|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Here be my problem with "God" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Irish Rockhound writes: And it it great to have choices! It is one thing to define right and wrong as they are. It is another thing to define right and wrong as one sees them. It is still another thing to step out of the definition of right and wrong and go from there. To some, position is entirely relative to the individual. To others, position is position as they know it. To still others, position is something they do not choose to place or be placed. Out of curiousity, Irish...which god do you worship?
I don't worship the Christian god, so whether he or his followers think I'm a sinner means very little to me. As far as I'm concerned, sin is just something made up by Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Hi, godsmac:
If bad deeds kept us out, no one, repeat NO ONE, would ever get in. We're all guilty of sin in some degree. What do you do with Rom 2:6-8, especially the part where it says that those who patiently continue to do good will reap glory, honor, and immortality? Also, what about 2 Pet 1:9,10, where it says "if you do these things you shall never fall, for so an entrance shall be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ"? And then there's Paul's statement in Galatians 6, "Do not grow weary in doing good, for in due season you will reap, if you do not lose heart." The context, from the previous verse, shows that he's talking about reaping eternal life, and that from "doing good"!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
The fundamentalists have us on this one, too. It's not smooth for a reason: To get us to study the Bible for all our lives (seek) and still not fully learn everything! And, of course, who are you to proclaim you know what God intended by including/excluding/obfuscating verses? Look who's talking! By the way, how do the fundamentalists know this? I'll tell you how, the same way they know everything. They say so! Worse yet, you say so with them, so you might as well be a fundamentalist yourself, having abandoned reason and clear thinking along with them.
The puzzling thing to me is that some people will put a lot of faith into third party testimony that was written many years (up to 60?) after the event by unconfirmed authors. Oh my God! Do you read your own posts????? How about putting complete faith and stock in an untenable interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16 put out by third party testimony 2000 years after the event, which is what you have done????
And, on the basis of that, believe what is written over evidence to the contrary. And you say you're not a fundy, but an agnostic. You'll forgive me if I don't believe you. Actually, you should be grateful I don't believe you, because I'd have a much lower opinion of an agnostic who believes the fundies and acts like them than I would of the fundies themselves, whose mindset I understand, because I was one. Hey, Ned, have we ever started a thread for worst posts ever? I have one to nominate! Oh, sorry, I guess I'm being insulting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: However, evolution also enourages altruism. Evolution encourages doing things that benefit the group to one's own detriment. Humans evolves to be very social creatures. It makes sense that altruistic tendencies would be written on our genes by evolution as well as individualistic tendencies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
However, evolution also enourages altruism. Well, I can't argue with your point here. Actually, my quote sounded really awful to me pulled out of the context of my post. I was trying to make the point that I think the fight with "sin nature" that is in the Scriptures is a fight with the body's desires. Living in love means setting aside your own desires for the sake of another person or persons (or God). I don't think the paragraph you quoted was very well said. It was a little embarrassing reading it and realizing it was mine. I wish I had simply said that I believe the "sin nature" is "the flesh" or "the body," as the Scriptures put it, not some nature separate from us that can be removed. It was probably my sin nature that made me write it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Phatboy writes: Sin by definition is any thought that exalts itself above the living God. Given that there is no evidence that there is a living god, this definition is meaningless. I might as well define sin as anything that exalts itself abive the divine funckle, it has just as much meaning. Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it. - Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I said earlier that Sin by definition is any thought that exalts itself above the living God.
compmage writes: OK. I will clarify. To me, sin means separation. Starting your own flow rather than going with the flow. Doing things the way you want and not the way your Daddy says you should. What does sin mean to you?
this definition is meaningless. I might as well define sin as anything that exalts itself abive the divine funckle, it has just as much meaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4436 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
quote: Same thing. Morality is always relative; what one person considers wrong will certainly differ from another person's perspective. I don't like the way that certain acts are defined as 'sins', and if I do them then I am a 'sinner', as if a priest has the last word on my moral compass. I follow my own morality, so the terms are largely meaningless to me.
quote: I'm not talking about it. The Rock Hound
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Phatboy writes: Starting your own flow rather than going with the flow. Doing things the way you want and not the way your Daddy says you should. So if society or your father condones or encourages rape and murder you would find these things acceptable?
Phatboy writes: What does sin mean to you? To me, nothing much. It is a term some thiests use to describe the actions they don't want me, or anyone else, to perform. Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it. - Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ThingsChange Member (Idle past 5926 days) Posts: 315 From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony) Joined: |
compmage writes: So if society or your father condones or encourages rape and murder you would find these things acceptable? compmage writes: (in reply to Phatboy's question of "What does sin mean to you?") To me, nothing much. It is a term some thiests use to describe the actions they don't want me, or anyone else, to perform. Your first and second statements seem contradictory, but I think I understand what you mean (i.e. semantics of the term). As an agnostic, I have to admit that moral standards are a bit of a puzzle for me, since without an absolute standard (such as a document like the Bible or Quran or Mormon book), we are left with personal opinions and a voting booth ... at least in our country ... so far. As for me, I get less liberal as I age (in proportion to hair length... and quantity). From where I see things going, it looks like moral standards evolve over time in Western civilization, and time will tell if that is a successful "organism" in the global competitive/political world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wertbag Inactive Member |
Personnally I always perfered the idea of judgement at the pearly gates, some saint or angel looks up your life in the big book and says yes or no. Of course I don't believe this is the case, just more logical than the alternatives given.
As for Jesus dying for our sins it makes no sense. God and Christ are one and the same, so its God killing himself as a sacrifice to himself to remove sin which we could already be saved from prior to the NT? God kills himself to free us from sin he created? There was sin before and after, so the event didn't physically change the human race. God is all powerful so he had no need to kill yet another innocent to allow access to heaven. The other thing mentioned was complete belief in the Bible regardless of the problems presented therein. Apart from the fact it was written thousands of years ago, translated through several langauges into several versions, with accepted errors, with the majority of stories not being first hand accounts (in fact most were not written down until centuries after the events described) and with no way to know the authors (and what their motives, mistakes and goals were). There are still large numbers of things that simply don't make sense (The global flood, creation theory, most of the miracles etc). Then there are the large number of stories which we can now answer based on modern knowledge (Tower of Babel hit by lightning, natural event don't need to blame God. Sodom built in volcanic crater, of course its gonna rain fire and brimstone).There are the claims that haven't happened (years of man being 120 yet the oldest person alive is older than this, Christ will return "soon" yet 2000 years later still no sign, rise of anti-christ yet no sign of him etc). Its hard to understand even for people who spend their lives researching it. Its still hotly debated by the very people it is meant to guide. And there appears to be no way to tell which sections are literal, which are historical accounts and which are moral stories. How can you base your life on this book? personnaly I require a much more stable platform for my beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
How can you base your life on this book? personnaly I require a much more stable platform for my beliefs. Me, too.
years of man being 120 yet the oldest person alive is older than this While I agree with your overall point, this illustration of it seems awfully picky. The oldest person ever, according to the Guiness Book of World Records, was only 122 last year, and most Christians (not that I accept their interpretation, but I'm just pointing out it's open to interpretation) consider that statement to mean that there was 120 years left for man until the flood came. They say it took Noah 120 years to build the ark. (Like I said, I don't agree with that interpretation, but from my experience as a literalist and with literalists since, that's the more common interpretation.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wertbag Inactive Member |
It is certainly a minor point, but even that leads to all sorts of problems. The quote "and all years of man would be 120", yet it can't mean ages in the Bible or ages nowdays. True not many people pass that age but it does happen so it can't be related to that (or maybe in ancient days when the life expectancy was 40 it was just considered an impossible target?).
But as you say it could be considered to be the time between adam and eve leaving the garden and Noahs flood. Although I'm not sure the timeline matches (Noah didn't start building on the day adam left eden, which means it wasn't exactly 120 years since god made the statement). And if all the days of man were 120, yet mankind survived, then it was at least badly written (eg not clear on the true meaning). And if we start on the idea that its the time it took Noah to build the Ark we come across all sorts of problems that way. Mainly the ridiculous ages of the people, or the age of the boat. Its certainly only a minor point of my initial rant, but that single point leads to numerous problems no matter which way its looked at.And with this much confusion over even simple statements how can we accept anything claimed? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
ThingsChange writes: Your first and second statements seem contradictory, but I think I understand what you mean (i.e. semantics of the term). Except that the first was a question and not a statement. The question was, however, asked in the hope of getting Phatboy to see that his definition for sin could result in actions I'm fairly sure he considers sinful, instead being the norm and therefore not sinful (by his definition).
ThingsChange writes: From where I see things going, it looks like moral standards evolve over time in Western civilization, and time will tell if that is a successful "organism" in the global competitive/political world. Morals have always evolved. They are a collection of values and stardards of behaviur that society as a whole finds acceptble. As society changes, so does its morals. Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it. - Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smitty500 Inactive Member |
Compmage
You say as "Society changes so do morals" This is obviously true in some respects. However look at this circumstance. For instance say you were a guard at a holocaust prison in Germany. Obviously it was status quo to hate Jews, or at least this can be inferred from the circumstances. Therefore the German society says its ok to hate Jews. Yet after the war was won, we put this guard on trial for inhuman acts of genocide in the Nuremburg trials. Which society's moral code should be observed here? It's kinda shady isn't it. You could say that sure the world moral code should have been observed but then it just says that the guy with the biggest stick should impose moral order. (I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the guy should have been disciplined for his acts of genocide. I detest the holocaust but am just trying to point out that relative morality is so hard to determine it's pointless.) God Bless
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024