main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

The merits of religion

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by poor yorick, Oct 20, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jingle_Phelps

    Jingle_Phelps Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Dec 11, 2002
    God knew that we'd destroy ourselves with nukes long before the damage due to recycling takes hold.

    You big silly.
     
  2. Dark Jedi Tam

    Dark Jedi Tam Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 12, 2000
    Religion also can give people hope. Let?s say you broke your leg on a hike in the woods. Do you want to panic with no hope, or do you want to say "God will give me strength," get up, and limp your way out? Again, I personally believe it is better to have faith in you, and say "I can do it!" but the end result is still the same.

    I don't particularly agree because you assume that someone without a belief system is just going to curl into a ball and give up. You don't need to believe in God to pull yourself out of a dangerous or despairing event. Hope can certainly be a motivator (you hope to see your family again for instance or you hope to find someone who can offer assistance) but, in the case of your example, I attribute that as the will to survive.
     
  3. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Fire_Ice_Death:

    The article you quote and support, "The Decline of Religion," is... how should I put this? It's fodder for only those who blindly hate religion.

    While it grants that many churches wrongly upheld slavery, it ignores the fact that other churches opposed it. Yet, it brings up the prohibition movement as proof that you can't legislate morality. In other words, it demonstrates selective amnesia when it comes to Christians and their movements for reform, noticing only those movements that failed.

    It's incoherent on the issue of crime. It makes the fallacious case that a lack of crime would destroy the economy...

    (It's an idiotic assertion: every crime is either neutral or hurtful to the economy. Every destruction of property, including criminal destruction, HURTS the economy: the business owner who has to replace a broken window loses the opportunity to spend that money elsewhere. Certainly, less crime would mean fewer cops, but these men and women would not be unemployed indefinitely. They would find other jobs, many of which would be in sectors that - unlike crime - actually improve the economy, like agriculture and industry. The standard of living WOULD improve.)

    ...then it suggests that it's churchgoers who commit all the crimes. Moronically, this argument suggests that if the church was more successful in keeping its members from committing crimes, they would be guilty of trying to destroy the economy!

    On "alternative religions," the author asserts that over two-thirds of the US aren't practicing churchgoers. That may well be true, but look at how he reaches that figure. There are about 210 million adults in this country, so two-thirds is roughly 140 million people. He asserts:

    - 19 million belong to fringe sects.
    - 10 million are atheists and other so-called "freethinkers."
    - The rest are "all those who profess a religion but do not practice it."

    For his numbers to work, this last number must be in the neighborhood of 110 million people. On what does he base this number? He doesn't say.

    He brings up the ubiquitous nature of homosexuality, divorce, and pornography, all of which may well indicate a decline in the influence of the church, but I notice he ignores the rise of child pornography. Is it not possible that there are actually BAD effects of the so-called Enlightenment?

    On the issue of war, his selective amnesia kicks in again, ignoring the Soviet Union's assault on Afghanistan to assert that ALL who started unjust wars were deeply religious.

    He asserts that "9 out of 10 will admit that they masturbate, and the 10th is a liar," an amusing joke, but most people don't use jokes as statistics.

    He asserts that "If Jesus came back to day, He'd have a hissy fit" over poverty. This ignores the fact that Jesus taught that the poor would always be around (Matt. 26:11, Mark 14:7, Luke 21:3), but one wonders why this is some sort of indictment of the declining church: after all, it does teach charity to the poor. Shouldn't the blame be laid at the feet of the "freethinkers" who's been so successful in propagating porn and gambling? Why haven't they spread prosperity?

    He concludes that religion is "thoughtless, rote, and automatic." But does that not apply to those who accept this article as well written?

    You criticize the religious for "blindly" accepting the Bible (regardless of how thoroughly we've studied the book), associate yourself with freethinking, and praise THIS?
     
  4. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Yes, while it may have 'selective amnesia' it's to make a point. An argument doesn't need to have all the facts, it's supposed to support a side of the argument. They stated their case, their arguments, and what they believe. I'd say it's pretty well-written for something on the 'net. Also if you'll look at the polls about religion the first one has two questions at the end which are quite true. For the most part I agree with it even if you don't. And I don't particularly like religion. I might also add that a lot of my family are very religious and one of my family members was a preacher. Obviously I'm a freak in my family since I need to question their faith. ;)
     
  5. Red-Seven

    Red-Seven Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 1999
    Yes, while it may have 'selective amnesia' it's to make a point. An argument doesn't need to have all the facts, it's supposed to support a side of the argument.


    Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Micheal Moore himself! Welcome!


    FID, I make the comparison, in that he also uses polemics and invented/incorrect/fuzzy 'facts' to make his side of the argument. Willfully using 'selective amnesia' or making an argument without acknowledging known facts is a dodge, and just undermines credibility.

    In my book, at least. But, I suppose I am being idealistic in hoping that people are more concerned with truth and objectivity and open discourse, than with slurs and untruthful arguements in order to have 'their' side win.
     
  6. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Oh why thank you. I think you'd know better than to compare to that very bad man, apparently you don't.
     
  7. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Enforcer, you have some very legitimate questions:

    Why did the Christian God make us ignorant? I mean, it was not until we defied him and ate from the tree of knowledge before we had any brains, so why does/did God want to keep us ignorant? God was IMHO limiting us by saying we could not eat from the tree. At least the snake gave us a choice. And if we were not ignorant/stupid, then we could have made the right choice!

    I agree with Jingle_Phelps here in that the sin wasn't knowldege in general. Knowledge is a good thing, and the pursuit of knowledge is, in itself, NOT a sin - despite the fact that the Church hasn't always been on the right side of this issue.

    A core Biblical belief is that God is just: if man was not smart enough to be responsible for his moral choice, man would not have been punished for making the wrong choice.


    Also, do we really deserve to be redeemed? Also, how does one guy getting nailed to a cross redeem us? Do we all feel sorry, does it make us feel that we did something? According to the Bible, we killed God's son, which to most people would be a bad thing. Is God just showing how good He is/how much better He is, and how would that redeem us? First the Bible says how evil we all are, then God gives us a Get out of Hell (debatably) Free card; where is the justice in that?

    Do we really deserve to be redeemed? Absolutely not: the Bible teaches that God loves us and wants to redeem us despite our unworthiness.

    We believe the cross redeems us in the following way: the necessary consequence of sin is death (Romans 6:23), so our sin requires OUR death or the death of a perfect substitute. The substitute MUST be perfect (i.e., sinless), otherwise he would only be dying for his own sinfulness. That is what Jesus was: a perfect man who (somehow) willingly took on the penalties for ALL the sins of ALL mankind.

    You ask where the justice is, and I believe justice and mercy meet at the cross: justice is satisfied in that someone paid the penalty for our rebellious nature, but mercy was provided in that GOD paid that penalty so that we wouldn't have to.


    If there is a God, then why the heck would be so offended by me not believing in him? How does it affect him? The way He takes offence to things to me makes him almost predictable. As predictable as any man. I could ask that about other ?morals? that don?t hurt anyone (well, does not hurt anyone if the people involved are careful), yet he seems to take offence to.

    It's not that He is offended by disbelief; it's that, being just, He cannot ignore the rebellious nature of man. He has made us TRULY free to either embrace His will or assert our own will. IF WE ASSERT OUR OWN WILL, He will not force us to return to His will and we will end up separated from God (in a state called Hell).

    I am hesitant to say this for fear of being taken the wrong way, but I believe that God would be understanding of someone who looked at all the evidence and reasonably concluded He didn't exist. The problem is, I don't think that applies to most athiests: I think that God DOES try to woo everyone back to Him and DOES reveal Himself. I think that many who reject God's existence do so on very shaky logic (usually begging the question, assuming He doesn't exist to prove He doesn't exist) because they don't WANT to believe.

    Likewise, if a man REALLY thought that X was God's will and he was waaaay off base, I believe God will again be understanding. Some of those responsible for the Salem witch trials may have HONESTLY believed that those on trial had recieved supernatural powers from diabolical spirits and had used those powers to kill other humans. The Salem judges' perception of the world may have been COMPLETELY wrong, but it's hard to say that their moral choices were wrong, GIVEN THAT PERCEPTION.

    Of course, this caveat requires you to honestly seek His will in the first place. There are atheists who never find God's face and Christians who never follow His true will. But the question remains: how
     
  8. sleazo

    sleazo Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Yeah this definitley makes you unpopular [face_plain]

    If i am rebelling against the will of god, how am i suppossed to know which is his true will. There are so many different religous traditions, what makes the judeo christian belief system the correct one? I am not willfully rebelling against the will of god if i dont truly know what that will is. I most certainly am not going to accept it because someone tells me im going to hell if i dont. This is basically a threat. This is a bullying tactic meant to force people under control. Either believe my god's will or you go to hell. The reason i have never seen the christian god manifest itself/himself whatever to me is that it hasnt happened. Its not that i was so against the concept that i was blind to it. I had many opportunities along the way to become one. As a student of history however i have seen the chrisitanity in its modern form for what its worth a way to subjugate the masses. I am not an athiest as i have seen no proof of gods existence but since iam not all knowing it is impossible for me to know.
    I actually subscribe to many aspects of buddhist philosophy. Buddhism does not threaten people who are not buddhists. So since god gave me free will and an inquisitive mind it led me to believe in some aspects of some eastern religions. They make sense to me while chritianity totally does not. Should i supress what i find makes sense and follow christianity becasue of a anthropomorphized god with such petty jealousy that will send me to hell for using my brain? No, if your god is the one true god and its not brahma or zeus or quetzacoatl or mithra, then send me to hell.
    The Christian god sounds more like the trickster Loki of norse mythology while the Christian devil reminds me of Prometheus
     
  9. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    FID, I make the comparison, in that he also uses polemics and invented/incorrect/fuzzy 'facts' to make his side of the argument. Willfully using 'selective amnesia' or making an argument without acknowledging known facts is a dodge, and just undermines credibility.


    There are two sets of facts to every argument, one that makes the case and one that doesn't. Not choosing to use one set of facts over the other shouldn't hurt the credibility of anyone.


    In my book, at least. But, I suppose I am being idealistic in hoping that people are more concerned with truth and objectivity and open discourse, than with slurs and untruthful arguements in order to have 'their' side win.


    There is no 'truth' or 'objectivity' there never will be which is why our justice system is so stupid. I have yet to see a 'fair' or 'balanced' argument. Every side will use something to prove their point, that's the purpose, it is idealistic to believe that someone can be totally neutral when it comes to two sided debates or arguments.
     
  10. irishjedi49

    irishjedi49 Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Not choosing to use one set of facts over the other shouldn't hurt the credibility of anyone.

    Perhaps, but the way to make a compelling, logical argument is to present the other side's arguments in a recognizable and fair way, and then to counter with your own facts. It's not intellectually honest to present the other side's weakest arguments as the sum total, or to misrepresent their arguments, or to completely ignore their arguments. Red-Seven is right that to do so (and make use of 'selective amnesia' or questionable facts) undermines credibility.

    There is no 'truth' or 'objectivity' there never will be which is why our justice system is so stupid. I have yet to see a 'fair' or 'balanced' argument. Every side will use something to prove their point, that's the purpose, it is idealistic to believe that someone can be totally neutral when it comes to two sided debates or arguments.

    But it's reasonable to expect that someone will be rational and fair about an argument. Also, I disagree that truth and objectivity do not exist. I'm not sure why you brought up "our justice system," but, for instance, in any given legal case the actual facts of the issue are objectively true, even though witnesses' recall of them might vary.

    The article goes into more depth, talking about how traditional churches may be in throuble, but Christianity is flourishing in the US and the developing world. The Church has 2 Billionadherents in 2000, up from 1.2 Billion in 1970 (roughly in line with population growth).

    Thanks, Red-Seven (great magazine, isn't it? :) ) I believe Catholics make up 1 billion of Christians worldwide, with the other half comprised of the rest of the denominations. In the U.S., Catholics are the largest single denomination, followed by Southern Baptists, but there are more Protestants as a whole than Catholics. One thing I found interesting living in Britain, though this was just my own personal observation and not otherwise substantiated, was that the churchgoers in London appeared more likely to be immigrants and other recent arrivals. It would make sense that they were not part of the regional trend toward secularism.
     
  11. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Fortunately, sleazo, it's not my place to make the decision of who has and hasn't honestly and earnestly sought God's face. If I ever seemed to put myself in that position, I was CERTAINLY in the wrong.

    It seems to me that you have a misconception or two about Christianity. To your credit, my faith has, historically, done a poor job in explaining itself.


    I most certainly am not going to accept it because someone tells me im going to hell if i dont. This is basically a threat. This is a bullying tactic meant to force people under control. Either believe my god's will or you go to hell.

    Hell is NOT an arbitrary punishment for a random act that God happens to dislike. In the end, I believe it is a just consequence for knowing, willful rebellion. I believe that we are all guilty of this rebellion: strip down the cluttering details, and we have all told God that we want to be in total control of our own lives, that we want God OUT of our lives. Hell is, ultimately, God letting us have exactly what we want: complete separation from Him.

    The good news is that He has made it possible that we can be restored back to Him - that all we have to do is turn back to Him, apologize for our rebellion, and accept His free gift of forgiveness. The question then becomes whether we do that.

    And, ultimately, God doesn't even expect us to turn back to Him for the right reasons. In the best case scenario, one turns to God because he is attracted to God's very nature, but most of us are probably so far gone that we AREN'T thus attracted. There are some Christians who thus turn to God JUST because of the threat of damnation; some because their at their wit's end in this world; I myself became a Christian because I wanted to be reunited with my grandmother who had passed away earlier that night. But God is so merciful that He takes us just as we are, ignores the petty reasons we turn to Him, and turns us from mere creations to adopted sons and daughters.

    Beyond this misconception, I wonder about one of your reasons for rejecting Christianity...


    The reason i have never seen the christian god manifest itself/himself whatever to me is that it hasnt happened.

    But how do you know it hasn't happened? Because you've never seen such a revelation? That would be a logical fallacy called begging the question:

    "I've never felt God's presence because He's never revealed it; He's never revealed His presence because I've never felt it."

    But, again, it's not my place to judge who is condemned and who isn't. My motivation is only to refute some of the cases against Christianity. If there's some misconception, I try to correct that by presenting what I believe God has revealed as His will. And if I see some argument as not entirely consistent or logical, I try to explain my objection.

    Think of it this way:

    Some people play the role of "the devil's advocate." Think of me as "God's advocate." If you can take my objections and clarifications seriously and STILL reject Christianity, you will have just taken another step in demonstrating that you HONESTLY sought His face but did not find it. I truly believe that God will honor such an effort even if it doesn't lead to Him; in which case, you have less to worry about.

    Of course, I doubt it should be the last step taken to defend your belief or lack of belief, for two reasons. First, there are better advocates than I. Second, the stakes of this matter are too high to treat it half-heartedly.

    If I may paraphrase a review of a book by C.S. Lewis: whatever you believe, religion accepted or rejected means something extremely serious, demanding the entire energy of the mind.
     
  12. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Perhaps, but the way to make a compelling, logical argument is to present the other side's arguments in a recognizable and fair way, and then to counter with your own facts. It's not intellectually honest to present the other side's weakest arguments, or to misrepresent their arguments, or to completely ignore their arguments. Red-Seven is right that to do so (and make use of 'selective amnesia' or questionable facts) undermines credibility.


    A compelling logical argument is to present both sides and give statistics and other facts that contradict the argument you?re trying to make. ?Selective amnesia? a stupid phrase in my opinion, doesn?t mean you can?t make a compelling logical argument without stating the other side or giving any of their ?facts?. An argument to me is an opinion or belief, to present any side but the one you?re trying to get out is to compromise that opinion.




    But it's reasonable to expect that someone will be rational and fair about an argument.


    Fair? Well what?s fair to you? Would you prefer if the author praised da lawd and spread the gospel while at the same time being against religion? Get real, if you want to spread your opinion or get it out you?re not going to show any of the ?facts? of the other side because they go against what you?re trying to do and that is convince the reader.



    Also, I disagree that truth and objectivity do not exist.


    I?m so sure you?ve been very objective in your arguments.


    I'm not sure why you brought up "our justice system," but, for instance, in any given legal case the actual facts of the issue are objectively true, even though witnesses' recall of them might vary.


    If truth and objectivity existed then why are there ?criminals? who have to be set free because they were wrongly accused? Surely anyone can tell innocent from guilty right? The American justice system it is ?innocent until proven guilty? If the ?objectivity? existed then why do they lock the person up? Anyone who?s innocent until proven guilty shouldn?t be locked up, right? That?s why I?m going for, no objectivity exists within human nature, our bias makes us unable to be purely objective. Eventually there?s going to be a point where the ?objective? person is convinced and decides on a side. I will concede the truth part however, to an extent at least.



    EDIT: Blah! Today's not a good day to type.
     
  13. sleazo

    sleazo Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    But how do you know it hasn't happened? Because you've never seen such a revelation? That would be a logical fallacy called begging the question:

    "I've never felt God's presence because He's never revealed it; He's never revealed His presence because I've never felt it."


    It really isnt a fallacy as i would be open to seeing the revelation of god. While i am sorry that your grandmother passed away i do believe that your desire to see her agin is so great that you need the comfort of christianity. You need that something to tell you that you will see her again. That is one of the selling points of the christian religion. It gives hope to those who need it. I also would like to see my dead relatives one day, but i really dont believe that i will. It does not seem rational to me at all. It seems to me that people who believe in these sort of things are using them as an emotional crutch.

    And dont try to say i have a misunderstanding of things when i talk about hell. It is pretty clear that unbelievers are going to hell or limbo depending on which sect of christianity it is. It is not willful disobeying of gods will if i dont know that it is gods will. That is what you have a misconception about. There are hundreds of religions out there and Why should god punish me for choosing a different way that makes more sense to me?


    And dont worry about me, i am not worried about going to hell.


    My question is why is Christianity the one true religion?
     
  14. womberty

    womberty Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 21, 2002
    My question is why is Christianity the one true religion?

    It began with the forging of the Religions of Power. Three were given to the Elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven were given to the Dwarves, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine religions were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else desire power. For within these religions was bound the power and the will to rule each race. But they were all of them deceived, for deep in the land of Mordor, the Dark Lord Sauron forged another religion, a master religion, and into this religion he poured all his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate every living thing. One religion to rule them all.

    One Religion to rule them all, One Religion to find them, One Religion to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
     
  15. sleazo

    sleazo Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    That is some funny sh-----
     
  16. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    [face_laugh] BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!


    Think of the big religions as the most popular kids in school. They all think that they're right and they're very egotistical.
     
  17. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    sleazo, you misunderstand me: the death of my grandmother is why I became a Christian, but it is not why I remain a Christian, nor is it why I continue to pursue a closer relationship with God.

    On good days, I seek God because I know, in the very core of my being, that communion with Him is why I was made: all the fragments of my life come together and existence makes sense.

    Golden retrievers, my favorite breed of dog, were bred to retrieve and they seem happiest when they're chasing tennis balls. Likewise, I honestly believe I was made to enjoy a relationship with God. On my best days, I pursue that relationship the way a retriever craves to play fetch.

    On other days, when my own selfish ego has too big a foothold in my heart, I try to seek out God's will out of mere duty: I do so BECAUSE I'm supposed to. Often, even that half-hearted effort is rewarded and I end up drawing closer to God.

    It takes time, but the good days will outnumber the bad. When the Lord calls me home, I will be restored to exactly what He wanted me to be from the very beginning - but He's ALREADY making those changes in my life.

    Here's my point: the reason I became a Christian was, admittedly, NOT the right reason. But God was loving enough to ignore my petty short-sightedness and start redeeming me back into His will.

    In a smaller scale, God often ignores the fact that I come to Him "just because I should" and helps bring me even closer to Him.


    Take the most spiritually mature Christians out there - those whose faithfulness SHAMES mine.

    DON'T look solely at why they first became Christians. You'll find that some first turned to God for so-called "fire insurance" and the possibility of reunion with family members who passed away, but that's not THE important thing.

    What REALLY matters is why they CONTINUE turning to God. Those furthest along their walk with God won't talk about Hell or a deceased grandmother: they will talk about the joy of communion with God the Father, God Almighty.

    Those who FIRST walked with for all the wrong reasons but continued walking NOW do so for all the RIGHT reasons.

    That's what matters.


    And dont try to say i have a misunderstanding of things when i talk about hell. It is pretty clear that unbelievers are going to hell or limbo depending on which sect of christianity it is. It is not willful disobeying of gods will if i dont know that it is gods will. That is what you have a misconception about.

    I agree that those who don't know God's will couldn't possibly be guilty of will disobedience. Thing is, Romans 1:20 makes clear that God reveals Himself to everyone. And why not? He IS God, and He could be urging all of us to turn to Him this very moment.

    I certainly think that God will be understanding of those who can't be held responsible for their actions - infants and the mentally handicapped come immediately to mind. And if there REALLY are some people to whom God never revealed Himself, I doubt He will hold that fact against them.

    But I believe there will be a lot of us held responsible for our decisions. At the end of it all, a LOT of us will have heard God's voice plenty of times: some of us will have turned back to Him and accepted His free gift of forgiveness, some of us will have chosen to continue to rebel. To those who say, "I never heard His voice," I can only reply: are you sure?


    My question is why is Christianity the one true religion?

    First, it's not like all other religions are absolutely false: most others command some degree of charity, and many are right in their beliefs about specific aspects of God. To the degree that they agree with Christianity, they too are right.

    But, then, why do I think Christianity is the standard by which all other religions should be measured? Two reasons. First, I HONESTLY believe Jesus came back from the grave. If He WAS resurrected, that gives an awful lot of creedence to what He said, including His claims of divinity.

    Second, Christianity offers something that no oth
     
  18. womberty

    womberty Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Christianity offers something that no other religion offers: grace, the ABSOLUTELY free gift of forgiveness.

    Tempting, but I'm going to have to go with Hinduism - it's offering reincarnation! :D

    Novelty proves nothing.
     
  19. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    It proves nothing, per se, but it's a very good indication, nonetheless.
     
  20. EnforcerSG

    EnforcerSG Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Darn computer errors...

    My message, take 2, longer than ever? may God have mercy on your eyes.

    Dark Jedi Tam

    I sort of believe that everyone believes in something; whether it is a God, an idol, themselves, luck, facts of science... In the situation I made up, or any other server enough, the will to survive may be strong, but there are other things that would effect a person, like fear or despair, pain, exhaustion...the list goes on. Anything that would make a persons strength of will stronger, any hope that lets them focus on getting to safety, then it is a good thing for them. And that I believe is a merit of religion.

    Bubba, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and put up with what I don?t understand clearly.

    I see your point about the tree of knowledge of good and evil (and not just knowledge) but I have another question about that. Did we have free will before we ate the apple, or in other words, were we created with free will? With no knowledge of right or wrong, we could not chose any action other than what God programmed in us. If an evil situation presented itself to us, would it have been like trying to explain red to a blind man or what?

    We believe the cross redeems us in the following way: the necessary consequence of sin is death (Romans 6:23), so our sin requires OUR death or the death of a perfect substitute. The substitute MUST be perfect (i.e., sinless), otherwise he would only be dying for his own sinfulness. That is what Jesus was: a perfect man who (somehow) willingly took on the penalties for ALL the sins of ALL mankind.

    Well, the natural end of a virtuous life is death as well (but in your understanding, a temporary one).

    After that, I am somewhat lost. I thought life without God was the punishment for sin, but what about having the punishment fitting the crime? How does a perfect substitute take the blame for us? Is that just the way of God or the way He made things? Is everyone for all time redeemed, or just the people of (at that time) the present or past?

    You ask where the justice is, and I believe justice and mercy meet at the cross: justice is satisfied in that someone paid the penalty for our rebellious nature, but mercy was provided in that GOD paid that penalty so that we wouldn't have to.

    I would think justice is satisfied when the guilty are punished, and mercy would have the punishment end when everyone else is safe. To us mere humans, justice is much more than just having someone punished for something. The innocent don?t (should not) get punished for what someone else did. I don?t see how the death of Jesus is justice at all. It was merciful in a way for everyone else who is redeemed, but lets not forget the Big Guy on the cross who could and in all rights deserved a better life.

    It's not that He is offended by disbelief; it's that, being just, He cannot ignore the rebellious nature of man. He has made us TRULY free to either embrace His will or assert our own will. IF WE ASSERT OUR OWN WILL, He will not force us to return to His will and we will end up separated from God (in a state called Hell).

    But why can?t he ignore it? Does it hurt him? Does it hurt us (only our disbelief, for many of the morals He ?made? are wrong for other reasons)? Yeah, He may not like it, but He should just suck it up!

    Any why is life without God so bad? For all we know, this world could be Hell as you describe it. For all we know, God may not be doing much with Earth right now. And for the people that he does not influence or revile himself to, then they are already in hell.

    I am hesitant to say this for fear of being taken the wrong way, but I believe that God would be understanding of someone who looked at all the evidence and reasonably concluded He didn't exist. The problem is, I don't think that applies to most atheists: I think that God DOES try to woo everyone back to Him and DOES reveal Himself. I think that many who reject God's existence do so on very shaky logic (usually beggin
     
  21. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    I am hesitant to say this for fear of being taken the wrong way, but I believe that God would be understanding of someone who looked at all the evidence and reasonably concluded He didn't exist. The problem is, I don't think that applies to most atheists: I think that God DOES try to woo everyone back to Him and DOES reveal Himself. I think that many who reject God's existence do so on very shaky logic (usually begging the question, assuming He doesn't exist to prove He doesn't exist) because they don't WANT to believe.


    That's BS, you can't prove god exists and no atheist can prove that god doesn't exist. There's the problem either one's right and the other wrong. Basing everything on what you can see and percieve is a lot better than abscribing to a faith that requires you to be a slave.
     
  22. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    better than abscribing to a faith that requires you to be a slave.


    Jesus said: "...whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave - just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve...'" (Matt 20: 28).

    Love is service, and faith is work. To be truly great, you must serve others as you would yourself. Many of the great leaders of history, whether they were Christians or not, were men and women who served others during their lives.

    If anything is enslaving, it is the false sense of security one gets from material possessions and/or misguided behaviors. I deal with patients who are slaves to the bottle and slaves to the needle. People who must always try to best their neighbors in their material possessions are slaves of materialism. There are slaves of food, and "love" (aka lust) slaves.

    It isn't faith in the truth that enslaves you, nor love. It is pride, envy, gluttony, lust, wrath, greed, and sloth.
     
  23. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    I see your point about the tree of knowledge of good and evil (and not just knowledge) but I have another question about that. Did we have free will before we ate the apple, or in other words, were we created with free will? With no knowledge of right or wrong, we could not chose any action other than what God programmed in us. If an evil situation presented itself to us, would it have been like trying to explain red to a blind man or what?

    (You might want to check out some of my recent posts in the "God on Trial" thread.)

    Free will from creation? Absolutely: I think that's part of what it means to be made in the image of God. If man didn't CHOOSE to rebel, it means that God forced our hand: God would have forced us from Him THEN punished us for something He forced us to do, which would have been entirely unjust.

    The question is this: what did the tree's fruit actually do?

    The more I look at the verses about that tree, the less certain I am about what effect it actually had on those who ate from it. Genesis 3:7 indicates that it opened Adam and Eve's eyes to their nakedness. But Genesis 3:22 says this:

    "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..."

    At first glance, it looks like they actually DID gain knowledge. But from his famous commentary of the early 1700's, Matthew Henry brings us to notice:

    How they were justly disgraced and shamed before God and the holy angels, by the ironical upbraiding of them with the issue of their enterprise: "Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil! A goodly god he makes! Does he not? See what he has got, what preferments, what advantages, by eating forbidden fruit!" This was said to awaken and humble them, and to bring them to a sense of their sin and folly, and to repentance for it, that, seeing themselves thus wretchedly deceived by following the devil?s counsel, they might henceforth pursue the happiness God should offer in the way he should prescribe. God thus fills their faces with shame, that they may seek his name, Ps. 83:16.


    Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown have a different take in their own 1871 commentary:

    [The statement is] not spoken in irony as is generally supposed, but in deep compassion. The words should be rendered, "Behold, what has become [by sin] of the man who was as one of us"! Formed, at first, in our image to know good and evil--how sad his condition now.


    If EITHER of these interpretations are correct, then it doesn't appear Adam and Eve gained much of anything.

    In fact, I think it's possible that the tree was JUST A NORMAL TREE that God happened to forbid as a way to insure free will. (After all, how are you free to choose obedience if God tells you, "Do whatever you want"?) The moment they ate of the tree, they immediately knew they were guilty of breaking God's command and felt shame for doing so: they "saw that they were naked." Hence, they HAD BEEN good and HAD BECOME evil by breaking the one law that God wrote: they not only knew but also experienced good and evil all too well.

    (Imagine the irony: they eat the fruit, thinking they'll become all-powerful. After a few bites, they realize it was JUST A NORMAL TREE. EXCEPT that God told them not to eat it. They realized they had broken God's law, they knew the consequences, and they became both scared and ashamed. In the process, the perfectly normal tree had truly become exactly what God said it was.)

    Of course, this is a LOT of speculation on my part. The bottom line is this: we WERE free before we fell.


    Well, the natural end of a virtuous life is death as well (but in your understanding, a temporary one).

    Not necessarily: it seems like Adam and Eve would have been immortal had they not fallen, and I wouldn't assume Jesus would have died a natural death considering the command of nature he exhibited throughout nature.

    We're certainly physically mortal now, but what I'm getting at is this set of Biblical pr
     
  24. Saint_of_Killers

    Saint_of_Killers Jedi Youngling star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    "we have all told God that we want to be in total control of our own lives, that we want God OUT of our lives"

    And what's so bad about that? Let's say this guy does exist. Why would he have to be the center of everyone's life? Sounds like an overbearing parent to me.

    "Hell is, ultimately, God letting us have exactly what we want: complete separation from Him."

    With some torture thrown in, apparently.

     
  25. EnforcerSG

    EnforcerSG Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Bubba

    Haven?t been to the God on Trial thread in a little bit. Too much of it was semantics and bickering?I lost interest quickly.

    But on to the tree of knowledge. May you answer me a question. What do you think free will is? Is it being able to do anything you want, or is it being able to want to do anything, both or something else? The first one would be like I have TPM on DVD, so I can watch it when ever I want. The second would be that I want to watch AOTC, even though I can?t right now since I don?t have a copy. Or something else.

    If man didn't CHOOSE to rebel, it means that God forced our hand: God would have forced us from Him THEN punished us for something He forced us to do, which would have been entirely unjust.

    I thought we were tricked into it?

    If the tree was just a normal tree, then didn?t God lie to us by saying the tree was a tree of knowledge? The tree may have been normal, but anything you learn from it you figure out yourself. Even though they were disobeying God, they learned themselves what right and wrong is. If your idea is right.

    And what if the tree of knowledge was somehow more special than your theories give it credit for? Did we have free will from creation?

    All I can think of is Obi Wan?s Point of View speech in ROTJ.

    Justice

    Simply I don?t believe that another person can atone for another?s crime. To me it does not make sense!

    Innocent Charlie could be a substitute on Death Row for Killer Al on what seems to be three conditions: the court agrees, Charlie agrees, and Al agrees.

    Yet that is not justice I think. Yeah, the three of them may be happy, but what is the point of killing Chuck and letting Al out to possibly kill again? Justice is in my mind not simply about punishing someone, it is punishing the guilty. Why is it otherwise?

    The convict agrees. That's where we come in.

    I don?t agree. If I have sinned, then I don?t deserve to be redeemed by someone else, nor does He deserve to take the fall for what I did. I appreciate His concern (if He exists) but I should not, and hope I would not put Him through physical and spiritual(?) death just for my well being. How could I be kind or in any way pure if I let someone else die for me?

    (Even more staggering, Christians believe that He would have died on the cross if you were the one and only sinner in existence, if you were the only one who had fallen and need redemption.)

    I would not want it! I would do everything in my power to keep Him from dying for me. Whether it is yanking Him of the cross, hitting Him with a rock and dragging Him away? no one should have to die for another person, especially in this case.

    If He ignored our freely chosen rebellion, such that it had no consequences, there would be two negative effects:

    - Man would no longer be free. If our choices have no real consequences, they're not real choices.


    But there are consequences in this world that can be the results of our actions which can be very real. We can make decisions without thinking about God, and they can still the right decisions (although maybe not for the right reasons depending on your point of view). I don?t believe we need God to be free.

    - God would no longer be just.

    It's not in God's will that our freedom be rendered null and void. And it's not in God's nature to be unjust.

    Well, again, does the punishment fit the crime? Counting sins that only affect the sinner and God (nothing like murder or rape), what would be the just punishment for doubting God? Why is punishment just in that case?

    Life without God AKA Hell

    Then again, without the sun, we never would have existed and never be able to miss ourselves?

    If the sun cut out, yeah, we would die PDQ.

    I have a hard time buying that by your logic, we, creations of God, could still exist without God. I would think in a ?place? God never exists/existed, our presence would force a small part of God?s will mind and power (us) to exist there.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.