right and wrong in the bible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

- Mozart's music, Shakespeare's writing - are manifestations of the human desire to surpass humanity - to approach absolute truth and beauty. That is a function of the God consciousness IMO. The Bible tells us that all men have been given this awareness.



You cannot choose to grow younger; you cannot choose to halt the development of your body/brain/emotions without doing serious damage to yourself - and as far as I'm concerned, the ability to destroy ourselves does not mean we have control over our growth; it just means we can stop it or retard it. Whether you like it or not, your body will get old and die - regardless of how much "control" you think you exercise over your body. It does what it pleases in terms of growth. You may tell it how to move or behave, but not how to grow.



Art is a thing; human beings are not things. Shakespeare wrote plays - we consider them art. Shakespeare is an artist, but he cannot be confused as being "art" himself. Your blurring of the two together occurs only in language.

---

1-shakespeare, mozart, and allan watts creations are not around to surpass humanity and find absolute truth and beauty. they are around to show humanity how beatiful it is as it is. these artist are like optomitrist. their job is to make us see how beautiful things already are by adjusting attuning our focus a little bit.

there is no absolute anything. every solid has space, every sound has silence, every truth has lies. you yourself said that in our plain of reality, there must be contraries to make things work--theres isnt an absolute anything.

2- i am not saying i make a conscious decision to control the biological functioning of my body. what i was saying is that my lack of conscious decision doesnt imply me not controlling it none the less. when i take a swing on the baseball diamond, i am not consciously going through every aspect of my swing, if i did i would never hit the ball. rather, i am letting my unconscious do the work. to understand what i say, you have to realize that i dont jsut consider me to be the consious, thinking me. i think me also includes the contrary of that, the unconscious or superconscious and non-thinking me. you know that in hindu philosophy their god is seen as not consciously controlling anything, but just doing everything spontaneously, just like we spontaneously grow our hair or beat or hearts.

3-on the contrary, the blurring of the two exist only in reality. its in language that the doer and deed are seen as seperate. just showing that what you call reality and what i call reality are two seperate things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

1-shakespeare, mozart, and allan watts creations are not around to surpass humanity and find absolute truth and beauty. they are around to show humanity how beatiful it is as it is. these artist are like optomitrist. their job is to make us see how beautiful things already are by adjusting attuning our focus a little bit.

---

I've read one of Watt's books - it was interesting, but it doesn't place him in the same rank as the other two giants listed. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

there is no absolute anything. every solid has space, every sound has silence, every truth has lies. you yourself said that in our plain of reality, there must be contraries to make things work--theres isnt an absolute anything.

---

No - I said no such thing. I believe "good" is quite understandable without "bad" - I believe "bad" takes its meaning from "good." We don't need contraries. That we can learn from them does not make them essential - only instructive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

2- i am not saying i make a conscious decision to control the biological functioning of my body. what i was saying is that my lack of conscious decision doesnt imply me not controlling it none the less. when i take a swing on the baseball diamond, i am not consciously going through every aspect of my swing, if i did i would never hit the ball. rather, i am letting my unconscious do the work. to understand what i say, you have to realize that i dont jsut consider me to be the consious, thinking me. i think me also includes the contrary of that, the unconscious or superconscious and non-thinking me. you know that in hindu philosophy their god is seen as not consciously controlling anything, but just doing everything spontaneously, just like we spontaneously grow our hair or beat or hearts.

---

Your unconscious does not swing the bat - your swinging of the bat is a consequence of a decision your mind made and the resulting messages sent by your brain to parts of your body that enabled it to coordinate the action of hitting the ball. It's not like Star Wars where you "let go, Luke! Stretch out with your feelings!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

3-on the contrary, the blurring of the two exist only in reality. its in language that the doer and deed are seen as seperate. just showing that what you call reality and what i call reality are two seperate things.

---

There is a distinction between creator and created. I am not my deeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I've read one of Watt's books - it was interesting, but it doesn't place him in the same rank as the other two giants listed. Sorry.



No - I said no such thing. I believe "good" is quite understandable without "bad" - I believe "bad" takes its meaning from "good." We don't need contraries. That we can learn from them does not make them essential - only instructive.



Your unconscious does not swing the bat - your swinging of the bat is a consequence of a decision your mind made and the resulting messages sent by your brain to parts of your body that enabled it to coordinate the action of hitting the ball. It's not like Star Wars where you "let go, Luke! Stretch out with your feelings!"



There is a distinction between creator and created. I am not my deeds.

---

1) i thought you might object to me throwing watts in there.

2) i am not going to search the archives to quote you, but you did say what i said you said, you must have slipped?

i agree, being able to learn from things does not make them essential. after all, you learn from the bible. . .but, contraries are more than merely instructive. contaries keep things working. the bad weather nourishes the habitat and the good weather does as well, but in different ways. without the former-drought, and without the lat-floods. hence, contraries are essential. prove this incorrect.

3) funny you should quote star wars, my name is luke and i use the powerful ally known as the force. yet, you missed the point. a conscious decision is made to swing or not, this is true, but even this decision is debatable on how much is choice and how much is reaction. but the swing itself is pure instinct, pure practiced habit, done without thought. that is why ball player practice every day. the goal is to be able to play without thinking about it. thinking gets in the way of its natural ally--instinct/unconsciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

1) i thought you might object to me throwing watts in there.

---

Why wouldn't I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

2) i am not going to search the archives to quote you, but you did say what i said you said, you must have slipped?

---

Sorry - you'll have to do your homework and find the quotation, because either here, or elsewhere, I made it clear that contraries are not essential; people advance the idea we need evil in order for us to appreciate "good" - I contest that, pure and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

i agree, being able to learn from things does not make them essential. after all, you learn from the bible. . .

---

What's the point of this statement? Is it some sort of "dig" because I'd be very disappointed if that was what you intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

but, contraries are more than merely instructive. contaries keep things working. the bad weather nourishes the habitat and the good weather does as well, but in different ways. without the former-drought, and without the lat-floods. hence, contraries are essential. prove this incorrect.

---

We're talking about two different things; I understand that contraries exist on earth, and I acknowledged that they do hold a necessary function; however, my point is that we do not need evil to appreciate good - good can exist without evil, but not vice-versa. I was making a philosophical point, and you're presenting natural examples. It doesn't work that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

3) funny you should quote star wars, my name is luke and i use the powerful ally known as the force. yet, you missed the point. a conscious decision is made to swing or not, this is true, but even this decision is debatable on how much is choice and how much is reaction. but the swing itself is pure instinct, pure practiced habit, done without thought. that is why ball player practice every day. the goal is to be able to play without thinking about it. thinking gets in the way of its natural ally--instinct/unconsciousness.

---

The reaction occurs because of the decision/desire to hit the ball. If you really don't want to hit it - guess what? - your body will not override you and swing the bat anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

3) funny you should quote star wars, my name is luke and i use the powerful ally known as the force. yet, you missed the point. a conscious decision is made to swing or not, this is true, but even this decision is debatable on how much is choice and how much is reaction. but the swing itself is pure instinct, pure practiced habit, done without thought. that is why ball player practice every day. the goal is to be able to play without thinking about it. thinking gets in the way of its natural ally--instinct/unconsciousness.

---

Ok this example you are using is just wrong. If it was truly an unconcious action the batter would constantly be swinging at every pitch that comes towards him, irrespective of location - a batter like that would not be in the league for long.

A batter always makes a concious decision about where, when and how to swing the bat: Is he looking to get just a base hit to continue the inning? Does he want to pull the ball into a specific gap between the fielders? is he looking for a bunt to advance the runner? etc What makes the professional so good is that he can still process all of these things and still do what he intended correctly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Ok this example you are using is just wrong. If it was truly an unconcious action the batter would constantly be swinging at every pitch that comes towards him, irrespective of location - a batter like that would not be in the league for long.

A batter always makes a concious decision about where, when and how to swing the bat: Is he looking to get just a base hit to continue the inning? Does he want to pull the ball into a specific gap between the fielders? is he looking for a bunt to advance the runner? etc What makes the professional so good is that he can still process all of these things and still do what he intended correctly

---

are you saying unconscious activity is chaotic--because the heart is unconscious and it does just fine, in an orderly fashion. i played baseball and i am talking from experience, not theory. when i make the choice to swing (choice, istinctual habit, whatever) i dont think about how i am swinging, faze by faze. i just hit the ball. the faze by faze is what practice is for. there isnt a thought saying step, now load, now lead with the left hand (i am a righty) and punch with the right, keep your eye on the ball, flick the wrist, follow through. i dont think that way, i just do it, without thought. if i did think step by step i would never get the bat off my shoulder. this doesnt mean i dont control my swing, it just means i dont have to think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Sorry - you'll have to do your homework and find the quotation, because either here, or elsewhere, I made it clear that contraries are not essential; people advance the idea we need evil in order for us to appreciate "good" - I contest that, pure and simple.




What's the point of this statement? Is it some sort of "dig" because I'd be very disappointed if that was what you intended.



We're talking about two different things; I understand that contraries exist on earth, and I acknowledged that they do hold a necessary function; however, my point is that we do not need evil to appreciate good - good can exist without evil, but not vice-versa. I was making a philosophical point, and you're presenting natural examples. It doesn't work that way.

.

---

1) we dont need evil just to appreciate good. we need evil for good to EXIST and vice versa. there would have never been a word meaning "good" if someone didnt know "not good". that is the nature of language. by saying something is "this" we are implying that it's not "that".

2) not a dig, just pointing out that the bible isnt used by a lot of people, therefore its not essential to a lot of people.

3) kind of touched on this in (1). philosophy and nature are not mutually exclusive. i cant use nature as evidence for the neccessity of good AND evil? come one, nature is the best source for any analogy. how about an example of good existing without evil in reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

1) we dont need evil just to appreciate good. we need evil for good to EXIST and vice versa. there would have never been a word meaning "good" if someone didnt know "not good". that is the nature of language. by saying something is "this" we are implying that it's not "that".

---

I do not agree. Let me finish this off so I can save you valuable time trying to convince me: God is the author of all that is good - He is the very definition of good; as such, God does not need Satan to exist in order that He (God) exists. So, my point stands: good can exist without evil. It cannot and will not here on this earth; so, you are correct in the sense that the two will always be linked on this earth before God makes the earth new. But I'm making a philosophical point about ultimate reality: evil is known by its relationship to good, but although it can work in the opposite direction, that does not mean it must.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

2) not a dig, just pointing out that the bible isnt used by a lot of people, therefore its not essential to a lot of people.

---

And that's relevant how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

3) kind of touched on this in (1). philosophy and nature are not mutually exclusive. i cant use nature as evidence for the neccessity of good AND evil? come one, nature is the best source for any analogy. how about an example of good existing without evil in reality.

---

Already covered this above.

I'll repost this:
One thing I never understood was the paradox between the Old and New Testament. Call me crazy but God is very insane in the old Testament. He "wrongly" kills many innocent people caught up in his plan for salvation through Him. Just read Genisis and Exodus. Those poor Egyptians were caught up in a war of who has a bigger you know what between God and The Pharaoh. In The New Testament, when God is in the flesh, he is a loving and very peaceful guy. He wouldnt harm a fly.
Anyway, this is why following someone else's faith is ridiculous too me. You will have plenty of Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists telling you that their faith is the true way. If you believe in something more, follow what is in your heart and not what is in someone else's. I believe there is a purpose to life and that purpose is to walk on the path that has been chosen for YOU.

I am not trying to offend anyone by the way, I just believe you have to find yourself and follow your own course and what is internal will lead you through the external.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Jordan

I'll repost this:
One thing I never understood was the paradox between the Old and New Testament. Call me crazy but God is very insane in the old Testament. He "wrongly" kills many innocent people caught up in his plan for salvation through Him. Just read Genisis and Exodus. Those poor Egyptians were caught up in a war of who has a bigger you know what between God and The Pharaoh. In The New Testament, when God is in the flesh, he is a loving and very peaceful guy. He wouldnt harm a fly.

---

We need both testaments' pictures of God in order to get the complete picture. God is a God of mercy (NT) and judgment (OT). God cannot be just if He is only merciful. God doesn't kill "innocent" people; if He destroys a person or a people, the assumption we must make (if God is as the Bible describes Him - all-powerful, all-knowing, benovolent, loving, just, etc) is that He knows more than we do and that His judgment is perfect. We may not see why right now, but all things will someday be made clear to the satisfaction of all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Jordan

Anyway, this is why following someone else's faith is ridiculous too me. You will have plenty of Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists telling you that their faith is the true way. If you believe in something more, follow what is in your heart and not what is in someone else's. I believe there is a purpose to life and that purpose is to walk on the path that has been chosen for YOU.

---

"Following" one's heart is good advice - assuming that the heart is good. If it's not - then what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Not sure if this is entirely relevant, but Jesus does talk occasionally about how in certain situations it is ok to ignore the commandments:

Ha! Jesus sure showed those uppity pharisees a thing or two! (Translation: God would rather have you work on the Sabbath than starve.)

I don't think very many reasons are given. When they are, they usually just go back to 'God said so':Yeah, we get it God, you're the Lord.

Edit: I am by no means an authority on this, so you would be wise to wait until somebody who knows what they are talking about comes along before you take this as absolute fact.

---

Jesus never told people to violate the actual commandments, but he at times said it was okay to ignore tradition--the rules created by Israelite society and rabbinical teaching. By connection to today, that would be like Catholics eating meat on Friday (I know they changed that, but it's the most comparable thing), or like refusing to cross yourself (again, in the Catholic Church--that's the usual thing for Catholics). Oh, and, I forget who originally started the thread, but, how much Friedrich Nietzsche do you read? Seriously, don't take that guy too seriously--he claimed that Also Sprach Zarathustra (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) was "the greatest gift given to mankind," and also that he was the antichrist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

We need both testaments' pictures of God in order to get the complete picture. God is a God of mercy (NT) and judgment (OT). God cannot be just if He is only merciful. God doesn't kill "innocent" people; if He destroys a person or a people, the assumption we must make (if God is as the Bible describes Him - all-powerful, all-knowing, benovolent, loving, just, etc) is that He knows more than we do and that His judgment is perfect. We may not see why right now, but all things will someday be made clear to the satisfaction of all.



"Following" one's heart is good advice - assuming that the heart is good. If it's not - then what?

---

Good points, Red. Another thing to consider is the goal of God during the respective periods of the OT/NT. In the Old Testament, under the old covenant (testament=covenant anyway), God was establishing the nation of Israel as His chosen people--one of the reasons for the ritual cleansing ceremonies for lepers and other physically oriented commandments was to keep His people different from other people in a mundane way. In the New Testament, under the covenant through Christ, He was establishing a spiritual people-hence Paul's words that "there is no Jew nor Gentile, nor male nor female, nor slave nor free" because all believers are united under Christ Jesus. God in the OT was not cruel, He was just establishing a visible, earthly kingdom... to pave the way for the spiritual kingdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

God in the OT was not cruel, He was just establishing a visible, earthly kingdom... to pave the way for the spiritual kingdom.

---

He only wiped out mankind and made people sacrifice each other. If you don't consider that cruel then your morals need some tuning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

He only wiped out mankind and made people sacrifice each other. If you don't consider that cruel then your morals need some tuning.

---

He who created all has the prerogative to destroy what He creates. You level a judgment without knowing all of the facts behind the decision; there may very well be mitigating factors that God takes into consideration in making His decisions that He has not felt fit to share with us.

keep defending a murderer...you guys are more like God's lawyer in this argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

keep defending a murderer...you guys are more like God's lawyer in this argument.

---

Ah, hype, just like old times, eh? You and I haven't bantered for seemingly weeks.

God needs no defense from me.

I haven't argued in a while...I had to get it out of my system. I'm glad you guys got a new recruit (weepingfornoman). That should make things even more fun. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

God doesn't kill "innocent" people; if He destroys a person or a people, the assumption we must make (if God is as the Bible describes Him - all-powerful, all-knowing, benovolent, loving, just, etc) is that He knows more than we do and that His judgment is perfect.

---

In that case, what about the death of a baby? How can a child, that can't possibly have done anything wrong in this world, not be innocent? I'm assuming I'll get one of the typical responses to this question - the "all people are born sinners" or "humanity's sins are the reason" or the much rarer "It was the parent's sins". Either way, no response is suitable as each is weakly covering up the ineptitude of God's decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

He only wiped out mankind and made people sacrifice each other. If you don't consider that cruel then your morals need some tuning.

---

He never actually made anyone sacrifice another person... you're obviously alluding to Abraham and Isaac... read the end of the story, it's a real twist ending!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

In that case, what about the death of a baby? How can a child, that can't possibly have done anything wrong in this world, not be innocent? I'm assuming I'll get one of the typical responses to this question - the "all people are born sinners" or "humanity's sins are the reason" or the much rarer "It was the parent's sins". Either way, no response is suitable as each is weakly covering up the ineptitude of God's decisions.

---

You severely underestimate just how screwed up humanity is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

You severely underestimate just how screwed up humanity is.

---

No, I don't. It's the one area that catches every Christian out - no matter what their denomination is - because, simply, there is no justification whatsoever for such actions (and trying to cover it up as sin just seems completely detrimental to serious debate - and the same deal for saying humanity is screwed up. How exactly is that do with the complete innocence of a new-born that drops dead after 5 seconds of living? What has that individual done to deserve to die?)

Sorry not a christian, but dont newborn babies, in fact dont children and innocents go straight to heaven by passing the 'grave' and day judgment stages? Because they ar not held accountable for any of ther actions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

He never actually made anyone sacrifice another person... you're obviously alluding to Abraham and Isaac... read the end of the story, it's a real twist ending!

---

Roman soldiers were getting sick to their stomach when christianity took over Rome. These christians started to practice weird rituals, including sacrifice. And let's not forget about the crusades...killing in the name of God. how about president bush saying that he is killing people in this war because god told him to do so? read the end of this article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...ID=0&listSrc=Y

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Roman soldiers were getting sick to their stomach when christianity took over Rome. These christians started to practice weird rituals, including sacrifice. And let's not forget about the crusades...killing in the name of God. how about president bush saying that he is killing people in this war because god told him to do so? read the end of this article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...ID=0&listSrc=Y

---

First of all, Christianity "took over" Rome?
Second, I've talked about the Crusades many times before, it was because Christianity under the medieval popes was becoming secularized and politicized to an unhealthy degree.
Third, even if they did practice sacrifices, that was a period of time when everybody was trying stuff out, Paul was the first to make a large-scale, concious effort to clarify Christianity.
Fourth, who says Bush speaks for all Christians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

No, I don't. It's the one area that catches every Christian out - no matter what their denomination is - because, simply, there is no justification whatsoever for such actions (and trying to cover it up as sin just seems completely detrimental to serious debate - and the same deal for saying humanity is screwed up. How exactly is that do with the complete innocence of a new-born that drops dead after 5 seconds of living? What has that individual done to deserve to die?)

---

You seem to miss the possibility that there is the capability of evil in any person at all--but, besides, no one actually knows what happens to babies that die... I definitely don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

You seem to miss the possibility that there is the capability of evil in any person at all--but, besides, no one actually knows what happens to babies that die... I definitely don't.

---

That's not much of explanation - if God truly does allow us free will then surely an individual should be allowed to grow into a position where they can use said free will (whether rightfully or wrongfully) (otherwise he is condemning for nothing and thus killing innocents - someone posted previously the claim God didn't do this). You're moving it in to a dangerous area of nature/nurture without really demonstrating one way or the other (or a mixture of both for that matter). If that was an explanation then why would God allow people, who are judged evil by the vast majority of humanity, to live much further past birth? Is it possible that babies who die are potentially more evil than that? Short of exterminating everyone on earth, I guess not.

Why does the death of a newborn have to mean something deeper than the death of an adult? Don't people die because their body basically can't overcome an injury, or illness, disease? Our bodies cannot withstand everything. I would imagine that would apply to a child as well. Couldn't it be just as simple that the baby's body was not strong enough? Or that something went wrong within the womb? If you are going to start making theories about newborn babies that died, what would that mean about miscarages? Are those the extra extra evil people that weren't even allowed to grow within the womb? You would be surprised to know how many women experience miscarages that don't even know it, in the very early stages. I think that is a bit of an absurd theory really. What about babies that were dying when first born, almost died, but somehow managed to survive? Were they babies that God hesitated on, then decided to let them through that stage of life and continue on living? Babies are innocent, and they cannot possibly be sinful. They are also known to be so "new" and aware of so much more than us...that they can even still see through the veil. If that is true, which I don't doubt at all (although I am sure some of you might), they can't possibly be anything more than an innocent child, otherswise that wouldn't be possible. That is a bit nonsensical to think that if we are given free agency, we should be allowed to be grown enough to use it. Death is a fact of life, and it should also be a fact that you know not when, or even what age. If a woman smokes while pregnant, or drinks...whatever, and causes that baby within her to have horrible birth defects, again...that is not inflicted on that child because he/she deserves it, it is a newborn that is affected greatly by the sins of another.
Kari

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

That's not much of explanation - if God truly does allow us free will then surely an individual should be allowed to grow into a position where they can use said free will (whether rightfully or wrongfully) (otherwise he is condemning for nothing and thus killing innocents - someone posted previously the claim God didn't do this). You're moving it in to a dangerous area of nature/nurture without really demonstrating one way or the other (or a mixture of both for that matter). If that was an explanation then why would God allow people, who are judged evil by the vast majority of humanity, to live much further past birth? Is it possible that babies who die are potentially more evil than that? Short of exterminating everyone on earth, I guess not.

---

Okay: I don't believe in full free will. That's for starters. Secondly, there is no "innocent"-with the possible exception of infants, but if they are, then they would go to heaven. God allows people judged to be evil to live because, a.) if he killed all the evil people, there would be no occasion for instances of radical goodness; b.) death is not the ultimate evil--death does not mean you've been judged as sinful, or even punished that severely; c.) God has His own reasons (I listed this last b/c otherwise you'd call it a cop-out). I don't even see what you mean by the last part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

In that case, what about the death of a baby? How can a child, that can't possibly have done anything wrong in this world, not be innocent? I'm assuming I'll get one of the typical responses to this question - the "all people are born sinners" or "humanity's sins are the reason" or the much rarer "It was the parent's sins". Either way, no response is suitable as each is weakly covering up the ineptitude of God's decisions.

---

All are born into sin - the child has not committed any sin, but his/her nature is predisposed towards sin; it begins with selfishness and will continue if the parents do not intervene and teach the child what it means to love.

The death of a child grieves God - always. God allows (not causes) children to die - and that is terrible and we don't understand it and I wouldn't dream of giving a justification because - here on earth, and not knowing what God knows - I cannot offer any good reason. But: your final sentence tells me that explaining anything to you would be pointless: if you conceive of God as being "inept" what you've really said is that you don't believe in Him and you discount how the Bible describes Him - good, loving, kind, compassionate, merciful, just, all-knowing, all-powerful. Think for a moment: if all those things are true, then we have to assume that God has His reasons; if we don't believe those descriptions, then why has He allowed non-believers to continue to exist to mock and dismiss Him? If you believe in Him, you can't have it both ways: either He is or is not as the Bible describes Him; if He's not, then what is He like? An "inept" God is no God at all - but merely a glorified human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

All are born into sin - the child has not committed any sin, but his/her nature is predisposed towards sin; it begins with selfishness and will continue if the parents do not intervene and teach the child what it means to love.
.

---

where is the empirical evidence for this blatant attack against unconditioned human nature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

where is the empirical evidence for this blatant attack against unconditioned human nature?

---

The Bible. First book, chapter 3. Cf. Romans 3:10-18

The evidence would be in the fact that the default behavior of humanity is generally selfishness. Unless parents take an active role to discourage this inherent focus on self, it grows into an ego that only sees the world as an extension of itself - and that is the root of all evil. (The love of money is pretty bad too).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

where is the empirical evidence for this blatant attack against unconditioned human nature?

---

Where is the empirical evidence? Look around: war, hatred, murder, robbery... that's not evidence of human nature being disposed toward evil? I'll even throw in one that I think perfectly exemplifies innate selfishness, though you may disagree: abortion. I think it's very selfish for someone to terminate a pregnancy, essentially end a fetus's chance to live (I think this whole deal about life "starting" later is really shallow--if it will become a human, isn't it alive?) to make life easier for the parent. Pretty dang selfish.

Oh, this doesn't count as current politics does it? Hope not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Unless parents take an active role to discourage this inherent focus on self, it grows into an ego that only sees the world as an extension of itself.

---

You're placing rather a large amount of your argument on nurture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

All are born into sin - the child has not committed any sin, but his/her nature is predisposed towards sin; it begins with selfishness and will continue if the parents do not intervene and teach the child what it means to love.

The death of a child grieves God - always. God allows (not causes) children to die - and that is terrible and we don't understand it and I wouldn't dream of giving a justification because - here on earth, and not knowing what God knows - I cannot offer any good reason. But: your final sentence tells me that explaining anything to you would be pointless: if you conceive of God as being "inept" what you've really said is that you don't believe in Him and you discount how the Bible describes Him - good, loving, kind, compassionate, merciful, just, all-knowing, all-powerful. Think for a moment: if all those things are true, then we have to assume that God has His reasons; if we don't believe those descriptions, then why has He allowed non-believers to continue to exist to mock and dismiss Him? If you believe in Him, you can't have it both ways: either He is or is not as the Bible describes Him; if He's not, then what is He like? An "inept" God is no God at all - but merely a glorified human.

---

Firstly, see the last post I made above.

Secondly, explaining anything to me would pointless? Way to go on the personal attack.

I see that you are, by your post, one of those types that believe unconditionally in the biblical account of God: that is fine. What is not fine is attacking me personally for the fact that your God allows suffering - to even the most innocent (even those that have no ability to create evil (when was the last time you read about a new-born that shot someone dead?). That, to me, is a completely inept form of decision making by God (whilst it is true that I have agnostic/atheistic leanings, it seems difficult to not judge a book that has been shown, in sections, to be completely false (or, in several cases, very unlikely) - therefore, of course I have difficulty in allowing the God is great, etc. mantra)). Why allow such things to happen? I cannot possibly think one of reason - even less so when the perpetually occurring universal sin is considered.

You may describe him as a 'good' God but as weepingforloman just wrote, "Look around: war, hatred, murder, robbery", the evidence of his creation is all around and suggests otherwise. If all this 'good' omnipotent God can create is the way humanity has been over the last few thousand years then you can keep him.

Give me a single good reason as to why God would allow it? Universal sin marking someone seems so inadequate as an answer - after all, how long do you continue punishing man? Several people have stated the 'evil' persuasion of humanity without the right confines to keep people good - that, to me, seems like a continually perpetrating act as it would require, to break this chain, every single person to behave good (both morally and in terms of biblical teaching). In short, if one is to live a continually sin-free life then one is punished in this life by God for the failings of others - that seems like a thing a good God would do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

Firstly, see the last post I made above.

Secondly, explaining anything to me would pointless? Way to go on the personal attack.

---

No attack was made upon you; I made an prediction of the success of engaging in dialogue with you about the nature of God because you have revealed that you do not see Him (even theoretically) as He is described: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, the source of all that is Good, Right, Just, Loving, Compassionate, etc in the universe. I'm not attacking your intelligence or you as a person; I'm indicating my idea of projected success in having a discussion based upon your characterization of God as a human being. All-knowing beings cannot be "inept" except when being evaluated by people who refuse to accord them the qualities they are described as having. Socrates' first rule of engagement was an agreement upon what the term being discussed meant; if you and I have diametrically opposed ideas of who God is, our discussion will be at cross-purposes from the start to the finish. That's what my comments were asserting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

I see that you are, by your post, one of those types that believe unconditionally in the biblical account of God: that is fine. What is not fine is attacking me personally for the fact that your God allows suffering - to even the most innocent (even those that have no ability to create evil (when was the last time you read about a new-born that shot someone dead?).

---

For the second time: nobody attacked you. I predicted the "success" we would have in this discussion. You are free to prove me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

That [God allows suffering - to even the most innocent], to me, is a completely inept form of decision making by God (whilst it is true that I have agnostic/atheistic leanings, it seems difficult to not judge a book that has been shown, in sections, to be completely false (or, in several cases, very unlikely) - therefore, of course I have difficulty in allowing the God is great, etc. mantra)). Why allow such things to happen? I cannot possibly think one of reason - even less so when the perpetually occurring universal sin is considered.

---

Your evaluation is based on your limited understanding of God's decision-making process; you make evaluations on what you observe in the world and what you believe is the right thing to do in terms of evil and suffering; while I respect your humanitarian view, it ignores certain realities about free will, love, and the cosmic nature of the battle between good and evil.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God; why don't you show me where it has been "proved false"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

You may describe him as a 'good' God but as weepingforloman just wrote, "Look around: war, hatred, murder, robbery", the evidence of his creation is all around and suggests otherwise. If all this 'good' omnipotent God can create is the way humanity has been over the last few thousand years then you can keep him.

---

I do not describe God as "good" - the Bible (the authority on His character) does so (many times and in many ways). The presence of sin does not mean that God isn't good; it means that there is a reason that God chooses not to eliminate these things at this point in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

Give me a single good reason as to why God would allow it?

---

From the human perspective, there is no good reason to allow evil to exist - period. I can't give you an example you'll accept because I don't know the mind of God. I will tell you this: since the Bible tells us that God desires that we freely love Him, there must also exist the choice to rebel against Him and reject Him; if God stops us from rejecting Him and stops us from commiting evil, then we really don't have free will - because free will involves the ability to choose between two legitimate choices. If God stops us from commiting evil, then He is not a God of love, because love cannot exist without the choice to not love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

Universal sin marking someone seems so inadequate as an answer - after all, how long do you continue punishing man? Several people have stated the 'evil' persuasion of humanity without the right confines to keep people good - that, to me, seems like a continually perpetrating act as it would require, to break this chain, every single person to behave good (both morally and in terms of biblical teaching). In short, if one is to live a continually sin-free life then one is punished in this life by God for the failings of others - that seems like a thing a good God would do.

---

A sin-free life is impossible. God counterbalances the suffering and evil in this world through His provision of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ - the death of whom allows all sinners to come to God, to be justified, forgiven and saved. The Holy Spirit provides comfort to those in affliction. None of this - I understand - is probably even remotely reasonable or acceptable to you. I would suggest that the "good" God you want - if He existed according to the parameters you set - would be a horrible God to live under.

Anymore personal or inflammatory comments, this thread too will be closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

when was the last time you read about a new-born that shot someone dead?

as weepingforloman just wrote, "Look around: war, hatred, murder, robbery", the evidence of his creation is all around and suggests otherwise

---

Why, just the last week I read about a fetus that shot its twin prenatally. Of course, that was in "The Onion," so I'm not sure that counts...

You happen to be using my words out of context. How could you blame God for war? Hatred, war, murder, etc. are not from God.