|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is man inherently good or inherently evil? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
dpardo Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes: "Instead, the question put to you is why is god judging? What is the result of the judgement? Is god going to give you a car? What is the point of the judgement? If god judges you and doesn't find you wanting, what do you get? It's a very simple question. I wish you would answer it directly?" Hi Rrhain (I feel as if I know you, somewhat), Let's look at the passage in question again:
1 Peter 1:17: And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: I interpret this verse to mean: "And if you call on God, who is impartial, pass the time of your stay here in fear." Removing the term "judgeth" and paraphrasing, it is easier for me to show you how I am viewing this particular verse. In the subsequent verses, Peter goes on to state that we are redeemed (saved) with the blood of Christ. This seems to be in agreement with Paul's preaching. To answer your other question of: "...why is God judging?" God is constantly "judging" because he is constantly evaluating the behavior of people. Again, this judging is not always regarding salvation. He can "judge" (evaluate) a saved person's actions simply to bless him or chasten him. He will ultimately judge everyone, at some point, to determine their eternal destiny. The people that accepted his offer of grace through Jesus Christ will not be judged to determine their salvation. They are redeemed, as Peter put it, through the blood of Jesus. Those people that knowingly rejected God's offer of grace, will perish. The other group of people, that had only limited knowledge of God, he will judge on a case by case basis, IMO. Psalm 98:9 reads:
...for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1269 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: You believe you have done things "wrong" though right. THings not morally sound? -porcelain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
yes - still not a sin and those don't magic your jesus guy into existance.
I'm always up for things that are morally unsound - well as long as their husbands are out. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-29-2004 07:22 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1269 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: That is the concept of sin and I never said it would "magic my jesus guy into existence". Although historians agree in the existence of a Jesus Christ. Just a brief study of history could help you come to that conclusion. This message has been edited by CHRIS PORTEUS jr, 09-29-2004 07:36 PM -porcelain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
so anything I think is morally wrong is a sin?
I think being a christian is morally wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1269 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: Not what I said.
quote: Why do you think that. "being" anything can't be morally wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I say to Rrhain:
Of course, which God are we talking about?
Whereupon he responds:Rrhain writes: I know that the Christian one is the one that exists. My question to you is mean't to challenge your god concept or lack thereof. You can't claim to be atheist and then just "make up" a god concept without being challenged to answer the question of where your concept came from. My God has been written about, discussed, and experienced by many people throughout History. Even if this in and of itself does not prove my God to you, it explains His origin through humanity. So what about your "god"? Did you make him up to put me in check? Sorry, but that's my question to you.You didn't really think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you? -------------------------- Charles Knight writes:
For the sake of discussion, why do you think this, Charles? I think being a christian is morally wrong. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-30-2004 03:01 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Well actually I don't - but if a sin is what I think is morally wrong, then I could,no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Getting back to our topic of whether man is inherently good or evil, I thought I would post a parable and ask for comments. Don't try to intellectualize it or look up commentaries on it. I just want you all to tell me what you think,ok? Here is the parable:
NIVMatt 20:1-15 writes:
How many of you agree with the workers who were hired first? When I first read this, I did! It would be like being at a job for fifteen years and having a new hire come in with no more knowledge and make the same wage that you make! "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. "About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' So they went. "He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'"'Because no one has hired us,' they answered. "He said to them,'You also go and work in my vineyard.'"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.' "The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner.'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.' "But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?' What does this parable mean to you? This message has been edited by Phatboy, 10-01-2004 10:35 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Ah, the diference between fairness and contract law.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What does this parable mean to you? That the path to heaven is not faith, but works. Seriously, though, the reason that the employer is wrong is because he's a liar:
quote: But then:
quote: He didn't pay them what was right, he paid them what he wanted to pay them, and tried to claim that that was right. Nobody gets to decide for others what is right and wrong. I see this as a powerful parable of how the employer will try to screw his workforce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Crashfrog, why was the employer unfair?
1)To those whom he said would receive "what is right" he paid them the same as everyone else. The ones who complained were the first hired ones who agreed to work for a denarius. The ones hired mid day who were to be paid "what is right" were also paid a denarius.The wage was agreed upon initially and the only reason for the first ones complaining was because of what everyone else got--not because they were underpaid but, in their own thinking, because they were under respected. In this case, however, the employer never lied. The ones wh were told that they would receive what is right did not complain. Obviously, the last ones who worked for an hour did not complain. The issue is between the employer and the first guys hired. So what is the justification for judging the employer? It would be the same if you, Crashfrog, were working as a senior desk clerk at a large Hotel. After years of experience, you made a decent wage of $16.00 an hour. This wage was acceptable for you--you considered it a fair wage. One day, the Hotel hires two new clerks with no experience. The Hotel decides to pay them $16.00 an hour. What is your beef? This message has been edited by Phatboy, 10-01-2004 12:56 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
To those whom he said would receive "what is right" he paid them the same as everyone else. Yes. That's not right.
It would be the same if you, Crashfrog, were working as a senior desk clerk at a large Hotel. After years of experience, you made a decent wage of $16.00 an hour. This wage was acceptable for you--you considered it a fair wage. One day, the Hotel hires two new clerks with no experience. The Hotel decides to pay them $16.00 an hour. Let me tell you what actually happened. I was the senior desk clerk at a midscale hotel, making 8.25 an hour. I was promised a raise after 3 months. I worked there for a year with no raise whatsoever. As I prepared to leave to move here to MO, they had me train my replacement. This was a substantial increase in my duties, but I recieved no additional pay. I found out later that they hired the trainee at $11 an hour. Does that sound fair to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Crashfrog, your situation was unfair ONLY in that you were promised a raise which you never received. The new hire, presumeably, was hired with that raise instead. That is unfair. In the case of our parable, however, the ones who were paid "what is right" were hired mid day and were paid as much as the ones hired at the start of the day and the ones hired at the end of the day. Note:
If you had agreed to work for $8.25 an hour and were never promised a raise, then had a new trainee come in and make $8.25 also, you might still resent having to train them, but would the resentment be any less? Your situation was unfair only because you did not receive what was promised and someone else did. You were being paid by the hour, however. What if you worked at the rate of $100.00 a day. You gladly signed the papers for this opportunity. You started at 8 a.m. Another employee starts at 10:00 a.m. Still another starts at 3 p.m. On payday, you happen to see their checks. They also receive $100.00 a day! The rate that you were pleased to accept initially seemed fair then, but is now unfair when compared to other people. WHY? 1) They do less work. Well, I work at Safeway. If some new guy was hired and made twice as much as me, what do I care? Am I in control of the company money? 2) They effectively make more per hour. (see #1) 3) You feel as if you are not shown respect. Yet you are still being paid what you once thought was fair. Comments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That is unfair. In the case of our parable, however, the ones who were paid "what is right" were hired mid day and were paid as much as the ones hired at the start of the day and the ones hired at the end of the day. Suppose you and your black friend go to the store. You see a sign that says "bananas, $1 a bunch for white people, $10 a bunch for black people." Do you think that's fair? To make your black friend pay ten times more? Even though that's plainly advertised? In America, we call that "racism". The first workers were made to work 4 times as long for the same wage. That's discriminatory and unfair. It doesn't matter that the unfairness was presented up front.
Everyone received the same wage. No, they weren't. The last group was paid .5 per hour. The first group was paid .125 per hour. That's not the same wage at all. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-01-2004 05:18 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024