Where did sin come from?

[avxo]

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-à-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?

[Agnostic007]

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...

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[loco]

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.

[Agnostic007]

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.

[loco]

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.

[Man of Steel]

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.

[Skeletor]

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".

[avxo]

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.

[loco]

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, Español, Greek, etc.) are.  

[Skeletor]

No, but human languages(English, Español, Greek, etc.) are.  

So the "word of god" is divine but human languages cannot express it accurately?

[avxo]

No, but human languages(English, Español, 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.

[Agnostic007]

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,,,

[OzmO]

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

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[avxo]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[OzmO]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[avxo]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

[avxo]

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...

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[avxo]

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.

[loco]

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.