|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: lostclimate]
#105075
01/20/07 19:24
01/20/07 19:24
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Quote:
I don't understand why WE should receive the same punishment for something we didn't do!
Cheers
I did not say it is right , did I ?
I said that the original sin is a milestone of the Christian teology both Catholic and Protestant
I dont know wether other religions have something similar
Obviusly you can accept or refuse it but nobody can declare himself a Christian if he does not beleive in it
"By lack of God's presence, I wasn't speaking of any physical presence in a strict sense. Its a lack of fellowship in the light of something like a lord-vassal relationship. "
... and the question is :
Why did the Lord leave vassal alone ?
I suppose bcause the vassal offended the Lord
Not for eating an apple , of course th eapple must not be understood literally
" eve did it first, and then convinced adam to "
exactly and the Lord said
" and your desire shall be toward your husband; and he shall rule over you."
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PHeMoX]
#105076
01/20/07 19:30
01/20/07 19:30
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
That's exactly my point. I was talking about the illogic and unfairness of exactly this and you replied with a comment about the original sin. I don't understand why WE should receive the same punishment for something we didn't do! It was Adam, right? Well, why did God punish Eve too? Why did he punish us by making us mortal? It's not fair and it's based on illogic. That was my point.
I understand your point, the disobedience of eating an apple seems hardly worth the consequence of mortality for Adam and all his children. Im sure I couldnt change any minds about this seemingly unfair situation but let me at least explain the reasons why I accept it as fair punishment.
1)First of all fairness itself is relative.
If I was to say that it is a far trip to Europe from my house most people would agree, however, it is not very far at all compared to the distance to the sun from here. And even that distance is not far compared to the distance across our galaxy. And here I am not trying to compare "fairness" with "farness" but I am instead concentrating on the principle of relativity and frame of reference.
It could be said that farness(distance) doesnt even exist in the light of infinite space. So therefore we understand that the concept of distance has to have a frame of reference. You are comparing fairness merely by your own frame of reference. While God created us in His image, this does not mean to say that we share the same moral frame of reference. Sure eating an apple is no big sin if your using your own behavior as a frame of reference, but how would you have any concept of the "moral frame of reference" which God uses?
It is my belief that God is so perfect that any sin at all represents a complete perversion. The original garden of Eden was a Utopia based on perfection. Perfection is the default, original state of humanity. Therefore any infraction of that perfection is a complete failure.
As for why the punishment was passed down to all generations is simple. Sin brought the curse to Adam who was made of the dust of the earth, (a long explanation) but to make it short sin tainted the blood of Adam. Now that blood gets passed down to every child, therefore every child is born with the "infected" blood.
It is like Heaven is a great clean sterile room. While we might not see our sins as great, we also must realise that our virus would not be able to exist in the same heavenly atmosphere. This is the same reason why Moses had to hide his face from looking directly at a part of God. Our eyes are simply not powerful enough to look at the brightness of the sun. It is not that the sun is our enemy, its just much too bright and hot for us to come close to. I imagine that God is much like the sun in that respect.
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: AlbertoT]
#105078
01/20/07 19:47
01/20/07 19:47
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Nitro's answer is perfect, in my opinion
From a theological point of view, of course
It is exactly what I meant
Thanks AlbertoT, maybe my answers are getting better now that I have had so much practice debating here for the last three years. 
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: lostclimate]
#105079
01/20/07 20:33
01/20/07 20:33
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Last time OT (I think); Quote:
eve did it first, and then convinced adam to
Okey, but a snake convinced Eve right? And the snake supposedly was part of Eden and part of this perfection. So where exactly did it go wrong? It really was God himself causing it, he should be blamed instead. If he exists like we had assumed for a moment, He's definately responsible for the chain of reactions.
Blame the parents when a child is behaving bad, they should have taught them better.
Anyways, my frame of reference is indeed different and yes unfairness is relative. But I thought my conclusion was quite objective. If God gives us choice and we make a choice, don't blame us the very first time we make a bad choice. Yes, he supposedly warned us, but then again he also supposedly is the one who gave us free will.
It's like giving children fire matches and say they can only hold them and look at them and they are not allowed to play with it. Sooner or later things will go wrong.
Besides, let's not dwell away from my main point here, death through the effects of an earthquake (can be a very painful and slow death) or dead through aging is a huge difference. You can't justify those two ways of dying with the same arguments if you're fair and just. I wasn't quite stating it was wrong to kill, just based upon odd logic and unfairness from my point of view. (how do you know wether or not God's frame of reference isn't equal? didn't he create us in him image? well, unless we're not created entirely in his image, we should have a pretty good idea of his basic ways of reasoning, since it would be very similar to our own ways.
All in all these parts of the bible make little sense to me, but yes my frame of reference might be different indeed. But different isn't always wrong.
(It's difficult and my initial point of view may be very different compared to the theologic view, but I'm really trying to approach this unbiased something I've tried to explain through my choice of arguments.)
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PHeMoX]
#105080
01/21/07 06:15
01/21/07 06:15
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,305
New York
PrenceOfDarkness
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,305
New York
|
@Nitro No offence bro but I hated reading everything you posted. Until your very last post. It was a great answer, and perfect explanation. I just wanted to let you know how great of a job you did on that last post, and to thank you for that point of view. Quote:
Okey, but a snake convinced Eve right? And the snake supposedly was part of Eden and part of this perfection. So where exactly did it go wrong? It really was God himself causing it, he should be blamed instead. If he exists like we had assumed for a moment, He's definately responsible for the chain of reactions.
Blame the parents when a child is behaving bad, they should have taught them better.
@PHeMoX
Thats a very common atheist thing to say, yet at the same time alot of atheist also wouldn't put the parents of a "failed" offspring in jail. I mean how could you? Say you steal, it's your mother and father's fault from your point of view. Then again, it must be your parent's parents fault for failing to teach them how to raise kids, and so forth and so forth.
As far as us being blamed for Adam's flaw, all of us are supposedly part of Adam, and I guess in a way part of god as well since we are his creation. See my friends, I've been caught between believer and non-believer for about the last 6 months, and it really sent me into a deep depression. During this time I had a lot of family/school/work problems because of this. So for a very long time, LITERALLY every moment while I was concuss I would be thinking about what if their is no god. This led me to write a logical list of why god must exist, on the back of the list was a list of why god doesn't exist. It started as an assignment for one of my courses, but I took it way beyond that point. Now normally I don't like to talk about my personal life (like the crap i mentioned above) because I never feel it's important, but since this part of the forum is made for just talking I'll give you a small break down below.
Reasons why God Doesn't Exist:
1)Why would their be life after death? It makes no sense to end something that your going to continue.
2)According to sociologist the functionalist theory states (dumbed down version) that if something doesn't have a function it will either wither away or not exist in the first place. Meaning, there is no real need in this reality for an after life (AKA heaven). If Timmy doesn't get his action figure; isn't happy; doesn't go to heaven (to be happy forever), will life end on earth? No.
3)In reference to functionalist theory once more, there is no need for a God that doesn't do anything. Further note: NO GOD = NO HEAVEN.
4)God is a result of ignorance. Reference: In the past when woman would seemingly self procreate (give birth; the only thing people ever heard of that could create it's self was gods) woman were worshiped as Gods. Since our ignorance couldn't explain we (men) had sex with them and they became pregnant, and 9 long month later had a baby that didn't even have just their DNA, we assumed the only possibility was they were gods. (lol, my research has proven woman are indeed NOT gods, i know this might come as a shock if your girlfriend is a lot like mine lol)
The above arguments scored me an A- in my debate class. The 2nd part of my project was to argue the opposite side of the argument. And I earned an A with just 1 simple reason. My Professor was an atheist and told me he had never heard of or though of the following argument. I guess it also proves it's not how much you put on paper but more about what it says. Infact my reason below is based on science, that's why he loved it so much. Science is sometimes though of as the anti god. Evey thing in the bible science uses against god. But he thought I came up with something science said to actually prove that science might be wrong.
Only Logical Reason For a God:
1) One law of Physics states simply that matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed. And well that's just it!!! Look around you, EVERYTHING is made up of energy and matter, which can't be created nor destroyed, yet it still exists. I know I didn't make it, was it any of yous? There for finally After a very short essay my conclusion stated the only plausible explanation i have ever heard of for the creation of energy and matter that could offset this science law was that a supreme being has created it (I have infact heard of string theory @JCL, and I don't know if you ever heard of M theory which is the modern conclusion to string theory, but it would mean that membrains in the multi-verse would have had to also be created by something).
"There is no problem that can't be solved with time and determination." -me
prenceofdarkness for instant messages on AIM.
Looking for a model designer
PLEASE, SEND ME A PRIVATE MESSAGE OR EMAIL IF YOU'RE INTERESTED.
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PrenceOfDarkness]
#105081
01/21/07 06:26
01/21/07 06:26
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,771
Bay City, MI
lostclimate
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,771
Bay City, MI
|
Quote:
It's like giving children fire matches and say they can only hold them and look at them and they are not allowed to play with it. Sooner or later things will go wrong.
god didnt give us free will just to tempt us for the fun of it, he gave us free will because:
1. We then have no right to say we were forced into anything, we were given a choice.
2. To test our faith, to make it known that we will try not to sin whether we have a choice or not (like the first time a parent lets there child stay out late)
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: NITRO777]
#105082
01/21/07 13:12
01/21/07 13:12
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
I have infact heard of string theory @JCL, and I don't know if you ever heard of M theory which is the modern conclusion to string theory, but it would mean that membrains in the multi-verse would have had to also be created by something
I assume you refer to Gabriele Veneziano's theory. According to him the Big Bang was caused by the collision and penetration of 11-dimensional branes. Those branes were not created, their existence is just a consequence of string theory. Of course, you can now ask "Who created string theory?".
However, it's a myth that a law of physics prevents the creation or destruction of matter or energy. There is no such general law; energy conservation only applies to specific situations, and is violated for instance by the expansion of the universe, or by the uncertainty principle.
Quote:
You are comparing fairness merely by your own frame of reference. While God created us in His image, this does not mean to say that we share the same moral frame of reference. Sure eating an apple is no big sin if your using your own behavior as a frame of reference, but how would you have any concept of the "moral frame of reference" which God uses?
This is certainly correct. I agree that it completely explains all acts that God commits. God just uses his own moral frame of reference. His moral standards are just different from ours, so who are we to consider our moral system more relevant than God's?
However, does the mere fact that God's acts don't violate his own moral standards already justify them?
Are fairness and morale totally relative and just depend on a frame of reference?
If it were so, we also could just kill anyone when he deserved it according to our personal understanding of fairness and morale. Saddam was justified to kill people. He considered himself so powerful and perfect that even small disobediences against him had to be answered with death.
Nevertheless, we consider Saddam's acts unjust and crimes.
I am aware that many fundamentalists believe in moral relativity and consider everything that God does justified just because he's God. However this way of thinking would also justify the crimes of a Nero, Hitler, or Saddam. None of them violated their own moral standards. This is why dictators often love fundamentalists and hate atheist freethinkers.
Atheists (and also most Christians in Europe) believe that fairness and ethics are not relative and replaceable. Sure, it might depend on the society you live in whether for instance homosexuality is a crime or not. But every society - religious or not - has the same fundamental understanding of fairness. In every society, it is normally considered wrong to kill people for something they haven't done, or to kill innocent women and children. This "frame of reference" does not depend on the society you live in. It's in your genes. It developed during evolution. People who did not share that fundamental fairness concept could not well get along and live together with others. This was a survival disadvantage and eventually led to their extinction - except if they were gods.
It is one of the ugly sides of fundamentalism - and one of the reasons why fundamentalism, in my opinion, is not a harmless folly - that it tends to distort the moral frame of reference that is natural and common to all humans. If you begin to justify God's crimes, you end up with also justifying men's crimes. This was the reason for all the crimes and atrocities committed by fundamentalists in the name of their god.
And for this reason such institutions as the ICC exist. Their principle is that to some extent fairness, justice and ethics are not relative, but absolute values. Killing innocents is always wrong, regardless of whether a dictator makes a law that allows that for him. It would also be wrong for extraterrestrials, and even for gods.
This is why God is still standing before the court and his lawyer knows that claiming total relativity of fairness and morale would not be a good defense.
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PrenceOfDarkness]
#105083
01/21/07 19:37
01/21/07 19:37
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Killing innocents is always wrong, regardless of whether a dictator makes a law that allows that for him. It would also be wrong for extraterrestrials, and even for gods.
This is why God is still standing before the court and his lawyer knows that claiming total relativity of fairness and morale would not be a good defense.
All in all after some more thinking, I don't think many lawyers would like to defend God. Can God prove that those who have been killed by him were infact guilty? If not, then he's got a problem no matter which defense strategy.
OT:
Quote:
Why would their be life after death? It makes no sense to end something that your going to continue.
That's right. Some would argue that if something doesn't make sense it doesn't have to be wrong. Still, in my opinion that's just evidence for the fact that our knowledge about it is lacking and thus is makes no sense, eventhough with the right knowledge it probably makes sense. So all in all, this is still a two-way argument, not conclusive in favor of no God.
Quote:
functionalists theory
Yeah, but again, if you don't understand the function or can't see it, what proves it's not there? Infact, 'no god = no heaven' is not really an argument, since it's an assumption about the correlation between two unknown things, possibly but not necessarily linked together.
Quote:
One law of Physics states simply that matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed.
Independant of the exact content and accuracy of this theory, it could always be wrong on some points or incomplete to some extent. That's why some religious people totally agree with science, but always say that before all that science can determine, there was God and his actions.
My point of this all? You can phylosophize all you wish, but you a.) will never come to a solid conclusion and b.) can't prove anything with just logic when it comes to religion.
It's good thing to think about it like this though, but based on your notes which 'argument' weighs the most for you? You see, in the end it's more of a choice when you approach the subject your way. However if you stretch your approach a bit further you will undoubtably come to a point where you ask yoursef "hey, but wait a minute, don't we need evidence for ánything to be proven as true?". And thát's where the réal argument is.
Quote:
Thats a very common atheist thing to say, yet at the same time alot of atheist also wouldn't put the parents of a "failed" offspring in jail. I mean how could you? Say you steal, it's your mother and father's fault from your point of view.
You're mixing up two things. The things we shóuld do and the things we dón't do. I can't help it that a lot of irresponsible parents get away with it.
If someone teaches you that stealing is right, then that teacher is wrong. If someone doesn't teach you stealing is nót right, then that teacher is wrong too. You can blame the parents a lack of guidance here. Depending on the child's age, his parents could definately be held accountable and get a punishment. To be honest with you I think in this case theists are moreso the ones who often do no agree with this.
If my child does terrible things while I'm still responsible for him or her, I will definately have no problem taking the blame or punishment for it, if I'm the one who's to blame. At a certain point children/adults will become responsible for their own acts off course, but not when they are 12 or something.
Quote:
Then again, it must be your parent's parents fault for failing to teach them how to raise kids
If you grow up and your parent teaches you everything correctly, you will know how a good childhood should be and will lateron teach according to your own experience. Nobody tells you how to rais a child, this is something that comes quite natural when you've had a good childhood yourself. I'm not saying every parent can actually properly raise children, but with the right experience people should.
You know how many times I've read in a paper 'yeah, supposedly he had a very bad childhood and that's why he did all those horrible things'? Well, each time the parents are the ones who could have influenced it to be more positive. (wealth is not the problem here by the way, but lack of food could be though, but what responsible parent takes children if they can't feed them?! Again parents are to blame.)
To become a criminal there's a bit more too it, than simply have a bad childhood off course, bad friends and a bad environment all influence this. Hence it's a somewhat complicated issue as far as whére the parent's responsibility ends, however if there's óne thing that counts a LOT when it comes to what people will be like when they are older then it's their childhood...
Quote:
god didnt give us free will just to tempt us for the fun of it, he gave us free will because:
Don't know about you, but a.) I've never heard God explain this 'gift' to anyone and b.) he didn't ask me if I wanted it in the first place. So we didn't really have a choice when it comes to receiving free will.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PHeMoX]
#105084
01/22/07 10:44
01/22/07 10:44
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
William
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
|
Whether earthquake deaths are caused/influenced by God or not, it's a part of life. You never know if you'll go early. If you have beliefs in God and the afterlife, your usually not too worried about death. If you dont, you constantly question death, and try to blame it on someone(like God). That's basically what this thread boils down to, people worried about death, possibly sparked by Saddam Hussiens execution. I only hope in your ridicule you'll find the answers your looking for.
I think God just judges each of individually when we die, if your young(child) obviously theres not much to judge. So thats what it comes down to really, you never know when you'll die, and hopefully you'll have accepted God and have faith when you do. As for God acting as Judge, when he looks into our hearts, I have no idea how he would hold us accountable for the bad things we've done, but I guarantee it will be just(take into account family you were raised in, when you died, ect.).
I hope this thread wont go on for many pages of runaround, sometimes we just need to accept the fact that we wont know everything, and we don't know exactly how God works. The whole "God Vs. Court" is nonsense, especially coming from an Atheist. How can an Atheist ridicule someone they don't believe exists? That in itself is a bit odd. The funny thing is that a lot of the questions floating around this forum have already been answered by the bible. I'd recommend everyone looking there first and then draw your conclusions. Don't base your conclusions off internet websites, usually these websites articles are already biased by the authors own conclusions.
|
|
|
|
