To any theologians here...

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Athanasius

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
975
0
0
Hi Rio:

I am interested in your response to my 4/3 4:23 p.m. post. In it I tried to guess at how God could be in time but not bound by time.

Unlike the more generous Moonbeam, I am intentionally seeking to trouble you by getting you to answer. But I am just mean that way
 

LadyJessica

Senior member
Apr 20, 2000
444
0
0
LadyJ,
Ok, I follow what you are trying to say. But, what about that part of us which isn't physical? We possess three parts, as a reflection of God. Body, Soul, and Spirit. Your analysis depends on the assumption that our physical brain is the entirety of our true self. IF the brain is an organ used by our soul/spirit rather than controlling the soul/spirit then your thesis falls apart


I would say that there is not a non-physical part (henceforth called a "spirit" to save on typing). If this spirit exists and controls our actions via the brain, we would be able to measure the physical consequences of such interactions (if not now then probably some time in the future). However, there are other implications if this is true. What about non-human animals? What about non-human intelligent biological entities? What about synthetic intelligent entities? Ultimately, why do we even need a physical world?
 

JohnnyReb

Banned
Feb 20, 2002
212
0
0
I would say that there is not a non-physical part (henceforth called a "spirit" to save on typing). If this spirit exists and controls our actions via the brain, we would be able to measure the physical consequences of such interactions (if not now then probably some time in the future). However, there are other implications if this is true. What about non-human animals? What about non-human intelligent biological entities? What about synthetic intelligent entities? Ultimately, why do we even need a physical world?

LadyJ,
I believe that there is NOTHING more beautiful than an intelligent woman. Thank you for blessing me with your presence in this discussion.

we would be able to measure the physical consequences of such interactions

I think we are beginning to do so. There was a bit of press a while back where researchers found a part of the brain that responds to "spiritual" activity. I guess the problem lies in determing cause and effect. Does the spirit cause this brain activity, or does this brain activity cause the spiritual activity? Is there any way to know? You will assume the latter, while I assume the former. Which of us can proove our assumptions?

How would you test to determine cause/effect?

Ultimately, why do we even need a physical world?

Read Genesis for one answer.

What about non-human intelligent biological entities? What about synthetic intelligent entities?

Which ones?
 

Maetryx

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2001
4,849
1
81
This has been one of the best threads I have ever encountered on AnandTech. I'm stunned that it has persisted with such serious discourse for so long. The quality of the posts in here is intimidating, to say the least. I have several comments that I will make, nonetheless.

JohnnyReb: Not all Christians adhere to the theory of 3 parts to the human: body, soul/mind, spirit. Some believe in 2 parts: body, soul. They don't make a distinction between the mind and the spirit. Also, God doesn't have 3 "parts", as He is indivisible. The triune nature of God is best left without analogy, because there is no analogy that doesn't abridge the truth of the trinity.

Moonbeam: I believe that the people accusing your of being disingenous would not do so if you would candidly report on your worldview or religious system. I'm reasonably certain you fall within the broad category of Pantheism. That assumption on my part helps me to understand your posts. Those that don't make that assumption believe you are being clever for cleverness' sake.

PlatinumGold: You seem to be seeking an experience to replace the experience you had earlier in life. Your reintrepretation of scripture to fit your own experiences or feelings will put you in "good" company with most of Christiandom, but will move you further from the propositional truth that was revealed by God is His Word.

Athanasius: I like your treatment of transcendence using the analogy of 2-D and 3-D.

Rio Rebel: If God does not transcend the space-time-matter of the universe, then He would be within it and have the uncanny ability to create it before He exists.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71


<< PlatinumGold: You seem to be seeking an experience to replace the experience you had earlier in life. Your reintrepretation of scripture to fit your own experiences or feelings will put you in "good" company with most of Christiandom, but will move you further from the propositional truth that was revealed by God is His Word.
>>



maetryx

I hope not as most of christianity is mislead. I am not trying to replace the experience of my earlier life, my relationship w/ God is an ongoing one. one where He is continually revealing new things about Himself to me.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0
Athanasius (and Maetryx, and whoever else is interested):

I am afraid we are in a position where neither of us can really address the other's point from the inside (so to speak), but will have to keep falling back on our own position which we see as valid on its own merit.

I am afraid this response will be very guilty of the above, but I will try to avoid this as much as possible. Now to the point:

Your metaphors are interesting and challenging, but I believe they are compelling only as long as you apply them inside our conceptual framework. When you talk about God not being "bound" by time, about Him "experiencing" things all at once, or about His experiences not being "rationed out" temporally as ours are, these SEEM to make sense. But think about it - they only make sense because all of these metaphors rely heavily on OUR type of experience - a spacio-temporal one. All of these metaphors fail miserably to even cast the slightest glimpse of what it would be like to experience something non-temporally.

When you use these metaphors, and when we hear and envision them, we picture a Being (God) being pretty much like us, just "bigger and better" because He isn't constrained by the same things we are. But what we aren't doing, and what we can never even BEGIN to do, is to envision this Being in some realm that does not exist in a temporal order. When we try to do this, we immediately fall guilty of a fallacy of division - we can conceive of AB, but that doesn't mean that we can necessarily conceive of A and B separately.

Once again, let me turn to more common examples. We can conceive of a married man easily enough, and we can conceive of a bachelor easily enough. From this, we are inclined to think we can then conceive of a married bachelor. When I say the words - "married bachelor" - you immediately form a concept in your mind, and you actually have to remind yourself that this concept CANNOT be, and therefore is not, a concept of a married bachelor. It is impossible to conceive of such.

Similarly, we do the same thing when we talk about God being "outside" of time, but the error is not as obvious. Since there is not a clear and obvious contradiction, we tend to think that this is a conceivable concept. But it is not. Just as a Coke bottle makes the Coke take a specific shape, our minds make our experiences take a certain "shape", and as long as the data is in our mind (like Coke in a Coke bottle), it MUST fit that framework.

We cannot imagine what it would be like to experience something outside of time. Since we cannot imagine it, cannot even BEGIN to conceive of it, it makes no sense to talk about it as if it explains or solves a problem. This does not mean that God necessarily 'exists' inside time, but that God must exist inside time *if He is to be a Being that we can encouter, interact with, and even conceive of.*

Anything else simply makes no sense. I believe your metaphors of God's existence are imaginative and interesting, but since they cannot give a glimpse of what it would BE LIKE to experience something outside time, they are ultimately ineffective.



 

Netopia

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,793
4
81


<< If something is not inside the spacio-temporal "realm", it does not 'exist' for us. >>

Agreed. As long as you define "'exist' for us" to mean "we don't have knowledge of it" and not "it really cannot be".

How about if we change our verbage a bit. I think what I and others are trying to say is that God is supratemporal. It isn't that He does not / cannot exist in time-space, but only that He is not bound to it or limited by it in any way. In this way, He exists omnitemporally (my belief) because he is both competely existant in and out of time.

To me, it's like a basketball with a BB suspended perfectly in the middle. God is the basketball and the BB is all of creation. Since the BB exists within Him, then He is everywhere the BB is, and beyond. He can examine any part of the BB without suddenly being limited to being only in the BB. He might interact with things inside the BB (us), but that only means that He is interacting, not being constrainted by.

It's not that God is outside of time, but that God is Inter/Supra-Temporal and that time is Sub-God. It's not like time is a medium in which God must exist, but more like time is a thought that God has... it is in His mind and He totally groks it, but it is existant because of Him, not vice-versa.

Joe
 

Maetryx

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2001
4,849
1
81
Rio Rebel,
The inherent contradiction example you use is valid. There can't be married bachelors. But it doesn't apply at all (as far as I can tell) to the difficult notion of Gods transcendence. That the notion is difficult is a given. But that the notion is inherently contradictory is not a given.

Our difficulty in "visualizing" transcendence does not render it logically impossible. Our language may not go "there", but that is a result of the very nature of transcendence, not a denial of transcendence.
 

Polgara

Banned
Feb 1, 2002
127
0
0
I hope not as most of christianity is mislead.

PlatinumGold,
I read your post on page 1. Do you have any source outside of imagining a scenario that fits what you want to believe?

When you say the most of Christianity is mislead, what do you mean? Do you mean the one's following the Bible or the Pope?

Sarah
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,073
6,603
126
So can we say that the 'idea of God' and all the paradoxes that postulating his existance creates make no sense? The thing that strikes me about all this is the extreme effort in the form of convoluted gymnastics that it seems must be resorted to to sort of patch up all the leaks in the hypothesis.


<<Moonbeam: I believe that the people accusing your of being disingenous would not do so if you would candidly report on your worldview or religious system. Maetryx>>

OK since you asked:

I'll try to be brief but comprehensive enough to qualify as candid and I'll just report my beliefs in the form of factual statements without all the IMHO even though you will know they are just opinions and even though many here already know them.

I am inclined to the belief that the way people think of God is incorrect. The universe just is. It was not created by anybody or anything. We are animals that evolved by chance to a very high degree of complexity. The degree of complexity is so great that we are self aware, we have the feeling and the certainty that we exist. We are an animal and we have an animal nature we call human nature.

Our human nature is a blessing and a curse. We inherit from our animal, maybe mammalian side, or mammalian brain a genetic socialism, a love, joy, and exuberence in being alive with others of our kind. We are playful, curious, empathetic and caring by nature. But we are animals with survival instincts, pain receptors and endocrinal triggered fight and flight type reactions too. We can know pleasure and pain. This was the strategy evolution happened upon to insure gene survival.

But co-emergent with our increasing complex socialism, our culture, was communication, language, the ability to abstract, to turn over in our minds ideas for which there is no correspondence in reality. We began to think, and to think in language, to lable and divide, to abstract, to idiolize. We invented knowledge.

Prior to that, all our reactions were immediate and directly as a result of the content of our senses. See a tiger up a tree or protect the young. Everything was instantaneous. Without thought we had no fear, no separation from the immediate. There was only the now. Every feeling we felt manifested in our actions. There was no neuroticism, no evil.

But with language came thought division and time. We began to put words to perfection. That which caused pain was bad, that which brings pleasure is good. We invented duality and applied it to ourselves. We invented rules, laws, verbal coersion and propaganda. We invented lies. We invented putdowns. We learned to hate the sinner and not just the sin. We transmitted to our young the feeling that they were only worthy conditionally and told them they didn't measure up. We learned to kill love, to destroy our natural impulses and to adopt a false personage, a phoney self who measures up. We learned to hate who we really are because being who we are brought torture and punishment. We became diseased, divided against ourselves. We learned to hate ourselves, to hate the pain that being real brought over and over. Because, before we developed our egos, our adult armor against memory and pain, we were capable of feeling pain to the maximum that pain can be felt, we recoiled from that pain to the maximum extent possible.

So we are asleep and can no longer feal; we don't remember what it is to be real. We are controled by the false self, the one we created, had to create to survive the pain. We conform, we obey, we are sheep, we are anything that will keep us from the pain.

We know something is wrong. Look at all the threads on depression. But we can never look where the answer is because it would be to look right into maximum pain. So we are upside down to reality living in a wrong world, a false consciousness, a false self.

Throughout the ages there have been a few who have found their way back to the real self. Imagine their surprise. Occassionally they must also have met others of their kind. In a room full of sleeping people those who are awake will recognize each other. They would have formed schools, systems for teaching and preserving words and techinques for retrieving the self. I don't think Christ was the son of God, but the product of such a school. Owing to the nice way he was treated, the most dangerous activity a person can undertake is probably to awaken the sleeper with all his hate for pain, such schools are private and intentionally invisible.

In our culture a tradition of monotheism evolved but in other places the Knowledge was transmitted in different terms. Two things are at work. We interpret according to our expectations. Transendental experiences which are beyond the reach of words get interpreted in known terms, and when speaking to others one couches ones insights in terms that are already in currency.

So there is a Truth, the reconnecting to the real self, and the terms used to convey the possibility vary from culture to culture and time to time.

With the advent of modern psychotherapy and the intentional analysis of repressed feelings, the true self, the realization that everything that has been happening in the spiritual world is just the recovery of the real self, usually via a bridge that transcends and does not descend into the original pain of separation, has been discovered to lie at the core of our being. The reliving of childhood trauma via psychoanalysis has lead to the discovery that everybody feels like he is the worst in the world, doesn't know it, and doesn't want to know it. This condition is a result of put downs, the believing of verbal lies as to your true nature. By refeeling, reliving the events, personally it is possible to actually internally see and completely realize that they were nothing but lies. So there is this wonderful news. There is nothing wrong with you except that you believe there is.

Jesus willingly died to tell you you are forgiven but there was never any guilt except that you believed there was and turned against your true self.

So our job, if you will, is not to believe in God, or obey laws or rules. Our true self will do that naturally. Our job is to free ourselves from self hate. Because of our hate we destroy everything including all the good that was intended for us by so many who have labored down through time to heal us. We turn the doors to our salvation into weapons with which to kill each other. We use religion for war. We make of our religions a joke so that millions of seakers become discouraged and go elsewhere.

The struggle to save one religion, here Christianity, should be an attempt to save all religions. They are all the same, the attempt to recover what we can be. God is nothing more or less than the projection of our inner potential onto a Logos or Ideal. God is the product of human consciousness, but he is real. He is the tree nourished and made living because of the leaves.

The deeper ones self realization goes, the more like God one becomes.

It would seem, then that if you do not know your self, you do not know God.

Well that's more or less what I think. Naturally there are multiple implications I leave untouched.
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
hey moonbeam, good to see your attempts that your attempts at being succint have been successful. ok time for me to step out again...
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71


<< PlatinumGold,
I read your post on page 1. Do you have any source outside of imagining a scenario that fits what you want to believe?

When you say the most of Christianity is mislead, what do you mean? Do you mean the one's following the Bible or the Pope?
>>



hmmm. imagining a scenario that fits what i want to believe. mb i am.

most of christianity is mislead.

There is the life cycle of an organization model. It goes basically like this.

A leader has a vision, he builds an empire. His followers don't quite have the vision but they do their best to follow his rules. pretty soon he dies. the leadership continues there best to follow his rules. problem is rules tend not to allow for changes over time. pretty soon the organization faces a crisis, to continue as their leader instituted and see the end of the organization or to create new rules based on changeing times.

now let's make that more specific. martin Luther as he was whipping himself because of his burden as a sinner. What happened to him. He saw Jesus, he experienced forgiveness. He realized that all were to come to God as they were. but stop. I don't want to discuss the theology of Martin Luther because that is precisely where we run into problems. For martin Luthor it wasn't a theology it was a life changing event.

It's this desire for exclusivity that drives people to pretend to be christians. most of them don't even realize they are doing it. some of your most devout church goers are just pretenders. I don't even pretend to know who is what, but I know it to be true. I know it to be true because Jesus pointed it out in the Jewish Society, the story of the Rich Young ruler for eg.

anyway, i have a hard time coming up w/ short and precise answers. i don't deal in soundbites, i can't explain my religion in sound bites.

the key is:

John 3:5,6

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

In my opinion, both are the same. the born of the Spirit found in John 3 is exactly the same as the breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (both breath and soul are used interchangeably in scripture with spirit).

 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Just wanted to thank everyone so far for all their time and thought that they've put into this... hopefully, I'll have time tomorrow night to sit down and post a real response...
 

Polgara

Banned
Feb 1, 2002
127
0
0
hmmm. imagining a scenario that fits what i want to believe. mb i am

I was referring to the 'God thought this' and 'Satan thought this' stuff, mostly.

In my opinion, both are the same. the born of the Spirit found in John 3 is exactly the same as the breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (both breath and soul are used interchangeably in scripture with spirit).

So what's the difference between the Christian and the wannabe? How do I cross over?

Sarah
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
polgara

You don't God brings you over. It's not a race to see who gets there first. first isn't better than last. the only point is to finish on the right side. I really believe that no one knows better than God at which point a person will be most willing to accept His proposition. each person is given A chance or many chances to accept God's Spirit. But, here is the but, contrary to what most preachers will tell you, we cannot initiate that acceptance.

it's like God has a phone and we have a phone, but we don't have God's number. once God calls, we answer, we have the choice. to accept or to reject.

as to the God thought this Satan thought this, it's the way i process things. i'm not good at the totally abstract. i can only think in terms of how it would be verbalized. i express my thoughts the way they come to me. i guess i could make the ideas more abstract and it wouldnt seem so much like fiction.
 

Athanasius

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
975
0
0
Hi Rio:

Well, I agree with most of your last post on this "theologian thread." Time is our mode of sequencing. It is the lense through which we see, and for us to remove the lense is the same as being blind.

Nothing can be proven by analogy. But then again, it seems that life reduces us to a descartean demon that nothing can be proven. Maybe this life itself is analogy.

I agree with you that it is nonsense to talk of God as "wholly other" and outside of time. I think C.S. Lewis felt the same way. If we say that God is "wholly other" but then turn around and say that "God is love," we are really never saying anything more than, "God is love but his love is wholly other than our love, hence God is we know not what."

Hence, a hyper-Calvinist can say, without sensing any trace of absurdity, that God is love but that he created 1/3 of the angels and most of humanity with the specific and direct purpose of damning them in isolation and torment for all eternity.

If that is "love," than love is "I know not what." It is a stringing together of words that in the end means nothing to us.

Here is where I think it comes back to man is "Imago Deo." In one sense, all of our talk of God is anthropomorphism, yet I reject anthropomorphism as an excuse to avoid seeming contradictions about God. Besides, what then do we do with Christ? Isn't he, in Christian thought, the eternal anthropomorphism? Isn't he the Way by which any real knowledge of God comes?

If we are "Imago Deo," then the lense through which we see God at all is the human self. Even the Scriptures came through human selves, though I believe without error. So, we have sequencing, which in our case is temporal. If we are going to get anywhere, than we must presume that God has sequencing as well.

I shudder to invoke the Trinity, but if I had to apply the Trinity to our temporal mode, I would say this:

Father = the Unknown Future. God unknown.
Son/Word = the Present, the only slice of reality we actually possess. God known.
Spirit = the Past, God Experienced.

We see time as building to the future. Perhaps God sees it as rushing at us from the unknown into the known and then the experienced. We turn it around because we want to build on what is known and then predict what is currently unknown. This makes us feel safer. But God is saying: reality is unknown; choose the Way in the present moment where you can choose and build a resevoir of experience that will help you to experience real life.

But all of that is just analogy again, and nothing can be proven by analogy.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,073
6,603
126
I heard a facinating program on NPR's Science Friday today. The subject matter was the laughter and what it means. Some people have looked real deep into various of it's qualities and origin, etc., but some of the most facinating revelations to me were the notion that basically we laugh in social settings almost exclusively and we do so without reason, intention, or volition. We laugh when we are tickled, that it is a primate indication of physical play. I nearly fell over listening to the laugh of a chimp that was being tickled. I could feel a connection, a sense that I was hearing laughter. And of course I thought of this thread. It tickled me to think how sophisticated the arguments are to conceptualize a God in and out of time and then to note in juxtaposition the fact that that I have heard almost nothing to explain away the, to me, bone crushing obviousness that we are chimpanzees.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Okay, this is what I've come up with for now. It is by no means complete, but I feel that I have a few more thoughts that are relevant.

1) Is free will an illusion?

Just a couple thoughts on this... first, to define it: free will, in this context, means the ability to choose or reject one's salvation, independent of direct intervention from God. (some words from Phil. 2:12, and others helped to clarify this for me)
Second, in my opinion, it does exist, as it is defined contextually. With general revelation, God has revealed Himself to everyone. However, it is the individual choice of every person to accept it. While God knows what each person will eventually choose, He does not make that choice Himself; He may influence events so that they might culminate in someone's choice, and He has the power to do so, but he does not make the choice for each person. That is contrary to what holds true throughout the Bible, both literally and in a "mega-context".

2) How can punishment for original sin be just?

This is something that is difficult for me to explain, even with everyone's input. I'm going to borrow Athanasius' analogy for now: sin isn't an individual thing: it is a fact inherent in our human-hood (we are all leaves on the tree). However, through Christ's sacrifice, that same sin is now absolved for, we just have to accept and repent for that condition and nature - "for out of the heart of man comes all things evil"... etc. It's not so much punishment, as it is a sheer condition. There is nothing we can do to avoid it or deny it - "for all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God".
In my opinion... there may be exceptions, purely in the case of those who could not choose for themselves - young children, etc - but I won't get into that just now.

3) How can a good God allow evil to exist?

I think it comes down to the point that "God is love" (oft overused). Satan, in causing original sin, didn't do anything contradictory to God's words - he just twisted them. And I think that's what sin (and Satan) still do. They take good things (such as beauty, intelligence, etc) and twist them. Evil isn't necessarily completely opposite of God, it is just the absence of love, and a twisting of that which is right.
Again, I agree with Athanasius on the point that God is omnipotent in the sense of "non-contradictory"; that is, He can only do things that are in agreement with His nature. Love cannot force itself onto anyone; God cannot force people to accept Him, that is contrary to His nature. The evil that exists is propogated only by our own choices and Satan's twisting; God cannot fill something with Love unless that thing chooses God. It is the very free will that God gifts to us that allows evil to continue.

For now, this is all I have. I keep coming back to the same basic point, again and again, that I cannot comprehend or even dream about the complete answers to these questions. There is logic and reasoning behind the way things are in our world that I can never hope to understand; there are some things that only God was meant to know. And I think that is the way many of these issues end up playing out.

In my five months here, I've never seen as many thoughtful, intelligent responses as I've seen here. I'm truly impressed by the level of knowledge and insight that you all possess. DocManhatten, JohnnyReb, Netopia, Platinum Gold, hoihta, Rio Rebel and Athanasius, and everyone else that I missed... thank you.
 

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
While God knows what each person will eventually choose

Then I think the choice has already been made and free will does not exist.

But what's more relevant than that is still the fact that we don't don't make the choice as to how we are conditioned and defined (from which comes the predisposition to "accept or reject Christ"). That's where it seems too convenient that the "saved" happened to walk right into the predominant religion in the western hemesphere, and that of course that happens to be the one true religion, which is still naturally what everyone of every religion KNOWS their religion is (true) because they have empirical evidence and the contact with their respective God(s) to back it up. This is what exclusive religions overlook, and inclusive religions embrace.

 

Josephus

Senior member
Feb 11, 2002
205
0
0
I didn't have time to read the entire thread, please forgive me if I repeat a concept mentioned previously. I don't have a great deal of time to devote to the answers, but I have been deling with these very same issues in my coursework as a Graduate Student at Loyola's, Institute of Pastoral Studies....



<< 1) Is free will an illusion?

Just a couple thoughts on this... first, to define it: free will, in this context, means the ability to choose or reject one's salvation, independent of direct intervention from God.
>>



Free will does include the ability to chose salvation (choose life), but my understanding is a little more broad, in that God allows us to sin. Even after we decide to follow Christ, we still excercise this free will, and salvation is not totally dependent on abstinence from sin ( Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins 1Pe 4:8)



<< Second, in my opinion, it does exist, as it is defined contextually. With general revelation, God has revealed Himself to everyone. However, it is the individual choice of every person to accept it. While God knows what each person will eventually choose, He does not make that choice Himself; He may influence events so that they might culminate in someone's choice, and He has the power to do so, but he does not make the choice for each person. That is contrary to what holds true throughout the Bible, both literally and in a "mega-context". >>






<< 2) How can punishment for original sin be just? >>



This is an attempt to blame God for the human nature we have inherited and the "punishemnt" as it is commonly refered to, is incorporated into the concept of free will. God has always offered a way to escape the punishment, as it were, to find peace in light of our circumstances in relationship with God. Humanity, by an large has chosen the easy path, not to seek the comfort of God in our distress, but rather to excersize free will and seek peace in every other possible means...



<< 3) How can a good God allow evil to exist? >>



What is the value of human conciousness. Given the choice between the capacity to choose and love, with the consequence being the existence of evil in the world, and having no conciousness and being an automon, I find having life, and the choices a more meaningful existence...

Thank you for indulging my perspective, and again forgive me if I have not shed any new thought... back to term papers now...
 

Polgara

Banned
Feb 1, 2002
127
0
0
2) How can punishment for original sin be just?

I've been doing some reading lately on this (thanks to JohnnyReb I'm an aspiring churchie). From what I understand there is no punishment for original sin. Children who can't decide for themselves go to heaven if they die right? If God doesn't send anyone to hell until after they are old enough to understand sin, then they have obviously done sin *post-choice*, and that would be what sends them to Hell.

So that means that nobody is punished for original sin, except that we are going to die (born to die), and that we have the desire to sin as part of our genetic makeup.

At least that is what I have after reading a bit. ***looks mildly confused***

Sarah <== aspiring churchie
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81


<< 2) How can punishment for original sin be just?

I've been doing some reading lately on this (thanks to JohnnyReb I'm an aspiring churchie). From what I understand there is no punishment for original sin. Children who can't decide for themselves go to heaven if they die right? If God doesn't send anyone to hell until after they are old enough to understand sin, then they have obviously done sin *post-choice*, and that would be what sends them to Hell.

So that means that nobody is punished for original sin, except that we are going to die (born to die), and that we have the desire to sin as part of our genetic makeup.

At least that is what I have after reading a bit. ***looks mildly confused***

Sarah <== aspiring churchie
>>



Rock on, Sarah! Some good input... frighteningly close to my own thoughts regarding "original sin". What books are you reading?

Also, do you know of any Scripture to back that up?

The biggest difficulty my friend (and now, I) are having with all of these concepts is the logical explanation as to why a sin nature should persist in human beings (i.e. why should we still be "paying" for Adam's sin... he was, after all, only one man). This make sense to anyone, why we might be running into logical roadblocks?
 

Polgara

Banned
Feb 1, 2002
127
0
0
I happened to have a copy of Questions and Answers by Dr. J. Vernon McGee.

He says that the story of the children being allowed into the Promised Land because they did not know Good from Evil shows that God doesn't punish kids for sin. I guess the adults did something to really tick off God, becaus he killed them all.

He also said that this guy David had a baby that was sick, and he stopped crying and actually celebrated after the baby died because he would go to be with him one day.

He does say that children are not without sin, and he talks a bit about his grandbaby, but that God does not judge anyone until they have a chance to say yes or no.

Sarah <== has just exhausted everything she knows about church stuff
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,073
6,603
126
Well since the world became fractured by language we have been raised by fractured parents in a fractured manner. There will be no freedom from original sin until the source of the disease is fully understood and addressed on a world wide scale. That may be the same as saying it will never be addressed. The only realistic hope for freedom is with the individual.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |