012, 03:02:43 PM
Which moves us into the area of "If it is truly the "word of god" and the Holy Spirit is there to assist us with discerning it, as well as the author being alive to answer questions, why the confusion over it's context to the point there are hundreds of denominations and horrible atrocities were committed because of misinterpretation?"   

What is more likely? It IS the word of god and we are just horrible at reading, or it is a compilation of  manuscripts written thousands of years ago that contain what one would expect from the time period,,,

#2
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2012, 03:39:45 PM
Which moves us into the area of "If it is truly the "word of god" and the Holy Spirit is there to assist us with discerning it, as well as the author being alive to answer questions, why the confusion over it's context to the point there are hundreds of denominations and horrible atrocities were committed because of misinterpretation?"   

What is more likely? It IS the word of god and we are just horrible at reading, or it is a compilation of  manuscripts written thousands of years ago that contain what one would expect from the time period,,,

It's more likely that people committed to doing harm to others at times used "religion" as an excuse.  Says nothing about relgion.  Says a lot about the person doing harm. 
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 05, 2012, 04:17:57 PM
It's more likely that people committed to doing harm to others at times used "religion" as an excuse.  Says nothing about relgion.  Says a lot about the person doing harm.

How convenient. Religion can do harm; it's just the people who "twist" it. If I were a cynic, I'd point out the irony in a perfect God who expresses himself in terms so ambiguous and open to interpretation that they can be used in such evil ways.  ::)
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2012, 04:34:38 PM
How convenient. Religion can do harm; it's just the people who "twist" it. If I were a cynic, I'd point out the irony in a perfect God who expresses himself in terms so ambiguous and open to interpretation that they can be used in such evil ways.  ::)

Yep.  That's what I'm saying.  Same with the law, our political system, the Constitution, etc.  On paper:  brilliant.  It's the people who screw it up.  
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: OzmO on June 05, 2012, 05:14:51 PM
It's more likely that people committed to doing harm to others at times used "religion" as an excuse.  Says nothing about relgion.  Says a lot about the person doing harm. 

I agree with this, the problem is religion is too easy to use/manipulate  as an excuse.  And it doesn't help with books like the Bible or Koran which were written so long ago and filled with so much to use. 
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2012, 05:19:36 PM
I agree with this, the problem is religion is too easy to use/manipulate  as an excuse.  And it doesn't help with books like the Bible or Koran which were written so long ago and filled with so much to use. 

Yeah.  I agree. 
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 05, 2012, 05:53:18 PM
Yep.  That's what I'm saying.  Same with the law, our political system, the Constitution, etc.  On paper:  brilliant.  It's the people who screw it up.

I agree that, ultimately, it's the people who perpetrate evil acts that are responsible for them, not religion (or even a religion) qua religion, although the tribal attitudes that permeate most religions certainly help.

But really, you'd imagine that if the text was as important as it claims to be, and if our individual eternal salvation was as important to God as it's made out to be in the text, then God would at the very least ensure that the text was accurate and easy to understand. Instead he embeds a largely impotent curse in the text, which hasn't stopped changes, and quite significant ones at that, from being made.

I've yet to hear a credible answer to why the Christian God would communicate in such a fundamentally flawed manner, where his word was to be transcribed, collected, revised, modified, combined, split apart, rearranged, edited, translated, and put back together across the centuries. Why would such an important message end up requiring translations and ecumenical councils, and deciphering by learned priests, and hundreds of thousands of hours of sermons for the peons.

If you have an answer, I'd love to hear it.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2012, 06:07:25 PM
I agree that, ultimately, it's the people who perpetrate evil acts that are responsible for them, not religion (or even a religion) qua religion, although the tribal attitudes that permeate most religions certainly help.

But really, you'd imagine that if the text was as important as it claims to be, and if our individual eternal salvation was as important to God as it's made out to be in the text, then God would at the very least ensure that the text was accurate and easy to understand. Instead he embeds a largely impotent curse in the text, which hasn't stopped changes, and quite significant ones at that, from being made.

I've yet to hear a credible answer to why the Christian God would communicate in such a fundamentally flawed manner, where his word was to be transcribed, collected, revised, modified, combined, split apart, rearranged, edited, translated, and put back together across the centuries. Why would such an important message end up requiring translations and ecumenical councils, and deciphering by learned priests, and hundreds of thousands of hours of sermons for the peons.

If you have an answer, I'd love to hear it.

I don't have an answer for your question, because it's based on false premise.  Most of the Bible is really not hard to understand.  You can take the simplest writing and get all sorts of people who disagree about its meaning.  Big deal.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 05, 2012, 06:15:37 PM
I don't have an answer for your question, because it's based on false premise.  Most of the Bible is really not hard to understand.

If it's really not that hard to understand, perhaps you'd care to explain to me, with specific references to the Bible of course, whether one is saved by faith alone? I don't quite understand the issue and am eager to.


You can take the simplest writing and get all sorts of people who disagree about its meaning.  Big deal.

Again, you keep shifting the blame. It's not the Bible that's unclear and ambiguous. It's the people that are reading it wrong... ::)
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2012, 06:22:00 PM
If it's really not that hard to understand, perhaps you'd care to explain to me, with specific references to the Bible of course, whether one is saved by faith alone? I don't quite understand the issue and am eager to.


Again, you keep shifting the blame. It's not the Bible that's unclear and ambiguous. It's the people that are reading it wrong... ::)

No, I don't care to explain it to you.  There are a number of Bible studies out there than can help you.  Try Google. 

It's people who use something (the Bible is just one example) to justify the evil they do.  But I said that already. 
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 05, 2012, 06:24:55 PM
No, I don't care to explain it to you.  There are a number of Bible studies out there than can help you.  Try Google.

Oh. Ok.

Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 06, 2012, 09:29:12 AM
So the "word of god" is divine but human languages cannot express it accurately?

I see... it's not the letter that's at fault, it's the ink. How convenient. ::)

Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that the omnipotent Christian God is hampered and constrained by something as insignificant and transient as human language? Perhaps he call J.R.R. Tolkien over for dinner; I'm sure he could help him develop a language that suits his godly needs.

I am not sure what either one of you are asking or saying here.  Are you implying that if the God of the Bible did indeed exist, and if the Bible were His Word, then He would have created and then taught the writers some divine, non-human language just for the Bible?  Then what?  What about the rest of the world?  Wouldn't you still need people to translate it into human languages for everyone else?  Wouldn't these human languages change over time, making it necessary to update the translations?

avxo,

how interesting that you should mention J.R.R. Tolkien to support your argument.  I am sure you already know that Tolkien was a brilliant philologist who happened to also believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 06, 2012, 09:41:16 AM
If it's really not that hard to understand, perhaps you'd care to explain to me, with specific references to the Bible of course, whether one is saved by faith alone? I don't quite understand the issue and am eager to.


Genesis 15:6
New International Version (NIV)

Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.


Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Romans 4:5
However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Galatians 2:16
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 06, 2012, 09:46:57 AM
I am not sure what either one of you are asking or saying here.  Are you implying that if the God of the Bible did indeed exist, and if the Bible were His Word, then He would have created and then taught the writers some divine, non-human language just for the Bible?  Then what?  What about the rest of the world?  Wouldn't you still need people to translate it into human languages for everyone else?  Wouldn't these human languages change over time, making it necessary to update the translations?

I am saying that the excuse that human languages are the problem is laughable. If God is all powerful, then it would be trivial for him to produce his inerrant word in a form that would not require any translations, interpretations or explanations. Plus, if you really think that human languages are the problem, then you cannot even claim that the Bible, written in those problematic human languages, is the inerrant word of God.


how interesting that you should mention J.R.R. Tolkien to support your argument.  I am sure you already know that Tolkien was a brilliant philologist who happened to also believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

I know he was a brilliant philologist, but his personal beliefs on the Bible and its supposed inerrancy are of no concern to me.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 06, 2012, 09:50:33 AM
Galatians 2:16
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Phillipians 2:12: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."


Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

John 5:29: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

So, which is it?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 06, 2012, 10:16:56 AM
I am saying that the excuse that human languages are the problem is laughable. If God is all powerful, then it would be trivial for him to produce his inerrant word in a form that would not require any translations, interpretations or explanations. Plus, if you really think that human languages are the problem, then you cannot even claim that the Bible, written in those problematic human languages, is the inerrant word of God.


I know he was a brilliant philologist, but his personal beliefs on the Bible and its supposed inerrancy are of no concern to me.

It's not an excuse, it's a fact.  Human languages change over time, making it necessary to update any texts, not only the Bible.

What do you mean "produce his inerrant word in a form that would not require any translations, interpretations or explanations"?  That is very abstract or vague.  Can you provide an example?

The belief of many Christians is that the Bible is inerrant in its original Hebrew, its original Aramaic and its original Greek, which are no longer available to us.  What is available to us are copies of the originals which have been translated into other languages.  Any typo, misspelling, omitted word, "error", etc. in the current copies and/or translations do not change the meaning of the most important, overall message: The authority of scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ, the substitutionary atonement, Christ's resurrection, Christ's second coming and Christ's teachings.

J.R.R. Tolkien, whom you brought up in this discussion, was a brilliant philologist, yet he had no problems accepting that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God no matter the form in which it was given to us.  Philology is the study of language in written historical sources.  It is a combination of literary studies, history and linguistics.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 06, 2012, 10:31:39 AM
It's not an excuse, it's a fact.  Human languages change over time, making it necessary to update any texts, not only the Bible.

So the omnipotent god is bound by temporal constraints and human language?


What do you mean "produce his inerrant word in a form that would not require any translations, interpretations or explanations"?  That is very abstract or vague.  Can you provide an example?

I can try: we could all be born with the gospel already in our heads, for example. And I'm not even omnipotent - the Christian God supposedly is, meaning that everything is open to him. Making sure that his word was delivered accurately across time doesn't sound like too big a deal for an omnipotent deity.


The belief of many Christians is that the Bible is inerrant in its original Hebrew, its original Aramaic and its original Greek, which are no longer available to us.  What is available to us are copies of the originals which have been translated into other languages.

So the belief is that the original is lost, so let's believe this other thing that's sort-of, kind-of like the original, except translated, edited, modified, picked apart, put back together, edited some more, translated again. Sounds reasonable.


Any typo, misspelling, omitted word, "error", etc. in the current copies and/or translations do not change the meaning of the most important, overall message: The authority of scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ, the substitutionary atonement, Christ's resurrection, Christ's second coming and Christ's teachings.

How do you know the overall message hasn't been changed? Perhaps the original was nothing more than the latest novel of that era's J.R.R. Tolkien?


J.R.R. Tolkien, whom you brought up in this discussion, was a brilliant philologist, yet he had no problems accepting that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God no matter the form in which it was given to us.  Philology is the study of language in written historical sources.  It is a combination of literary studies, history and linguistics.

Again, Tolkien's personal beliefs are of no concern to me. If he believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, good for him. If he didn't, good for him also. I don't substitute Tolkien's judgement for my own.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 06, 2012, 11:01:16 AM
So the omnipotent god is bound by temporal constraints and human language?


I can try: we could all be born with the gospel already in our heads, for example. And I'm not even omnipotent - the Christian God supposedly is, meaning that everything is open to him. Making sure that his word was delivered accurately across time doesn't sound like too big a deal for an omnipotent deity.


So the belief is that the original is lost, so let's believe this other thing that's sort-of, kind-of like the original, except translated, edited, modified, picked apart, put back together, edited some more, translated again. Sounds reasonable.


How do you know the overall message hasn't been changed? Perhaps the original was nothing more than the latest novel of that era's J.R.R. Tolkien?


Again, Tolkien's personal beliefs are of no concern to me. If he believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, good for him. If he didn't, good for him also. I don't substitute Tolkien's judgement for my own.

Of course God could have created us "with the gospel already in our heads."  God can do whatever He wants to.  God could have written the Bible Himself, but instead God chose to do things differently, having humans participate in His plan.  The same can be said about everything else, sin, good works, poverty, pain, suffering, sickness, death, etc.  Why didn't God just create everything and everybody perfect?

The message of the Bible has not been changed, as you claim, and that to us Christians is more evidence that the Bible is the word of God.  Just one example is the "The Great Isaiah scroll", which was found in the Dead Sea Caves in 1947.  It is dated at about 100 BCE and is the oldest copy of Isaiah known to exist. Previously, the Codex Leningrad, dated at 1,000 AD, was the oldest known copy of the Hebrew Bible (including the book of Isaiah) in existence. The Great Isaiah scroll is 1,100 years older than the Codex Leningrad and gives us the opportunity to compare the Biblical text over the centuries.

This copy of Isaiah contains many minor differences from the later Masoretic text (the text which forms the basis of the modern Hebrew bible). Most of the differences are simply grammatical (for example, spelling certain words with an extra letter that does not alter the pronunciation). Of the remainder, for example some added words, most do not significantly alter the meaning of the passage.

That's pretty impressive compared to any other ancient text, secular or religious, for which we have any remaining copies.

You are the one who brought up J.R.R. Tolkien in this discussion.  Tolkien understood literary studies, history and linguistics much better than you and I do, and he had no problems accepting that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God no matter the form in which it was given to us.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Necrosis on June 06, 2012, 12:21:43 PM
avxo, My fucking long winded response was deleted. Here is the main points.

In your example, no matter what the constraints it appears that you are saying as long as you make a decision it's free will.

However, free will in order to have human authorship in my mind must either have control of the laws governing existence or the antedecent states leading to the circumstances. You haven't defined anything besides decision making from my perspective. Also, in the fork in the road example, say the person was previously put to the same decision, yet he choose right before. This resulted in a poor outcome, thus he is now likely to choose left, a decision was made, but was it free of "some" constraints (still not sure what this even means). how can we claim authorship of a decision freely that was confined in options with which we had no say in? Your defying gravity argument is moot for more reasons then one, firstly the option is impossible, but perhaps we want to go straight in the fork example, and could have if the previous condition of only two lanes wasn't already decided for us. An assembly line can choose an alternate belt if the load becomes heavy or high on one belt, a decision, nothing free about it, it was determined based off of previous states with which no control could be exerted, the decision turned out that way because it could not turn out any other way. Just like our brains. The whole argument i was making about the processes in the brain are that thoughts, or decisions are created via the subconscious, that is neural acitivity occurs before we become aware of the choice represented by that activity, how is that free will, how is it the I making the decisions when the thought created was done so before your minds eye witnessed it. It's an illusion.

http://phys.org/news186830615.html

Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 06, 2012, 12:48:55 PM
Of course God could have created us "with the gospel already in our heads."  God can do whatever He wants to.

And he chose to transmit his inerrant word using imperfect languages and the writings of sheepherders, collected over millenia, edited and reinterpreted by thousands. Seems reasonable, especially for a being that can do whatever he wants to.


God could have written the Bible Himself, but instead God chose to do things differently, having humans participate in His plan.

Your dictionary must have an interesting definition for the word "participate." If the Christian God exists and his plan is what we understand it to be, then I'd hardly call humans participants. At best, we're rats, dropped in a maze and made to hunt after a piece of supernatural cheese.


The same can be said about everything else, sin, good works, poverty, pain, suffering, sickness, death, etc.  Why didn't God just create everything and everybody perfect?

Good question... do you know the answer? Oh, and "works in mysterious ways" doesn't cut it.


The message of the Bible has not been changed, as you claim, and that to us Christians is more evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

First of all, I didn't claim that it hasn't been changed - I claimed that it could have, and you wouldn't necessarily know. Difficult as this concept may be for you to understand, it's important that you at least try to: Words have meaning.

Now, with that said, it's ridiculous to say that the message of the Bible hasn't been change. For crying out loud, Christians can't even agree on what exactly, constitutes the Bible. The Bible of Protestants is very different than the Bible of Catholics, which, in turn is very different from the Bible of Orthodox Christians.


Just one example is the "The Great Isaiah scroll", which was found in the Dead Sea Caves in 1947.  It is dated at about 100 BCE and is the oldest copy of Isaiah known to exist. Previously, the Codex Leningrad, dated at 1,000 AD, was the oldest known copy of the Hebrew Bible (including the book of Isaiah) in existence. The Great Isaiah scroll is 1,100 years older than the Codex Leningrad and gives us the opportunity to compare the Biblical text over the centuries.

I'm by no means a Biblical expert, but at least according to Wikipedia, your representation doesn't seem quite accurate. Selected quote from the wiki, referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls: "copies of some Biblical books found at Qumran reveal sharp divergences from the [Masoretic Text]."


This copy of Isaiah contains many minor differences from the later Masoretic text (the text which forms the basis of the modern Hebrew bible). Most of the differences are simply grammatical (for example, spelling certain words with an extra letter that does not alter the pronunciation). Of the remainder, for example some added words, most do not significantly alter the meaning of the passage.

And yet, according to Michael Barber, the copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal sharp divergences from the Masoretic Text...


That's pretty impressive compared to any other ancient text, secular or religious, for which we have any remaining copies.

A significant number of ancient Greek texts, quite accurate and completely unchanged, are available to us today. Is that evidence of Zeus?


You are the one who brought up J.R.R. Tolkien in this discussion.  Tolkien understood literary studies, history and linguistics much better than you and I do, and he had no problems accepting that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God no matter the form in which it was given to us.

I brought up J.R.R. Tolkien and this means that I must accept every position that Tolkien had? That's some crazy logic right there. Besides, appeals to authority are logical fallacies, and logical fallacies don't fly with me ;) Tolkien's personal beliefs are of no concern to me.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 06, 2012, 01:08:57 PM
And he chose to transmit his inerrant word using imperfect languages and the writings of sheepherders, collected over millenia, edited and reinterpreted by thousands. Seems reasonable, especially for a being that can do whatever he wants to.


Your dictionary must have an interesting definition for the word "participate." If the Christian God exists and his plan is what we understand it to be, then I'd hardly call humans participants. At best, we're rats, dropped in a maze and made to hunt after a piece of supernatural cheese.


Good question... do you know the answer? Oh, and "works in mysterious ways" doesn't cut it.


First of all, I didn't claim that it hasn't been changed - I claimed that it could have, and you wouldn't necessarily know. Difficult as this concept may be for you to understand, it's important that you at least try to: Words have meaning.

Now, with that said, it's ridiculous to say that the message of the Bible hasn't been change. For crying out loud, Christians can't even agree on what exactly, constitutes the Bible. The Bible of Protestants is very different than the Bible of Catholics, which, in turn is very different from the Bible of Orthodox Christians.


I'm by no means a Biblical expert, but at least according to Wikipedia, your representation doesn't seem quite accurate. Selected quote from the wiki, referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls: "copies of some Biblical books found at Qumran reveal sharp divergences from the [Masoretic Text]."


And yet, according to Michael Barber, the copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal sharp divergences from the Masoretic Text...


A significant number of ancient Greek texts, quite accurate and completely unchanged, are available to us today. Is that evidence of Zeus?


I brought up J.R.R. Tolkien and this means that I must accept every position that Tolkien had? That's some crazy logic right there. Besides, appeals to authority are logical fallacies, and logical fallacies don't fly with me ;) Tolkien's personal beliefs are of no concern to me.

As I have already stated, the main and most important message of the Bible has not changed.  And Christians, no matter the denomination, agree on these:  The authority of scripture, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, Christ's resurrection, Christ's return and Christ's teachings.  


As for wikipedia on the book of Isaiah and preservation of the message:

"This copy of Isaiah contains many minor differences from the later Masoretic text (the text which forms the basis of the modern Hebrew bible). Most of the differences are simply grammatical (for example, spelling certain words with an extra letter that does not alter the pronunciation). Of the remainder, for example some added words, most do not significantly alter the meaning of the passage."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Isaiah_scroll

And I personally have read the Bible in many versions, in two different languages and you are incorrect to say that the message has changed.  

And it's funny about J.R.R. Tolkien.  You bring him up to support your argument in this discussion when it turns out Tolkien would disagree with you.  So now J.R.R. Tolkien is suddenly of no concern to you in relation to this discussion.     ::)
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 06, 2012, 02:23:33 PM
As I have already stated, the main and most important message of the Bible has not changed.  And Christians, no matter the denomination, agree on these:  The authority of scripture, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, Christ's resurrection, Christ's return and Christ's teachings.

Even if they do agree on all of that - and that's a big if - you can hardly say that there are no significant differences between Protestants, Catholic and Orthodox Christians! Catholics, for example, believe that the death of Christ created merit that is shared with sinners through the sacraments, whereas Protestants believe that the death of Christ was a substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied God's justice. That's a pretty significant difference.

That's not to say you can't claim that Christians agree on all the things you quote. You can. It would be a lie, but you can and hell, you might even believe it. But what you say and believe don't necessarily have any bearing on reality.


As for wikipedia on the book of Isaiah and preservation of the message: "This copy of Isaiah contains many minor differences from the later Masoretic text (the text which forms the basis of the modern Hebrew bible). Most of the differences are simply grammatical (for example, spelling certain words with an extra letter that does not alter the pronunciation). Of the remainder, for example some added words, most do not significantly alter the meaning of the passage."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Isaiah_scroll

Even if true, this only refers to the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament - there's the New Testament too. Besides, it still leaves open the issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which, again, according to Michael Barber "reveal sharp divergences from the [Masoretic Text]."


And I personally have read the Bible in many versions, in two different languages and you are incorrect to say that the message has changed.

Oh well, if you say I'm incorrect! Anyone who's read the Bible in two languages. Shit! That's like some crazy Biblical scholar level knowledge right there!


And it's funny about J.R.R. Tolkien.  You bring him up to support your argument in this discussion when it turns out Tolkien would disagree with you.  So now J.R.R. Tolkien is suddenly of no concern to you in relation to this
discussion.     ::)

You need to learn to read. I didn't bring J.R.R. Tolkien up to support my argument. I brought him up to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your argument that interepretations and ambiguity are necessary because of flawed human language. If Tolkien, a mere human, could construct several highly complicated languages, from the ground up, complete with a runic alphabet, then surely God could have created just one language that could express his message perfectly since, by your own admission, the human languages of the time failed him.

I do understand what it is you're doing though: You try to misconstrue what I write, in an effort to force to continue to elaborate and explain my argument in more and more detail, in the hope that I'll finally get bored and move on, at which point you would claim "victory". That technique - which I've seen before - relies on a pretty big assumption: that I am willing to accept that you're genuinely trying but failing to understand my argument because of my own fault. But that game won't work. I have absolutely no qualms about calling you out on the fact that you're either (a) purposefully misconstruing what I say in an attempt to annoy me and get me to drop this conversation; or (b) an actual idiot who genuinely cannot understand. In either case, the problem is caused by you - your unwillingness or your inability to read.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on June 11, 2012, 09:10:40 AM
Even if they do agree on all of that - and that's a big if - you can hardly say that there are no significant differences between Protestants, Catholic and Orthodox Christians! Catholics, for example, believe that the death of Christ created merit that is shared with sinners through the sacraments, whereas Protestants believe that the death of Christ was a substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied God's justice. That's a pretty significant difference.

That's not to say you can't claim that Christians agree on all the things you quote. You can. It would be a lie, but you can and hell, you might even believe it. But what you say and believe don't necessarily have any bearing on reality.


Even if true, this only refers to the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament - there's the New Testament too. Besides, it still leaves open the issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which, again, according to Michael Barber "reveal sharp divergences from the [Masoretic Text]."


Oh well, if you say I'm incorrect! Anyone who's read the Bible in two languages. Shit! That's like some crazy Biblical scholar level knowledge right there!


You need to learn to read. I didn't bring J.R.R. Tolkien up to support my argument. I brought him up to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your argument that interepretations and ambiguity are necessary because of flawed human language. If Tolkien, a mere human, could construct several highly complicated languages, from the ground up, complete with a runic alphabet, then surely God could have created just one language that could express his message perfectly since, by your own admission, the human languages of the time failed him.

I do understand what it is you're doing though: You try to misconstrue what I write, in an effort to force to continue to elaborate and explain my argument in more and more detail, in the hope that I'll finally get bored and move on, at which point you would claim "victory". That technique - which I've seen before - relies on a pretty big assumption: that I am willing to accept that you're genuinely trying but failing to understand my argument because of my own fault. But that game won't work. I have absolutely no qualms about calling you out on the fact that you're either (a) purposefully misconstruing what I say in an attempt to annoy me and get me to drop this conversation; or (b) an actual idiot who genuinely cannot understand. In either case, the problem is caused by you - your unwillingness or your inability to read.


avxo, I appreciate your desire to debate, research and educate yourself, but if you truly seek the truth then you'll need to fill in the gaps of your research and try a bit of application.  If you want concrete proof that the Christian God does not exist, that Jesus Christ is not the risen Lord, then you'll need to take a new approach and go directly to the source.  What I mean to say is, you'll need to switch gears and opt for a reversed, emotional position for research purposes.  You'll need to humble yourself, maybe even take a knee and be willing to pray...better yet, admit you are a sinner and that if Christ is risen that you believe, that you will surrender, that you will accept his will for your life.  If you do this with a truly humbled heart....a heart that genuinely seeks God he will reveal himself to you (even if everything in your life to this point conflicts and tells you the opposite).   Take that approach, fill in the gaps in your research, engage in the application honestly, sincerely and humbly.  If absolutely nothing comes of this honest investment then you can stamp out this nonsense for the rest of  your life.  You must remember that the Lord knows the contents of your heart, but since from your chair the heart is merely a muscly organ that pumps blood then simply consider that the Lord knows your thoughts and your intent.  I'm not suggesting you test him, I'm suggesting you honestly submit with a genuine desire to engage the divine and try a leap of faith.  Set aside all debate, human reasoning and any other contradictory evidence you've compiled and relent to his will...just surrender honestly and cry out for God.  Cry out that his will be done, not your own and desire that he impact your life.  If you're willing to do that you'll go the entire step of the way.  You'll have to honestly seek to know and submit to the God you currently attempt to discredit despite all logic and evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 11, 2012, 09:55:01 AM
So if I want proof that God doesn't exist I need to act as if God exists? That seems counterproductive. What would I hope to gain from this exercise? After all, if he doesn't exist, then all I will habe done is pray to something that doesn't exist. By your own statements, if I were to pray and nothing happened the experiment would prove nothing. How is that helpful?

You operate under the assumption that faith is a means of acquiring knowledge. It is not. Faith and reason aren't two different kinds of tools geared towards knowledge.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on June 11, 2012, 10:10:42 AM
So if I want proof that God doesn't exist I need to act as if God exists? That seems counterproductive. What would I hope to gain from this exercise? After all, if he doesn't exist, then all I will habe done is pray to something that doesn't exist. By your own statements, if I were to pray and nothing happened the experiment would prove nothing. How is that helpful?

You operate under the assumption that faith is a means of acquiring knowledge. It is not. Faith and reason aren't two different kinds of tools geared towards knowledge.

I did say it was a different approach, but please don't simply define away or reason away what I suggested.  Take it to the source honestly and humbly.  Yes, if you want to disprove Christianity then you'll have to walk a mile in a Christian's shoes......counterproduc tive or not at first blush.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 11, 2012, 10:32:36 AM
I did say it was a different approach, but please don't simply define away or reason away what I suggested.  Take it to the source honestly and humbly.  Yes, if you want to disprove Christianity then you'll have to walk a mile in a Christian's shoes......counterproduc tive or not at first blush.


I don't have to disprove Christianity anymore than I have to disprove Fluing Spaghetti Monsterism. But let's pretend that I decide to walk a mile a Christian's shoes. How could that, possibly, disprove Christianity?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on June 11, 2012, 01:15:55 PM
I don't have to disprove Christianity anymore than I have to disprove Fluing Spaghetti Monsterism. But let's pretend that I decide to walk a mile a Christian's shoes. How could that, possibly, disprove Christianity?

Forget the semantics, I think you know exactly what I'm suggesting.  You've read the bible in english and latin (if I remember correctly) and this type of debate isn't your first rodeo.  You're versed in scripture.  You know what Christ called his body of believers to do and I realize that you disagree or don't believe or both.  You seem like a reasonable person though.  You do challenge almost every word that is written by believers and almost every opinion that is presented as justification for the Christian God....right, wrong or indifferent.  I'm asking you to suspend the semantics, the jargon, the debate and fill in the gap and truly see whether or not there is a God for yourself.  For a brief time, forget denominational differences, forget other gods/goddesses, forget objections to scripture you have, forget the problem of evil, forget discussions on free will, forget all your higher learnings and try Christ on for yourself with honesty and a desire to truly know him.      
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 11, 2012, 01:30:40 PM
Forget the semantics, I think you know exactly what I'm suggesting.  You've read the bible in english and latin (if I remember correctly) and this type of debate isn't your first rodeo.  You're versed in scripture.  You know what Christ called his body of believers to do and I realize that you disagree or don't believe or both.  You seem like a reasonable person though.  You do challenge almost every word that is written by believers and almost every opinion that is presented as justification for the Christian God....right, wrong or indifferent.  I'm asking you to suspend the semantics, the jargon, the debate and fill in the gap and truly see whether or not there is a God for yourself.  For a brief time, forget denominational differences, forget other gods/goddesses, forget objections to scripture you have, forget the problem of evil, forget discussions on free will, forget all your higher learnings and try Christ on for yourself with honesty and a desire to truly know him.

But that's my point - I can't honestly try something I don't believe exists. You are asking me to believe despite the absence of evidence, so that the evidence can then be revealed to me. But if I already believe what point is there to evidence? To put it bluntly, you are asking me to blind myself so that I may see. Sorry, but I can't do that.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 12, 2012, 03:21:02 AM
Man of Steel, I appreciate your desire to debate, research and educate yourself, but if you truly seek the truth then you'll need to fill in the gaps of your research and try a bit of application.  If you want concrete proof that the invisible gnomes do not exist, that the Almighty Gnome is not the Lord Risen, then you'll need to take a new approach and go directly to the source.  

What I mean to say is, you'll need to switch gears and opt for a reversed, emotional position for research purposes.  You'll need to humble yourself, maybe even take a knee and be willing to pray...better yet, admit you are a sinner and that if the Almighty Gnome is risen that you believe, that you will surrender, that you will accept his will for your life.  If you do this with a truly humbled heart....a heart that genuinely seeks the Almighty Gnome he will reveal himself to you (even if everything in your life to this point conflicts and tells you the opposite).  

Take that approach, fill in the gaps in your research, engage in the application honestly, sincerely and humbly.  If absolutely nothing comes of this honest investment then you can stamp out this nonsense for the rest of  your life.  You must remember that the Gnome knows the contents of your heart, but since from your chair the heart is merely a muscly organ that pumps blood then simply consider that the Gnome knows your thoughts and your intent.  I'm not suggesting you test him, I'm suggesting you honestly submit with a genuine desire to engage the divine and try a leap of faith.  

Set aside all debate, human reasoning and any other contradictory evidence you've compiled and relent to his will...just surrender honestly and cry out for Gnome.  Cry out that his will be done, not your own and desire that he impact your life.  If you're willing to do that you'll go the entire step of the way.  You'll have to honestly seek to know and submit to the Gnome you currently attempt to discredit despite all logic and evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 12, 2012, 03:29:25 AM
Do you see a problem with the above attempt to convince you, Man O Steel? In order to avoid talking out your ass on this issue, you must respond that the above Emotional Plea to Accept the Almighty Gnome is somehow different from your  Emotional Plea to Accept Jesus. Your response will be a reason for differentiating the Almighty Gnome from Jesus. Therefore, it is impossible to "put aside reason," as you say. We necessarily traffic in reasons when it comes to establishing worldviews.

That is where you get caught in the bear claw trap of logic, since there just isn't any good reason for believing that christianity is true. Your cheap attempts at backing out of using reason by appealing to emotion thus fall short because these appeals themselves make use of reasons (otherwise, you won't be able to differentiate them from emotional appeals to accept the Almighty Gnome, and should treat both just as dismissively). In other words, it is impossible that there isn't some reason for being Christian, and the problem is that all such reasons on offer are inadequate, which makes christianity in good company with the rest of the religions on offer.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 12, 2012, 05:02:15 AM
P.S. I don't doubt that people really have "religious" experiences. The point about these experiences -- which those raised in Christian societies almost invariably interpret as God, those raised in Buddhist societies interpret as becoming one with the universe (or some other such thing; I'm no expert on Buddhism), etc. -- is that they need explaining.

The beliefs and contextual clues we have laying around will help us explain the experiences. In other words, the experiences aren't "pre-theoretical" and we either have a theory onboard (e.g., Christianity) that helps us automatically interpret the experience, or otherwise we go looking for one. The fact that these experiences can be elicited from the use of ilicit drugs producing certain chemical reactions in our brains, however, ought to make anyone question whether the experiences are as magical as certain ancient theories would have us believe.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 12, 2012, 12:02:38 PM
Even if they do agree on all of that - and that's a big if - you can hardly say that there are no significant differences between Protestants, Catholic and Orthodox Christians! Catholics, for example, believe that the death of Christ created merit that is shared with sinners through the sacraments, whereas Protestants believe that the death of Christ was a substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied God's justice. That's a pretty significant difference.

That's not to say you can't claim that Christians agree on all the things you quote. You can. It would be a lie, but you can and hell, you might even believe it. But what you say and believe don't necessarily have any bearing on reality.


Even if true, this only refers to the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament - there's the New Testament too. Besides, it still leaves open the issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which, again, according to Michael Barber "reveal sharp divergences from the [Masoretic Text]."


Oh well, if you say I'm incorrect! Anyone who's read the Bible in two languages. Shit! That's like some crazy Biblical scholar level knowledge right there!


You need to learn to read. I didn't bring J.R.R. Tolkien up to support my argument. I brought him up to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your argument that interepretations and ambiguity are necessary because of flawed human language. If Tolkien, a mere human, could construct several highly complicated languages, from the ground up, complete with a runic alphabet, then surely God could have created just one language that could express his message perfectly since, by your own admission, the human languages of the time failed him.

I do understand what it is you're doing though: You try to misconstrue what I write, in an effort to force to continue to elaborate and explain my argument in more and more detail, in the hope that I'll finally get bored and move on, at which point you would claim "victory". That technique - which I've seen before - relies on a pretty big assumption: that I am willing to accept that you're genuinely trying but failing to understand my argument because of my own fault. But that game won't work. I have absolutely no qualms about calling you out on the fact that you're either (a) purposefully misconstruing what I say in an attempt to annoy me and get me to drop this conversation; or (b) an actual idiot who genuinely cannot understand. In either case, the problem is caused by you - your unwillingness or your inability to read.


The Catholic church admits that what you have listed as an example above is not based on the Bible, but on their own traditions.  Christians do agree on the fundamental beliefs that I listed, which we base on the Bible.

Which brings up a good point.  The Roman Catholic church for centuries had the power and the means to "modify" the Bible, yet they did not.  To this date, the Bible omits hundreds of their traditions, rules and beliefs.  And many parts of the Bible actually contradict them.  They could have "modified" the Bible just for these reasons, but they did not.

Just because human languages change over time, requiring texts to be updated, and just because all humans do not speak the same language, it does not follow that human languages have "failed God", like you said.   God's Word has done, is doing, and it will continue to do what God intended it to do.

You still fail to explain your reference to J.R.R. Tolkien, a brilliant linguist who happened to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.  So please tell us.  How would God creating one perfect language, just for the Bible, really work?  Would we all understand this one perfect language?  Otherwise, wouldn't we all need translators anyway?  And how would we humans keep later generations from adding new words to this language, while forgetting older words?  Wouldn't that eventually require updating the Bible anyway?

And no, you do not understand what I'm doing here.  I am not trying to get you bored and to move on so that I can claim "victory."  Arguing on the Internet is like the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you are still a retard.  

And even if that's what I wanted to do, I have neither the time nor the patience for it.  I do have a life and a real job.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on June 12, 2012, 12:19:59 PM
But that's my point - I can't honestly try something I don't believe exists. You are asking me to believe despite the absence of evidence, so that the evidence can then be revealed to me. But if I already believe what point is there to evidence? To put it bluntly, you are asking me to blind myself so that I may see. Sorry, but I can't do that.

Yes, in a sense, that is exactly what I'm asking you to do.   You understand completely and have made your choice.  I won't pester you any further about this; although, if later on down the road you suddenly desire to wanna try God on for size and I happen to be around don't hesitate to ask me.  You can become your own evidence for Christ...that's the point.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 12, 2012, 12:20:53 PM
Phillipians 2:12: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."


John 5:29: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

So, which is it?

It says "work out", not "work for" your salvation.  You cannot workout that which you do not have.  We receive salvation through faith, and then we are commanded to "work out" our salvation.

As for John 5:29, though we are not saved through good works, those who have received salvation also receive the desire and the power to do good works.  And God intended for us to do these good works anyway.

Ephesians 2:8-10
New International Version (NIV)


8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do


Another thing about John 5:29.  There is one good work which we must do to receive salvation.  Jesus Christ himself told us what this good work is:

John 6:28-29
New International Version (NIV)


28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on June 12, 2012, 12:25:58 PM
Do you see a problem with the above attempt to convince you, Man O Steel? In order to avoid talking out your ass on this issue, you must respond that the above Emotional Plea to Accept the Almighty Gnome is somehow different from your  Emotional Plea to Accept Jesus. Your response will be a reason for differentiating the Almighty Gnome from Jesus. Therefore, it is impossible to "put aside reason," as you say. We necessarily traffic in reasons when it comes to establishing worldviews.

That is where you get caught in the bear claw trap of logic, since there just isn't any good reason for believing that christianity is true. Your cheap attempts at backing out of using reason by appealing to emotion thus fall short because these appeals themselves make use of reasons (otherwise, you won't be able to differentiate them from emotional appeals to accept the Almighty Gnome, and should treat both just as dismissively). In other words, it is impossible that there isn't some reason for being Christian, and the problem is that all such reasons on offer are inadequate, which makes christianity in good company with the rest of the religions on offer.

All I asked was that avxo try a different approach and suspend his position for a time.  From your chair I understand completely why you think my suggestion is bizarre....doesn't make it wrong though. 
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on June 12, 2012, 12:38:08 PM
P.S. I don't doubt that people really have "religious" experiences. The point about these experiences -- which those raised in Christian societies almost invariably interpret as God, those raised in Buddhist societies interpret as becoming one with the universe (or some other such thing; I'm no expert on Buddhism), etc. -- is that they need explaining.

The beliefs and contextual clues we have laying around will help us explain the experiences. In other words, the experiences aren't "pre-theoretical" and we either have a theory onboard (e.g., Christianity) that helps us automatically interpret the experience, or otherwise we go looking for one. The fact that these experiences can be elicited from the use of ilicit drugs producing certain chemical reactions in our brains, however, ought to make anyone question whether the experiences are as magical as certain ancient theories would have us believe.

When the Holy Spirit washes over a believer in a moment of prayer or worship it's quite an experience....I pray you can experience that some day in your own life.  There's nothing like calling on the name of Jesus and feeling his presence and feeling fear or darkness or evil flee.  Again I pray you have the opportunity to experience that for yourself someday....it's not out of your reach by any means.

Believe it or not, I pray for the members of this board all the time.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 12, 2012, 12:38:43 PM
Do you see a problem with the above attempt to convince you, Man O Steel? In order to avoid talking out your ass on this issue, you must respond that the above Emotional Plea to Accept the Almighty Gnome is somehow different from your  Emotional Plea to Accept Jesus. Your response will be a reason for differentiating the Almighty Gnome from Jesus. Therefore, it is impossible to "put aside reason," as you say. We necessarily traffic in reasons when it comes to establishing worldviews.

That is where you get caught in the bear claw trap of logic, since there just isn't any good reason for believing that christianity is true. Your cheap attempts at backing out of using reason by appealing to emotion thus fall short because these appeals themselves make use of reasons (otherwise, you won't be able to differentiate them from emotional appeals to accept the Almighty Gnome, and should treat both just as dismissively). In other words, it is impossible that there isn't some reason for being Christian, and the problem is that all such reasons on offer are inadequate, which makes christianity in good company with the rest of the religions on offer.

Jesus Christ, whether you believe in him or not, changed human history.  Christianity grew exponentially in the first few centuries, peacefully, and despite the fact that they were being persecuted, tortured and killed.  The Bible is the number one, all time best seller, whether you believe the Bible or not.  Christianity is by far the largest religion in the world.  Billions of lives have been changed by the message of the Gospel.  Billions of poor people, orphans, widows and victims of catastrophes around the world have been assisted by Christians and Christian organizations.  I could go on and on, but I do not have the time.

None of these are proof of the existence of God, the existence of Jesus, or of his deity, or of his miracles, or proof that the Bible is the word of God, or proof that Christianity is true.

However, the "Almighty Gnome", nor the "Spaghetti Monster", nor "Thor" nor "Odin" can claim a fraction of the above claims to Christianity, God and Jesus.  So I am sorry, but yours an avxo's arguments comparing God, Jesus, the Bible and Christianity to the "Almighty Gnome" and the "Spaghetti Monster" are ridiculous and a failure.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 12, 2012, 05:36:41 PM
Jesus Christ, whether you believe in him or not, changed human history.

So did Genghis Khan. And Adolf Hitler. And Josef Stalin. And Oliver Cromwell. And even you. What's your point?


The Bible is the number one, all time best seller, whether you believe the Bible or not.

So what?


Christianity is by far the largest religion in the world.

Sure, if you lump all denominations together. And even if you do, the question still remains. So what? Christ either existed or he didn't. Christ either was the son of God, or he wasn't. The truth of those things isn't up for a vote. So again, I ask: So what?


Billions of lives have been changed by the message of the Gospel.  Billions of poor people, orphans, widows and victims of catastrophes around the world have been assisted by Christians and Christian organizations.  I could go on and on, but I do not have the time.

When any organization - Christian or not - does good works, they should be applauded. But what does that prove? At best it proves that they believe in the religion. Which is great, but their belief still proves nothing about the religion itself.

And of course, that leaves open the question of "why should Christian organizations work to provide relief to billions of poor people, orphans, widows and victims of catastrophes around the world" when those acts where part of God's plan? Surely, if God didn't want those people to suffer, he wouldn't have let them suffer.


None of these are proof of the existence of God, the existence of Jesus, or of his deity, or of his miracles, or proof that the Bible is the word of God, or proof that Christianity is true.

If they're not proof of those things bring them up? Let's read on, shall we?


However, the "Almighty Gnome", nor the "Spaghetti Monster", nor "Thor" nor "Odin" can claim a fraction of the above claims to Christianity, God and Jesus.

Aha! The plot thickens. Now we can seen you purpose in bringing those things up: you want to have a religion penis size contest... how pious and kinky at the same time!


So I am sorry, but yours an avxo's arguments comparing God, Jesus, the Bible and Christianity to the "Almighty Gnome" and the "Spaghetti Monster" are ridiculous and a failure.

That's only because you don't quite get what the argument is meant to convey. It's not about good works, or what the people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster do. The point is to demonstrate that there's exactly as much evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is for the Christian God and that the very same arguments that are used to "prove" the existence of God can prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other deity anyone cares to dream up.

I challenge you to find one argument that claims to prove that the Christian God exists that cannot be used to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist. Just one. And... go!
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 12, 2012, 07:09:29 PM

None of these are proof of the existence of God, the existence of Jesus, or of his deity, or of his miracles, or proof that the Bible is the word of God, or proof that Christianity is true.


I'm glad you recognize that. What it means, however, is that none of these facts -- while of great historical interest -- have any relevance to the discussion at hand.


However, the "Almighty Gnome", nor the "Spaghetti Monster", nor "Thor" nor "Odin" can claim a fraction of the above claims to Christianity, God and Jesus.  So I am sorry, but yours an avxo's arguments comparing God, Jesus, the Bible and Christianity to the "Almighty Gnome" and the "Spaghetti Monster" are ridiculous and a failure.


OK, what you've said here is that Jesus is to be taken more seriously because he is more popular. Well, I guess that's a reason to believe something, but it isn't a very good one (to be precise, it is an informal logical fallacy). Hence the continued truth of my post to the effect that there just isn't any good reason to be a Christian.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 13, 2012, 07:21:32 AM
Even if they do agree on all of that - and that's a big if - you can hardly say that there are no significant differences between Protestants, Catholic and Orthodox Christians! Catholics, for example, believe that the death of Christ created merit that is shared with sinners through the sacraments, whereas Protestants believe that the death of Christ was a substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied God's justice. That's a pretty significant difference.

That's not to say you can't claim that Christians agree on all the things you quote. You can. It would be a lie, but you can and hell, you might even believe it. But what you say and believe don't necessarily have any bearing on reality.


Even if true, this only refers to the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament - there's the New Testament too. Besides, it still leaves open the issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which, again, according to Michael Barber "reveal sharp divergences from the [Masoretic Text]."


Oh well, if you say I'm incorrect! Anyone who's read the Bible in two languages. Shit! That's like some crazy Biblical scholar level knowledge right there!


You need to learn to read. I didn't bring J.R.R. Tolkien up to support my argument. I brought him up to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your argument that interepretations and ambiguity are necessary because of flawed human language. If Tolkien, a mere human, could construct several highly complicated languages, from the ground up, complete with a runic alphabet, then surely God could have created just one language that could express his message perfectly since, by your own admission, the human languages of the time failed him.

I do understand what it is you're doing though: You try to misconstrue what I write, in an effort to force to continue to elaborate and explain my argument in more and more detail, in the hope that I'll finally get bored and move on, at which point you would claim "victory". That technique - which I've seen before - relies on a pretty big assumption: that I am willing to accept that you're genuinely trying but failing to understand my argument because of my own fault. But that game won't work. I have absolutely no qualms about calling you out on the fact that you're either (a) purposefully misconstruing what I say in an attempt to annoy me and get me to drop this conversation; or (b) an actual idiot who genuinely cannot understand. In either case, the problem is caused by you - your unwillingness or your inability to read.


The Catholic church admits that what you have listed as an example above is not based on the Bible, but on their own traditions.  Christians do agree on the fundamental beliefs that I listed, which we base on the Bible.

Which brings up a good point.  The Roman Catholic church for centuries had the power and the means to "modify" the Bible, yet they did not.  To this date, the Bible omits hundreds of their traditions, rules and beliefs.  And many parts of the Bible actually contradict them.  They could have "modified" the Bible just for these reasons, but they did not.

Just because human languages change over time, requiring texts to be updated, and just because all humans do not speak the same language, it does not follow that human languages have "failed God", like you said.   God's Word has done, is doing, and it will continue to do what God intended it to do.

You still fail to explain your reference to J.R.R. Tolkien, a brilliant linguist who happened to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.  So please tell us.  How would God creating one perfect language, just for the Bible, really work?  Would we all understand this one perfect language?  Otherwise, wouldn't we all need translators anyway?  And how would we humans keep later generations from adding new words to this language, while forgetting older words?  Wouldn't that eventually require updating the Bible anyway?

And no, you do not understand what I'm doing here.  I am not trying to get you bored and to move on so that I can claim "victory."  Arguing on the Internet is like the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you are still a retard. 

And even if that's what I wanted to do, I have neither the time nor the patience for it.  I do have a life and a real job.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 13, 2012, 07:22:13 AM
Phillipians 2:12: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."


John 5:29: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

So, which is it?

It says "work out", not "work for" your salvation.  You cannot workout that which you do not have.  We receive salvation through faith, and then we are commanded to "work out" our salvation.

As for John 5:29, though we are not saved through good works, those who have received salvation also receive the desire and the power to do good works.  And God intended for us to do these good works anyway.

Ephesians 2:8-10
New International Version (NIV)


8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do


Another thing about John 5:29.  There is one good work which we must do to receive salvation.  Jesus Christ himself told us what this good work is:

John 6:28-29
New International Version (NIV)


28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 13, 2012, 10:10:33 AM
It says "work out", not "work for" your salvation.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the original Greek text actually says: "μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε" which translates to:  "with fear and terror work for your own salvation". I guess "work out" fits, although I wouldn't call it an accurate translation.


You cannot workout that which you do not have.  We receive salvation through faith, and then we are commanded to "work out" our salvation.

Why "work out" anything if salvation is something that's received through faith and faith alone? Sounds like an informercial that says "send no money now!"


As for John 5:29, though we are not saved through good works, those who have received salvation also receive the desire and the power to do good works.  And God intended for us to do these good works anyway.

Ah. So the desire to do these good works is like the fever that comes with an infection...


Another thing about John 5:29.  There is one good work which we must do to receive salvation.  Jesus Christ himself told us what this good work is:

John 6:28-29
New International Version (NIV)


28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Wait... didn't you just finish saying that there were works that we pre-ordained and which God intended we do? Now you're saying the work is to just believe. Which believers do anyways.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 13, 2012, 10:23:26 AM
Which brings up a good point.  The Roman Catholic church for centuries had the power and the means to "modify" the Bible, yet they did not.  To this date, the Bible omits hundreds of their traditions, rules and beliefs.  And many parts of the Bible actually contradict them.  They could have "modified" the Bible just for these reasons, but they did not.

They have changed it. The Catholic Bible includes texts that others don't and omits texts that others includes.


Just because human languages change over time, requiring texts to be updated, and just because all humans do not speak the same language, it does not follow that human languages have "failed God", like you said.

If God's word couldn't be directly received by man, but required translations and extensive analysis and teaching before ordinary men could understand it, it's hard to see how human languages haven't "failed God."


God's Word has done, is doing, and it will continue to do what God intended it to do.

Oh, well if you say so.


You still fail to explain your reference to J.R.R. Tolkien, a brilliant linguist who happened to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Don't confuse your inability to understand what I write with a failure on my part.


So please tell us.  How would God creating one perfect language, just for the Bible, really work?

In "mysterious ways" which seems to be the Christian God's modus operandi.


Would we all understand this one perfect language?

Sure. Why not? After all, he's omnipotent. Do you not think that, if he wanted to, he could make so that we're born understanding Godese or whatever.


And how would we humans keep later generations from adding new words to this language, while forgetting older words?

You mean the omnipotent God would be troubled and unable to deal with puny humans coining new words and forgetting old ones?


Wouldn't that eventually require updating the Bible anyway?

Well, if you really want to argue that the omnipotent Christian God isn't omnipotent, you won't get an objection from me.


And no, you do not understand what I'm doing here.  I am not trying to get you bored and to move on so that I can claim "victory."  Arguing on the Internet is like the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you are still a retard.

 ;D

And even if that's what I wanted to do, I have neither the time nor the patience for it.  I do have a life and a real job.

And training. Don't forget training. This is getbig after all ;D
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 13, 2012, 10:55:19 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the original Greek text actually says: "μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε" which translates to:  "with fear and terror work for your own salvation". I guess "work out" fits, although I wouldn't call it an accurate translation.


Why "work out" anything if salvation is something that's received through faith and faith alone? Sounds like an informercial that says "send no money now!"


Ah. So the desire to do these good works is like the fever that comes with an infection...


Wait... didn't you just finish saying that there were works that we pre-ordained and which God intended we do? Now you're saying the work is to just believe. Which believers do anyways.

Oh, I see.  In your original post you highlighted the text "work out" your salvation, but after I said you can't work out that which you do not have, now you change your story and say that in Greek it really says "work for" your own salvation.  Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but the original Greek text actually says:

ἑαυτῶν your own
σωτηρίαν salvation
κατεργάζεσθε work out.

You work out your salvation to become more like Jesus Christ and to bring others to Him.

Our desire and power to do good works comes from God.

Philippians 2:13
New International Version (NIV)

for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

Yes, the one act that brings salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ.

Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 13, 2012, 11:08:30 AM
Oh, I see.  In your original post you highlighted the text "work out" your salvation, but after I said you can't work out that which you do not have, now you change your story and say that in Greek it really says "work for" your own salvation.

I quoted the English text.


Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but the original Greek text actually says:

ἑαυτῶν your own
σωτηρίαν salvation
κατεργάζεσθε work out.

It's great that you went to your favorite site to find the meaning of the Greek words. However, seeing how I read, write and speak Greek I do not need you to tell me what the word means ;) But let's play along and assume that the proper meaning is, actually, "work out." What does "work out" mean? One definition is to "bring about by work, effort, or action" or, alternatively "to solve, as a problem" and neither of those really apply according to you. I guess you could argue that the underlying meaning is: "to pay (a debt) by working instead of paying money." But what debt is there to pay off?


You work out your salvation to become more like Jesus Christ and to bring others to Him.

What does "work out" mean in this context?


Our desire and power to do good works comes from God.

I feel sorry for any person who isn't good of his own accord, but requires an external influence and force in order to be good.


Philippians 2:13
New International Version (NIV)

for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

Yes, the one act that brings salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ.

So all this "work out" stuff is unnecessary? You can't have both. It's one or the other.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 13, 2012, 11:18:10 AM
They have changed it. The Catholic Bible includes texts that others don't and omits texts that others includes.


If God's word couldn't be directly received by man, but required translations and extensive analysis and teaching before ordinary men could understand it, it's hard to see how human languages haven't "failed God."


Oh, well if you say so.


Don't confuse your inability to understand what I write with a failure on my part.


In "mysterious ways" which seems to be the Christian God's modus operandi.


Sure. Why not? After all, he's omnipotent. Do you not think that, if he wanted to, he could make so that we're born understanding Godese or whatever.


You mean the omnipotent God would be troubled and unable to deal with puny humans coining new words and forgetting old ones?


Well, if you really want to argue that the omnipotent Christian God isn't omnipotent, you won't get an objection from me.


 ;D

And training. Don't forget training. This is getbig after all ;D

You say that the Catholic church has changed the Bible, but you do not provide any proof or any examples.  We are all aware that the Catholic Bible includes a few books that the Protestant Bible does not.  However, the books that they both have in common have not been changed.  And they do not support many of the Catholic beliefs.  They could have changed that, but they did not.  

I am not sure what you are talking about, ordinary men not understanding the Bible.  I am an ordinary man, and I do understand the Bible.  In fact, every preacher at every church where I have been a member has always encouraged everyone to do their own reading and study of the Bible, and to check what he is saying to see if it is in line with the Bible.

Just because God has given us His Word using humans and human languages, it does not follow that God is not omnipotent or that human languages have failed God.  That is just your opinion and you are simply arguing God should have done things the way that you would have done things if you were God.

Yes, I forgot training.  Training occupies a chunk of my time too.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 13, 2012, 11:25:25 AM
I am not sure what you are talking about, ordinary men not understanding the Bible.  I am an ordinary man, and I do understand the Bible.  In fact, every preacher at every church where I have been a member has always encouraged everyone to do their own reading and study of the Bible, and to check what he is saying to see if it is in line with the Bible.

It's always a good idea to read on your own and not rely on what others say. But if it is easy to understand, why are pastors necessary? Why are hour-long sermons belaboring a point necessary? Why do so many different people have such radically different understandings?


Just because God has given us His Word using humans and human languages, it does not follow that God is not omnipotent or that human languages have failed God.  That is just your opinion and you are simply arguing God should have done things the way that you would have done things if you were God.

Actually no. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm asking why would God not use a method of communicating that would guarantee both the integrity of his words and that their literal meaning was retained so that we would not have to have this discussion at all.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 13, 2012, 11:38:28 AM
So did Genghis Khan. And Adolf Hitler. And Josef Stalin. And Oliver Cromwell. And even you. What's your point?


So what?


Sure, if you lump all denominations together. And even if you do, the question still remains. So what? Christ either existed or he didn't. Christ either was the son of God, or he wasn't. The truth of those things isn't up for a vote. So again, I ask: So what?


When any organization - Christian or not - does good works, they should be applauded. But what does that prove? At best it proves that they believe in the religion. Which is great, but their belief still proves nothing about the religion itself.

And of course, that leaves open the question of "why should Christian organizations work to provide relief to billions of poor people, orphans, widows and victims of catastrophes around the world" when those acts where part of God's plan? Surely, if God didn't want those people to suffer, he wouldn't have let them suffer.


If they're not proof of those things bring them up? Let's read on, shall we?


Aha! The plot thickens. Now we can seen you purpose in bringing those things up: you want to have a religion penis size contest... how pious and kinky at the same time!


That's only because you don't quite get what the argument is meant to convey. It's not about good works, or what the people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster do. The point is to demonstrate that there's exactly as much evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is for the Christian God and that the very same arguments that are used to "prove" the existence of God can prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other deity anyone cares to dream up.

I challenge you to find one argument that claims to prove that the Christian God exists that cannot be used to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist. Just one. And... go!

I'm glad you recognize that. What it means, however, is that none of these facts -- while of great historical interest -- have any relevance to the discussion at hand.

OK, what you've said here is that Jesus is to be taken more seriously because he is more popular. Well, I guess that's a reason to believe something, but it isn't a very good one (to be precise, it is an informal logical fallacy). Hence the continued truth of my post to the effect that there just isn't any good reason to be a Christian.

The point is that when "Man of Steel" kindly asks that you look into who was/is this Jesus Christ guy and what he did/does, it is not the same as looking into the "Spaghetti Monster" or the "Great Gnome" as you suggested.  

And to answer avxo's challenge to find "proof" that the "Christian God" exists, I believe this is not a matter of proof.  I have always believed that it is a matter of faith.  When it comes to seeing evidence, it is a personal matter.  For example, I see plenty of evidence that support my faith, but to you it is no evidence at all.  

But for the sake of the discussion, I will play along:  Christianity grew exponentially in the first few centuries, peacefully, and despite the fact that Christians were being persecuted, tortured and killed.  I happen to know a college professor who said that to him personally, this is evidence enough that Jesus' disciples, after watching him die, after scattering and hiding in fear for their own lives, later saw Jesus Christ alive again.  To this professor, that is evidence enough of the resurrection.  The disciples all died poor, powerless, and most died violent deaths.  Who would die for a lie?  And why?

Anyway, I'm curious, how would you tell this professor that the above applies just the same and proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 13, 2012, 12:16:22 PM
The point is that when "Man of Steel" kindly asks that you look into who was/is this Jesus Christ guy and what he did/does, it is not the same as looking into the "Spaghetti Monster" or the "Great Gnome" as you suggested.

How is it different? Because Christianity has more followers?


And to answer avxo's challenge to find "proof" that the "Christian God" exists, I believe this is not a matter of proof.  I have always believed that it is a matter of faith.  When it comes to seeing evidence, it is a personal matter.  For example, I see plenty of evidence that support my faith, but to you it is no evidence at all.  

I don't disagree that it's faith. Indeed, that's where we diverge. You believe that faith is a valid means for acquiring knowledge, and I don't.


But for the sake of the discussion, I will play along:  Christianity grew exponentially in the first few centuries, peacefully, and despite the fact that Christians were being persecuted, tortured and killed.

Thanks for playing along, but (a) this isn't - by your own admission earlier in this thread - proof of the Christian God, so it's irrelevant; and (b) it misses my point anyways: that any logical argument that can be used to prove that the Christian God exists, can be used, almost verbatim, to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.


I happen to know a college professor who said that to him personally, this is evidence enough that Jesus' disciples, after watching him die, after scattering and hiding in fear for their own lives, later saw Jesus Christ alive again.  To this professor, that is evidence enough of the resurrection.

I'd venture a guess that your Professor friend looks at the evidence and sees what he wants to see, not what is actually there. I'll give you an example: They disciples didn't actually see Jesus alive again. They claimed to have seen him alive again. Did they, actually? Who knows. But there is a difference between those two positions and it's not insignificant.


The disciples all died poor, powerless, and most died violent deaths.  Who would die for a lie?  And why?

You - and your Professor friend - are missing a very important point. The disciples might have genuinely believed that Christ was the Son of God. But that doesn't mean they didn't die for a lie - their belief doesn't have any bearing on reality (that is, on whether Jesus Christ was, actually, the Son of God). They could have believed and still died for a lie. It's nothing new.


Anyway, I'm curious, how would you tell this professor that the above applies just the same and proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?

First of all, the Professor can believe whatever he wants to - his beliefs do not concern me. However, as I've already pointed out that his logic is flawed. Indeed, it would be a great exercise to ask his class (and himself) to look at these statements objectively and to try to identify how many logical fallacies there are in his beliefs (at least as you have represented them). I've already got the ball rolling, and I'll even throw in a freebie: Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Christianity grew exponentially therefore Christianity is true).
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 13, 2012, 12:36:18 PM
How is it different? Because Christianity has more followers?


I don't disagree that it's faith. Indeed, that's where we diverge. You believe that faith is a valid means for acquiring knowledge, and I don't.


Thanks for playing along, but (a) this isn't - by your own admission earlier in this thread - proof of the Christian God, so it's irrelevant; and (b) it misses my point anyways: that any logical argument that can be used to prove that the Christian God exists, can be used, almost verbatim, to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.


I'd venture a guess that your Professor friend looks at the evidence and sees what he wants to see, not what is actually there. I'll give you an example: They disciples didn't actually see Jesus alive again. They claimed to have seen him alive again. Did they, actually? Who knows. But there is a difference between those two positions and it's not insignificant.


You - and your Professor friend - are missing a very important point. The disciples might have genuinely believed that Christ was the Son of God. But that doesn't mean they didn't die for a lie - their belief doesn't have any bearing on reality (that is, on whether Jesus Christ was, actually, the Son of God). They could have believed and still died for a lie. It's nothing new.


First of all, the Professor can believe whatever he wants to - his beliefs do not concern me. However, as I've already pointed out that his logic is flawed. Indeed, it would be a great exercise to ask his class (and himself) to look at these statements objectively and to try to identify how many logical fallacies there are in his beliefs (at least as you have represented them). I've already got the ball rolling, and I'll even throw in a freebie: Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Christianity grew exponentially therefore Christianity is true).

No, I listed many more things than just "more followers", but you conveniently left them out. 

And it is not just "Christianity grew exponentially", there is much more to my statement, but you conveniently left it out in your post.

I answered your challenge, but now you conveniently dismiss it and say that I can't play?  Why don't you tell me how my statement above can be applied to proving that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 13, 2012, 12:40:16 PM
It's always a good idea to read on your own and not rely on what others say. But if it is easy to understand, why are pastors necessary? Why are hour-long sermons belaboring a point necessary? Why do so many different people have such radically different understandings?


Actually no. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm asking why would God not use a method of communicating that would guarantee both the integrity of his words and that their literal meaning was retained so that we would not have to have this discussion at all.


I went to college to study math and computer science.  My preacher went to seminary to study Theology, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, History, Linguistics, etc.  Why wouldn't I listen and learn from him?  Jesus taught his apostles, who taught other people, and so on and so forth.

Is your question rhetoric?  Why wouldn't God do this?  Why wouldn't God do that?  I don't know.  Does that proof that God does not exist?  No.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 13, 2012, 12:45:44 PM
I quoted the English text.


It's great that you went to your favorite site to find the meaning of the Greek words. However, seeing how I read, write and speak Greek I do not need you to tell me what the word means ;) But let's play along and assume that the proper meaning is, actually, "work out." What does "work out" mean? One definition is to "bring about by work, effort, or action" or, alternatively "to solve, as a problem" and neither of those really apply according to you. I guess you could argue that the underlying meaning is: "to pay (a debt) by working instead of paying money." But what debt is there to pay off?


What does "work out" mean in this context?


I feel sorry for any person who isn't good of his own accord, but requires an external influence and force in order to be good.


So all this "work out" stuff is unnecessary? You can't have both. It's one or the other.

You are fluent in Greek, big deal!  So what?  First you say it says "work out", then you say it says "work for", now you say it says "work out" again.  But this time you say "work out" in English does not mean what it says, but instead it means something else.     ::)

Why do you feel sorry for Christians?  Who is "good" of his/her own accord?  And who doesn't require an external influence and force(God) to know, and to want to do, and to be able to do what God requires of him/her?

"work out" is unnecessary for salvation.  However, it is necessary for growing spiritually, being more like Jesus Christ and for bringing others to Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 13, 2012, 01:49:02 PM
No, I listed many more things than just "more followers", but you conveniently left them out.

I didn't conveniently leave anything out - if you think I did, by all means, bring them up again and I will answer.


And it is not just "Christianity grew exponentially", there is much more to my statement, but you conveniently left it out in your post.

Such as?


I answered your challenge, but now you conveniently dismiss it and say that I can't play?  Why don't you tell me how my statement above can be applied to proving that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?

No you didn't. The statement you provided - by your own admission - doesn't prove the existence of the Christian deity.

I went to college to study math and computer science.  My preacher went to seminary to study Theology, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, History, Linguistics, etc.  Why wouldn't I listen and learn from him?  Jesus taught his apostles, who taught other people, and so on and so forth.

If the word is self-evident and easy to understand, why do you need to listen and learn from him on this particular subject? (sidenote: cool about the math & comp.sci. choice - that was my undergraduate field of study as well)



Is your question rhetoric?  Why wouldn't God do this?  Why wouldn't God do that?  I don't know.  Does that proof that God does not exist?  No.

In a sense it is, I guess, since nobody will bother answering it. I just don't understand why, if God wanted us to be saved, he didn't give clear, unambiguous signs, instead relying on stuff that can be misinterpreted, stuff that can't be proven by logic (or which is, often, contradicted by logic), and so on.


You are fluent in Greek, big deal!  So what?

Well, I don't know how big a deal it is, but it's a nice skill to have and a beautiful language to boot. Besides, I'm a firm believer that knowledge is it's own reward. But, to get back tot he matter at hand: it means that, unlike you, I can read the text and directly understand it, without needing to go to a dictionary. And if you knew Greek, you'd be able to to at least argue that part of the Gospel was written in a language that survived (up until the late 20th century at any rate) largely unadulterated :)


First you say it says "work out", then you say it says "work for", now you say it says "work out" again.  But this time you say "work out" in English does not mean what it says, but instead it means something else.     ::)

I cited the English text, verbatim. I translated the Greek text to English. I don't see the problem.


Why do you feel sorry for Christians?  Who is "good" of his/her own accord?  And who doesn't require an external influence and force(God) to know, and to want to do, and to be able to do what God requires of him/her?

I feel sorry for anyone who needs to be bribed or threatened into doing good. As for who is good of his/her own accord? Unlike you, I don't believe in original sin, and I don't believe that people are inherently evil sinners, nor do I believe that people need some external push to do the right thing. Basically I don't believe that people are evil, and that when they aren't, it's only because a higher power is pulling the strings. You can certainly believe that, and it says more about you (and your beliefs) that I ever could.


"work out" is unnecessary for salvation.  However, it is necessary for growing spiritually, being more like Jesus Christ and for bringing others to Jesus Christ.

OK, now I understand how you interpret the concept. It's not working for your salvation; it's working to spread the salvation around. I'll grant you that it is a plausible interpretation. But again, it comes back to the whole "why couldn't this be made perfectly clear from the beginning?"

Surely you see where I'm coming from?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: King Shizzo on June 13, 2012, 02:49:32 PM
We celebrate Pagan holidays, and claim that they are christian.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 13, 2012, 09:06:25 PM
The point is that when "Man of Steel" kindly asks that you look into who was/is this Jesus Christ guy and what he did/does, it is not the same as looking into the "Spaghetti Monster" or the "Great Gnome" as you suggested.  

And to answer avxo's challenge to find "proof" that the "Christian God" exists, I believe this is not a matter of proof.  I have always believed that it is a matter of faith.  When it comes to seeing evidence, it is a personal matter.  For example, I see plenty of evidence that support my faith, but to you it is no evidence at all.  

But for the sake of the discussion, I will play along:  Christianity grew exponentially in the first few centuries, peacefully, and despite the fact that Christians were being persecuted, tortured and killed.  I happen to know a college professor who said that to him personally, this is evidence enough that Jesus' disciples, after watching him die, after scattering and hiding in fear for their own lives, later saw Jesus Christ alive again.  To this professor, that is evidence enough of the resurrection.  The disciples all died poor, powerless, and most died violent deaths.  Who would die for a lie?  And why?

Anyway, I'm curious, how would you tell this professor that the above applies just the same and proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?

Thank you for your continued responses.

1. Man of Steel asked us to ignore evidence and reason and instead engage in a "switch [of] gears and opt for a reversed, emotional position" so that we might discover Christianity's truth. This type of appeal is exactly equivalent to my appeal that you submit yourself to the Almighty Gnome, as I simply replaced the Christian terms in Steel's post with my own. Think of this in terms of a game: we are both trying to convince a reasonable person from another planet that our worldview is the right one. After hearing both of our pleas, our galactic visitor will have no more evidence for the Christian God than he will the Almighty Gnome. In short, this sort of reasoning is terrible and isn't going to convince someone with no skin in the game of anything (nor should it).

2. I agree that Jesus and the Almighty Gnome are not logically equivalent; Jesus actually existed and the Almighty Gnome never did. So, there will be arguments in favor of the former that cannot be made in favor of the latter. The point of Spaghetti and Gnome talk is to make clear that certain types of argument many Christians make in favor of their religion apply equally well to the other religions men have invented, including contemporary, satirical ones.

3. So, there is a class of arguments Christians make that aren't exclusive evidence for Christianity (e.g., faith-based arguments and emotional appeals like the ones discussed in 1.), and then there are arguments that can be said to be exclusive to Christianity. Unfortunately, I just can't see where any of these arguments have any force. I'm glad you mention evidence, because standards of evidence have a role to play in deciding our worldview. My standards of evidence are such that none of the supposed evidence for Christianity counts as such. You say that "seeing evidence" is a personal matter, and to some extent this is right: our personal psychology can very much affect our interpretation of what counts as evidence and what does not.

4. However, there need to be objective standards of evidence, or principles that enable us to discover the way reality really is. I contend that the standards deployed by the religious lead to a silly body of beliefs that has little correspondence to the reality outside of our heads, as evinced by the endless pile of false predictions/explanations of observations. Imagine a counterfactual scenario where Jesus actually did return in the lifetime of his followers, as he said he would. This would be a successful prediction of an observation and would be pretty compelling evidence that Christianity was right. Science makes these sorts of predictions and they come to fruition every second, e.g., when we continuously and correctly predict the motions and positions of planetary bodies. Christianity and all other human religions flunk this standard pretty handily, yet pretend to describe the world all the same.

5. When someone makes an argument, we can extract an "argument form" (or type of argument) from their words and see if it makes sense. Your professor friend argues that because Christianity grew in the face of persecution, it must be true and the supernatural events it lays claim to must have happened. The "argument form" we can extract from is this: "Any set of beliefs that grows in the face of fierce persecution must be true. X [some set of beliefs] grew in the face of fierce persecution. Therefore, X is true."

It's pretty clear from history that this is a terrible way to argue for a belief system and does not constitute the slightest evidence for Christianity whatsoever. Why not? One, because it applies to virtually every man-made religion in existence, all of whose disciples faced persecution in their foundational years. These religions make mutually incompatible claims, so they can't all be true. Two, hundreds of millions of people have died for lies throughout human history, including all of the religious wars (even if we exclude Christianity) and deaths in the name of whacked-out, quasi-religious political systems (e.g., Communism). They died because they genuinely believed, just as I'm sure the disciples did. This isn't evidence for what they believed, unless you want to count the fact that Al Qaeda operatives are willing to risk getting hunted down by the world's superpower and ultimately blowing themselves up, often as sexually repressed virgins, as evidence that Allah is talking to them and promising them virgins in heaven.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on June 14, 2012, 09:52:17 AM
Thank you for your continued responses.

1. Man of Steel asked us to ignore evidence and reason and instead engage in a "switch [of] gears and opt for a reversed, emotional position" so that we might discover Christianity's truth. This type of appeal is exactly equivalent to my appeal that you submit yourself to the Almighty Gnome, as I simply replaced the Christian terms in Steel's post with my own. Think of this in terms of a game: we are both trying to convince a reasonable person from another planet that our worldview is the right one. After hearing both of our pleas, our galactic visitor will have no more evidence for the Christian God than he will the Almighty Gnome. In short, this sort of reasoning is terrible and isn't going to convince someone with no skin in the game of anything (nor should it).


I'm not presenting a trap or a an apologetic appeal or a new brand of logic.  I suggested that you try on Christ for yourself with an honest, genuine desire to know him.  Forget reasoning him away, forget the debate and take it to the source.  If you truly desire to know Christ yourself then simply desire to know and believe in him and see if he doesn't respond....I double dog dare ya LOL!!  If you have no desire to know Christ then forget it and move on (I don't suggest that, but it's your choice).  The reply about the gnome idea has no bearing on what I'm suggesting though.  I grasp what your attempting to suggest, but you and I both know you understand what I'm suggesting.     
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 14, 2012, 10:01:55 AM
When the Holy Spirit washes over a believer in a moment of prayer or worship it's quite an experience....I pray you can experience that some day in your own life.  There's nothing like calling on the name of Jesus and feeling his presence and feeling fear or darkness or evil flee.  Again I pray you have the opportunity to experience that for yourself someday....it's not out of your reach by any means.

Believe it or not, I pray for the members of this board all the time.

Thanks for your prayers, but they aren't needed. A lot of us do very well (being moral, successful, not depressed) without religion.

Apparently, not many religious people have these sorts of experiences, but obviously when they do it is amazing. However, they are experienced across the board and the Buddhist takes it as evidence of what he's been saying all along, the Muslim takes it as evidence of what he's been saying all along, and so forth. Our theory of the world helps us interpret that experience; therefore, it isn't evidence for any of the theories because it doesn't differentiate between them.

In other words, what theory you have onboard or near at hand leads to the specific interpretation that results, e.g. "That was the holy spirit I just felt!" The only you reason you said that was because you were already Christian, or are in a Christian culture where that sort of explanation was readily available. Why else do you take it as evidence for Christianity, while the Muslim takes it as evidence of Allah, the Buddhist as evidence of some sort of elimination of the self, etc.?

I also mentioned in my post that the very same sort of experience can be induced from illicit drug use. If the person is getting the same religious experience from an LSD trip, does that mean the drug is bringing on the presence of the Lord, or that the drug alters brain chemistry such that the sensation is elicited? I think it's clear that the latter and not the former is the better explanation here, and thus can explain your (and all other religious persons') religious experiences.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 14, 2012, 10:09:36 AM

I'm not presenting a trap or a an apologetic appeal or a new brand of logic.  I suggested that you try on Christ for yourself with an honest, genuine desire to know him.  Forget reasoning him away, forget the debate and take it to the source.  If you truly desire to know Christ yourself then simply desire to know and believe in him and see if he doesn't respond....I double dog dare ya LOL!!  If you have no desire to know Christ then forget it and move on (I don't suggest that, but it's your choice).  The reply about the gnome idea has no bearing on what I'm suggesting though.  I grasp what your attempting to suggest, but you and I both know you understand what I'm suggesting.     


Why should anybody ever forget about reasoning, and why in this circumstance in particular?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 14, 2012, 11:36:58 AM
Thanks for your prayers, but they aren't needed. A lot of us do very well (being moral, successful, not depressed) without religion.

Please define "being moral"!
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: OzmO on June 14, 2012, 01:03:41 PM
Thanks for your prayers, but they aren't needed. A lot of us do very well (being moral, successful, not depressed) without religion.

Apparently, not many religious people have these sorts of experiences, but obviously when they do it is amazing. However, they are experienced across the board and the Buddhist takes it as evidence of what he's been saying all along, the Muslim takes it as evidence of what he's been saying all along, and so forth. Our theory of the world helps us interpret that experience; therefore, it isn't evidence for any of the theories because it doesn't differentiate between them.

In other words, what theory you have onboard or near at hand leads to the specific interpretation that results, e.g. "That was the holy spirit I just felt!" The only you reason you said that was because you were already Christian, or are in a Christian culture where that sort of explanation was readily available. Why else do you take it as evidence for Christianity, while the Muslim takes it as evidence of Allah, the Buddhist as evidence of some sort of elimination of the self, etc.?

I also mentioned in my post that the very same sort of experience can be induced from illicit drug use. If the person is getting the same religious experience from an LSD trip, does that mean the drug is bringing on the presence of the Lord, or that the drug alters brain chemistry such that the sensation is elicited? I think it's clear that the latter and not the former is the better explanation here, and thus can explain your (and all other religious persons') religious experiences.

so basically what you are saying is that its unproven association?  (or unproven cause and effect)
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 14, 2012, 09:20:25 PM
Please define "being moral"!

I'm using the word in its everyday use for convenience' sake (and so that other people can understand what I'm saying here). You know what I think about the word from another thread, but it would be confusing if I started talking about that here.

Just like I sometimes utter the expression "Oh God!" to express my feelings despite not believing, so too can I use the word "moral" to get a point across since it's such a popular linguistic token.

So, if you want the more precise version of my original sentence, just swap in "what most people would consider moral" where "moral" currently is.

Good effort trying to catch me being logically inconsistent but it's not happening! ;D
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 14, 2012, 10:10:32 PM

so basically what you are saying is that its unproven association?  (or unproven cause and effect)


You could put it that way. There's no demonstrated cause and effect between the deities of the religion (cause) and the religious experience (effect). In fact, the only (pretty well) demonstrated cause for religious experience is illicit drugs that alter brain chemistry. Why should we think anything different (anything other than altered brain chemistry) is going on when a religious person says they experience Christ, or Allah?

Sorry if the other stuff I said is confusing but the point is this: the theories we adopt affect how we interpret various stimuli. So, a primitive religious person that worships the sun sees something different (interprets the visual stimuli differently) when he looks at it than does a contemporary astrophysicist. Same stimuli, different "things" seen (despite the fact that both are looking at the same big yellow ball in the sky).

That's what I think happens with religious experience: the Christians on here like Man of Steel act as if their religious experience is a theory-free proof of Christ; they ignore (or are unaware) that a supermajority of religious people around the world (Christianity was, is, and probably always will be a minority view) have the very same experiences and take them as evidence of their religion(s). Why? Because of what I described in the previous paragraph. People interpret stimuli based on their theories of the world. The Christian interprets the religious experience as encountering the holy spirit, the buddhist of becoming one with the universe, and so forth. The experience is just that: a raw experience that has to be interpreted somehow. What we believe when it happens is paramount in determining the interpretation we come up with.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Shockwave on June 15, 2012, 04:54:22 AM
You could put it that way. There's no demonstrated cause and effect between the deities of the religion (cause) and the religious experience (effect). In fact, the only (pretty well) demonstrated cause for religious experience is illicit drugs that alter brain chemistry. Why should we think anything different (anything other than altered brain chemistry) is going on when a religious person says they experience Christ, or Allah?

Sorry if the other stuff I said is confusing but the point is this: the theories we adopt affect how we interpret various stimuli. So, a primitive religious person that worships the sun sees something different (interprets the visual stimuli differently) when he looks at it than does a contemporary astrophysicist. Same stimuli, different "things" seen (despite the fact that both are looking at the same big yellow ball in the sky).

That's what I think happens with religious experience: the Christians on here like Man of Steel act as if their religious experience is a theory-free proof of Christ; they ignore (or are unaware) that a supermajority of religious people around the world (Christianity was, is, and probably always will be a minority view) have the very same experiences and take them as evidence of their religion(s). Why? Because of what I described in the previous paragraph. People interpret stimuli based on their theories of the world. The Christian interprets the religious experience as encountering the holy spirit, the buddhist of becoming one with the universe, and so forth. The experience is just that: a raw experience that has to be interpreted somehow. What we believe when it happens is paramount in determining the interpretation we come up with.
illicit drugs that alter brain chemistry. Why should we think anything different (anything other than altered brain chemistry) is going on when a religious person says they experience Christ, or Allah?

I think this is a terrible comparison.
Illicit drugs alter brain chemistry by a artificial chemical means - forcing the release of Dopamine and/or Serotonin. A religious experience, is not caused by an external chemical forcing the brain to release those neurotransmitters.
It may lead to an altered state of brain chemistry, but the question is WHY. We know why illicit drugs do what they do, but we have no idea why praying, or having a religious experience, can lead to a release of these neurotransmitters. We know why excersize releases them.
What is triggered in our brains, when people have a religious experience, that causes this to happen?

As for the 2nd part, IMHO, all religions are spin offs of the same idea - so its very possible that while all their experiences point to them using it as confirmation of THEIR Deity, that if you go back far enough, it may be the SAME Deity (therefore the same experiences).

Just my .02.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 15, 2012, 05:31:15 AM
I'm using the word in its everyday use for convenience' sake (and so that other people can understand what I'm saying here). You know what I think about the word from another thread, but it would be confusing if I started talking about that here.

Just like I sometimes utter the expression "Oh God!" to express my feelings despite not believing, so too can I use the word "moral" to get a point across since it's such a popular linguistic token.

So, if you want the more precise version of my original sentence, just swap in "what most people would consider moral" where "moral" currently is.

Good effort trying to catch me being logically inconsistent but it's not happening! ;D

I wasn't trying to "catch" you being logically inconsistent.    ::)

I was just surprised to see you claim to be "moral" after reading your posts about morality in the other thread.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 15, 2012, 05:36:31 AM
illicit drugs that alter brain chemistry. Why should we think anything different (anything other than altered brain chemistry) is going on when a religious person says they experience Christ, or Allah?

I think this is a terrible comparison.
Illicit drugs alter brain chemistry by a artificial chemical means - forcing the release of Dopamine and/or Serotonin. A religious experience, is not caused by an external chemical forcing the brain to release those neurotransmitters.
It may lead to an altered state of brain chemistry, but the question is WHY. We know why illicit drugs do what they do, but we have no idea why praying, or having a religious experience, can lead to a release of these neurotransmitters. We know why excersize releases them.
What is triggered in our brains, when people have a religious experience, that causes this to happen?

As for the 2nd part, IMHO, all religions are spin offs of the same idea - so its very possible that while all their experiences point to them using it as confirmation of THEIR Deity, that if you go back far enough, it may be the SAME Deity (therefore the same experiences).

Just my .02.

Great post, Shockwave.

I was also wondering about the many people who have an experience using illicit drugs, but are unhappy about their drug abuse.  After trying every medical and every secular "solution", they try a religious experience.  For many of these people, a religious experience not only frees them from their addiction, but they are very happy with their new life and do not wish to "quit" it, as they desperately wished to quit their drug abuse.

My point is I agree that syntaxmachine's comparing a religious experience to abusing illicit drugs is terrible.  
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 15, 2012, 08:52:30 AM

illicit drugs that alter brain chemistry. Why should we think anything different (anything other than altered brain chemistry) is going on when a religious person says they experience Christ, or Allah?

I think this is a terrible comparison.
Illicit drugs alter brain chemistry by a artificial chemical means - forcing the release of Dopamine and/or Serotonin. A religious experience, is not caused by an external chemical forcing the brain to release those neurotransmitters.
It may lead to an altered state of brain chemistry, but the question is WHY.
We know why illicit drugs do what they do, but we have no idea why praying, or having a religious experience, can lead to a release of these neurotransmitters. We know why excersize releases them.
What is triggered in our brains, when people have a religious experience, that causes this to happen?


My friend, the point I am trying to get across is that a religious experience is altered brain chemistry -- not that it causes altered brain chemistry. Of course there is a difference between what causes the chemistry in either case, but that is not the relevant part of my analogy anyway.

I don't think my comments have anything at all to do with causation, really. What they have to do with is what the religious experience is; I'm saying here that when a religious person says "I'm experiencing X," where X is some appropriate religious experience such as, say, coming into contact with Christ, X really refers to the specific fashion their brain is functioning in at that time, and nothing else (especially not any external, magical entities from other dimensions!). This isn't incredibly unreasonable, given that when a person says "I'm experiencing depression," they are similarly referring to the specific fashion their brain is functioning in at that time (when they are actually clinically depressed, anyway).

The reason illicit drug users enter the picture is that -- with the appropriate circumstances and appropriate drugs -- they report having an experience that seems the same as the religious one. It is of course difficult to assess whether the experience of one person "is the same" (or feels the same) as another, but it's at least possible: we can pretty well tell what a person feels when they stub their tow because we've had the same feeling. And what these guys and gals are reporting sounds extremely similar to the religious experiences people describe.

If the drug users are eliciting the same experience as religious people sometimes feel, then we know that the religious experience is just altered brain chemistry, because that's all the drug user's experience is. That is the point I am making.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 15, 2012, 09:07:00 AM
Great post, Shockwave.

I was also wondering about the many people who have an experience using illicit drugs, but are unhappy about their drug abuse.  After trying every medical and every secular "solution", they try a religious experience.  For many of these people, a religious experience not only frees them from their addiction, but they are very happy with their new life and do not wish to "quit" it, as they desperately wished to quit their drug abuse.


You'll hear no protests from me on this. There is no doubt that living as a Christian is going to be a healthier and more fulfilling experience for most than is living as a drug abuser.

Some people definitely start out irreligious and then find meaning in religion, which changes them forever. There are also people who can't seem to find much meaning in it and abandon it, going on to lead fulfilling lives all the same. It might be interesting to see which practice is more common.


My point is I agree that syntaxmachine's comparing a religious experience to abusing illicit drugs is terrible.  


 :'(

The specific aspect of drug use and religious experience I was comparing is clarified in my response to Shockwave. I am not comparing "abusing illicit drugs" to religious experience; I am comparing the specific state of consciousness (experience) that is sometimes achieved when these substances are used, to the specific state of consciousness religious people sometimes report and which we call "religious experience." Abuse, or any other aspect of these people's lifestyles, does not enter the picture here.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on June 15, 2012, 09:23:34 AM
You could put it that way. There's no demonstrated cause and effect between the deities of the religion (cause) and the religious experience (effect). In fact, the only (pretty well) demonstrated cause for religious experience is illicit drugs that alter brain chemistry. Why should we think anything different (anything other than altered brain chemistry) is going on when a religious person says they experience Christ, or Allah?

Sorry if the other stuff I said is confusing but the point is this: the theories we adopt affect how we interpret various stimuli. So, a primitive religious person that worships the sun sees something different (interprets the visual stimuli differently) when he looks at it than does a contemporary astrophysicist. Same stimuli, different "things" seen (despite the fact that both are looking at the same big yellow ball in the sky).

That's what I think happens with religious experience: the Christians on here like Man of Steel act as if their religious experience is a theory-free proof of Christ; they ignore (or are unaware) that a supermajority of religious people around the world (Christianity was, is, and probably always will be a minority view) have the very same experiences and take them as evidence of their religion(s). Why? Because of what I described in the previous paragraph. People interpret stimuli based on their theories of the world. The Christian interprets the religious experience as encountering the holy spirit, the buddhist of becoming one with the universe, and so forth. The experience is just that: a raw experience that has to be interpreted somehow. What we believe when it happens is paramount in determining the interpretation we come up with.

Please don't put words in my mouth.  If I had definitive, tangible proof of my experiences you'd have it in your possession fully available for full evaluation purposes and any associated laboratory testing.  The individual life is a portion of the proof.  I'm also fully aware of the experiences in other religions.  Christ is a personal God and hence a personal relationship exists with each of his believers.  I have no proof of my personal experiences with Christ other than what I choose to disclose.  There are no markings on my body, no artifacts left over to serve as evidence.  Would it be easier if there were?  Sure, a certificate of authenticity from Christ that's been peer-reviewed by non-religious experts would be tremendous.  I know the body of witnesses and their testimonies don't mean a thing since nothing is presented in a test tube or medical journal and because Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Vishnu, Horace, Zeus, etc...all have simliar followers with stories of divine revelation and enlightenment. Why is Christ and his Christians any different from other systems of belief.  We could go through the differences and all that mess, but that wouldn't make a lick of difference.  All I'm saying is that the proof is in the individual pudding.  Wanna know Christ?  Then seek him and experience your own personal relationship.  My words have been twisted a little bit.  MOS didn't suggest, "give up logic and reasoning permanently!"  I suggested putting aside your own logic and reasoning temporarily and trying on God for yourself for once....fill in that gap that hasn't been tried yet and engage in a bit of application.  I've already been without God in my life so I've experienced the other side and I continue to educate myself on the non-Christian's perspective.  I've walked away from God and lived my life how I wanted on my terms.  I questioned virtually everything in this thread and others on my own....free will, problem of evil, different religions, mystery religions, the historocity of the bible, evolution and Genesis, radiometric dating, etc....but I put my faith in God and he responded.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: OzmO on June 15, 2012, 09:27:08 AM
You could put it that way. There's no demonstrated cause and effect between the deities of the religion (cause) and the religious experience (effect). In fact, the only (pretty well) demonstrated cause for religious experience is illicit drugs that alter brain chemistry. Why should we think anything different (anything other than altered brain chemistry) is going on when a religious person says they experience Christ, or Allah?

Sorry if the other stuff I said is confusing but the point is this: the theories we adopt affect how we interpret various stimuli. So, a primitive religious person that worships the sun sees something different (interprets the visual stimuli differently) when he looks at it than does a contemporary astrophysicist. Same stimuli, different "things" seen (despite the fact that both are looking at the same big yellow ball in the sky).

That's what I think happens with religious experience: the Christians on here like Man of Steel act as if their religious experience is a theory-free proof of Christ; they ignore (or are unaware) that a supermajority of religious people around the world (Christianity was, is, and probably always will be a minority view) have the very same experiences and take them as evidence of their religion(s). Why? Because of what I described in the previous paragraph. People interpret stimuli based on their theories of the world. The Christian interprets the religious experience as encountering the holy spirit, the buddhist of becoming one with the universe, and so forth. The experience is just that: a raw experience that has to be interpreted somehow. What we believe when it happens is paramount in determining the interpretation we come up with.

I think people have experiences similar to what is described as "religious" all the time.  I often see it in all walks of life.  When a person knowingly does things that they believe are wrong guilt builds up and when the day comes that they want to reconcile with themselves and find a vehicle to do so a sense of euphoria/enthusiasm occurs.  It happens in ALL religions and beliefs.  Its a simple formula.

The good thing about Christianity is that if they go to church it gets reinforced weekly.  Because some people can't do it without that.    

Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: syntaxmachine on June 15, 2012, 09:50:45 AM

Please don't put words in my mouth.  If I had definitive, tangible proof of my experiences you'd have it in your possession fully available for full evaluation purposes and any associated laboratory testing.  The individual life is a portion of the proof.  I'm also fully aware of the experiences in other religions.  Christ is a personal God and hence a personal relationship exists with each of his believers.  I have no proof of my personal experiences with Christ other than what I choose to disclose.  There are no markings on my body, no artifacts left over to serve as evidence.  Would it be easier if there were?  Sure, a certificate of authenticity from Christ that's been peer-reviewed by non-religious experts would be tremendous.  I know the body of witnesses and their testimonies don't mean a thing since nothing is presented in a test tube or medical journal and because Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Vishnu, Horace, Zeus, etc...all have simliar followers with stories of divine revelation and enlightenment. Why is Christ and his Christians any different from other systems of belief.  We could go through the differences and all that mess, but that wouldn't make a lick of difference.  All I'm saying is that the proof is in the individual pudding.  Wanna know Christ?  Then seek him and experience your own personal relationship.  My words have been twisted a little bit.  MOS didn't suggest, "give up logic and reasoning permanently!"  I suggested putting aside your own logic and reasoning temporarily and trying on God for yourself for once....fill in that gap that hasn't been tried yet and engage in a bit of application.  I've already been without God in my life so I've experienced the other side and I continue to educate myself on the non-Christian's perspective.  I've walked away from God and lived my life how I wanted on my terms.  I questioned virtually everything in this thread and others on my own....free will, problem of evil, different religions, mystery religions, the historocity of the bible, evolution and Genesis, radiometric dating, etc....but I put my faith in God and he responded.


Well, in the post you quote here, I say "MOS acts as if his experience is proof of Christ," so I'm not putting any words into your mouth, but am instead describing your behavior. I'm confident that this is right, because you are describing your experience as one of being in a personal relationship with Christ and constantly mentioning that it is Christ you are interacting with. Why would anyone say these things unless they were confident the experiences were proof of Christ?

With regard to the bit about abandoning reason, you definitely say to do as such. I never said you said to abandon reason "permanently," and thus you have now put words in my mouth in your attempt to accuse me of putting words in your mouth (lol).


Forget reasoning 



I suggested putting aside your own logic and reasoning temporarily


Finally, if at times you are misunderstood, you have to understand that it can be tough being bombarded by a bunch of different thoughts in a single large paragraph and trying to keep everything in order. I guarantee breaking the wall of text up into paragraphs based upon thoughts will prevent future, actual misunderstandings.

Take care
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on June 15, 2012, 10:21:26 AM
Well, in the post you quote here, I say "MOS acts as if his experience is proof of Christ," so I'm not putting any words into your mouth, but am instead describing your behavior. I'm confident that this is right, because you are describing your experience as one of being in a personal relationship with Christ and constantly mentioning that it is Christ you are interacting with. Why would anyone say these things unless they were confident the experiences were proof of Christ?

With regard to the bit about abandoning reason, you definitely say to do as such. I never said you said to abandon reason "permanently," and thus you have now put words in my mouth in your attempt to accuse me of putting words in your mouth (lol).

Finally, if at times you are misunderstood, you have to understand that it can be tough being bombarded by a bunch of different thoughts in a single large paragraph and trying to keep everything in order. I guarantee breaking the wall of text up into paragraphs based upon thoughts will prevent future, actual misunderstandings.

Take care

If you want to define my words in that manner then go ahead.  You know what I'm saying though.

My apologies, I type quickly and word vomit because I'm rushed.  I know that can be difficult to read at times and I completely understand.  I'll try to format things better going forward.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Butterbean on June 15, 2012, 11:41:48 AM
.

My apologies, I type quickly and word vomit because I'm rushed.  I know that can be difficult to read at times and I completely understand.  I'll try to format things better going forward.

 ;D

Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 15, 2012, 11:55:11 AM
;D

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=421960.0;attach=473275;image)


LOL     ;D
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Butterbean on June 16, 2012, 07:47:42 AM
Lol. How about overlong posts with a bunch of paragraphs, usually about philosophical or political issues? Every post I make I'm waiting to get slapped down with a "Didn't Read LOL" gif. I feel it is only a matter of time.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/000/147/193/130927615839.gif?1318992465)

(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/000/237/621/c8a.gif)

Luckily, it's an awesome meme so I don't think I would mind.

lol!
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: Man of Steel on June 19, 2012, 11:05:45 AM
Lol. How about overlong posts with a bunch of paragraphs, usually about philosophical or political issues? Every post I make I'm waiting to get slapped down with a "Didn't Read LOL" gif. I feel it is only a matter of time.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/000/147/193/130927615839.gif?1318992465)

(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/000/237/621/c8a.gif)

Luckily, it's an awesome meme so I don't think I would mind.

LOL!!  Sweet!

I believe most on this board are passionate about what we believe to be true in our lives.   That said we all word vomit from time to time, with the exception of avxo.  His thoughts are usually organized pretty well so they're easy to read.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 19, 2012, 08:38:42 PM
(LOL at the "Didn't Read LOL" gifs!)

I believe most on this board are passionate about what we believe to be true in our lives.   That said we all word vomit from time to time, with the exception of avxo.  His thoughts are usually organized pretty well so they're easy to read.

Hey thanks, I appreciate that. It's practice really: the result of a numbers years of publishing mathematics and computer science research. But I can be very verbose, which can get people to post funny animated gifs ;) Plus, I'm sure that sooner or later I'll end up having a meltdown too and then:

Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 20, 2012, 10:53:09 AM
(LOL at the "Didn't Read LOL" gifs!)

Hey thanks, I appreciate that. It's practice really: the result of a numbers years of publishing mathematics and computer science research. But I can be very verbose, which can get people to post funny animated gifs ;) Plus, I'm sure that sooner or later I'll end up having a meltdown too and then:



Thread derailment reported!

What was your math/comp science research about exactly?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 20, 2012, 11:12:44 AM
What was your math/comp science research about exactly?

Most of it has been cryptography-related.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 20, 2012, 12:13:38 PM
Most of it has been cryptography-related.

Had any fun with that?
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 20, 2012, 12:36:09 PM
Had any fun with that?

I find it challenging.
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 20, 2012, 01:21:08 PM
I find it challenging.

Cool!  What's your grad studies on?  FYI...I'm just curious.  You do not have to answer any of these questions, especially to some stranger on the internet.    ;D
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: avxo on June 21, 2012, 02:08:13 AM
Cool!  What's your grad studies on?  FYI...I'm just curious.  You do not have to answer any of these questions, especially to some stranger on the internet.    ;D

Computer Science and Mathematics ;)
Title: Re: Where did sin come from?
Post by: loco on June 21, 2012, 03:43:38 AM
Computer Science and Mathematics ;)

Oh, I thought that was your undergrad studies and that you were doing something different for grad school.