Printable View
Speaking of sins...
Sin is an imaginary burden. Repenting to a priest (that believes he has some sort of special connection to God) is ridiculous. If in fact you want God's "forgiveness" then just pray...you don't have to speak with a man that thinks he's higher than you.
Instead of calling these burdens "sins", rename them "flaws". Replicate what Dante did and correct your character. Only then will you reach the stars.
Lightly said - because if you really believed that Hell existed, you might say differently. I find it fascinating that people will often make this statement - "I'd rather suffer in Hell than be with a God like this" as if political correctness is worth sacrificing your soul for.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Your comment is based on the idea that our idea of the implications of a homosexual lifestyle are more enlightened/informed/realistic/whatever than that of a Supreme Being. We can trumpet "politically correct" ideas all we want - what I'm asking you to entertain is the idea that our evaluation of a specific thing may not be correct.
Try this: just pretend for a minute that a Being exists that is PERFECT in its mind and heart - that it is the embodiment of all that is good and right and just and fair and merciful and compassionate - but to a degree of perfection that humans can never, ever reach. Assuming such a being exists, shouldn't we have reason to consider what this Being defines as right and wrong? To speak as you have is - in my opinion - to treat God as if He is just another person who says "I don't like homosexuals" (which, by the way is not something He would ever say). God is not a magnified human being - He is a Supreme Being - one who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Once you accept that, then you have to consider that He may very well know better than we as to what is good and bad, right and wrong.
In fact, I think the idea that God sees all sin as equal is actually comforting - it means that none of us is better than anybody else; as well, it also means that there is no sin so terrible that places a person outside of the forgiveness of God. The bad part is that everybody now finds themselves in need of forgiveness, no matter how "virtuous" the life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
I don't believe in confessing to a priest (or other mediator) either.
But: I don't think sin is "imaginary." "Flaws"? Murder, rape, theft, manipulation - these are flaws? I doubt it. ""Flaw" implies some imperfection - "sin" implies a conscious choice. Let's not remove moral responsibility from people, please.
The fact that "God sees all sin as equal" is ridiculous. Living by that logical makes perfect sense [sarcasm added]...let me shoot a man and have it treated the same as another man who just masturbated. That's why I think the concept of "sin" is sign of individual weakness. I don't need God's opinion for the severity of my actions.
Great. I didn't present the idea because I thought it would meet universal approval. As the NT says - whoever breaks the least of the laws has broken them all because all sin is - at its core - rebellion against God. It's interesting that you focus on the "bad" part and skip the good part I added - which is that God equally forgives ALL. Unlike humans, He has no problem extending forgiveness to even the "worst" offenders.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Either way, the fact that God sees all sin the same does not mean He expects us to do so; what it means is that we are to be very careful about using the "severity" of sins to judge other people - it means that we Christians need to be aware that just because we (generally) don't commit "major" sins (murder, rape, theft, etc) that we are not in need of saving and of God's forgiveness; it means that our human tendency to judge those "worse" than us is mitigated by our realization that - in God's eyes - we're no better.
I don't understand the logic that a "concept" (sin) is an "individual weakness"? How can that be? And, what would you like to call moral transgressions (besides "flaws")?
Please try to stay on topic. Discussing all kinds of sins doesn't contribute to the topic. If you want to discuss this issue further, please feel free to create another thread.
Redzeppelin,
Who ever said science was certain? As I have made clear, it is because of its flexibility with regard to discovering the nature of the Universe, that makes science so useful. It doesn't deal with certainties. That's what religion likes to think it deals with.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of science. It is accumulative. It is adaptive, open to revision. It doesn't hide in obscurities or dogmas. It is largely based upon probability, replication and testability. Maybe you need to distinguish between scientism and science.
<Plenty of so-called "truths" do not "seem" true to me - and plenty of others do not merely "seem" but are untrue absolutely.>
How do you decide what is untrue absolutely? I thought you had said earlier that we do not know what is around the corner, so how can we know what is and is not absolute? Something absolute is true now, in the past and for the duration of time isn't it?
<I use probably the very same tools you use to assess the world and its truths.>
So when you accept a statement made in a 2-3,000 year old book by someone whose history you only know from their alleged writings, that is supposed to somehow equate to me accepting a claim made today in a book of science that is open to peer review, and if you can be foolish enough to need to verify every statement made in the book, open to physical verification too. Are you really trying to convince me that these are really two similar methods? Furthermore, I would not trust any scientific statement made 2-3,000 years ago without referring to modern science. What kind of subject puts such old-fashioned views at the forefront of its world outlook? Not one I would care to endorse.
<The difference is that I'm not chained to the idea that "if I can't see it, it's not real" (which your leaning on physical evidence implies).>
It does not imply that at all. You know sound, touch, and all the other senses are physical too. In fact, as we live in a physical Universe, everything within it is physical.
My apologies. atiguhya padma broached the topic and I felt it necessary to correct his misunderstanding. It was not my intention to bring the topic up, but atiguhya and hyperborean made them an issue. I'll drop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
Sin is an imaginary burden. def: commit a sin; violate a law of God. The only reason why I disagree because I don't let God govern my life. I govern myself which gives me individual freewill. This is when the slave-master morality comes into play.
When one has committed a wrong doing that was against that individual's morals or society's morals, I wouldn't classify it as a sin, but instead an imperfection of character. Thus, that individual shall mend that imperfection in order to move forward towards the goal of overcoming oneself. Worrying about what that divine figure has to sa, or if that action will take away that precious ticket into heaven, is just silly.
As much as I enjoy debate, this one’s turning tedious (and I’m sure you feel the same) because we keep talking past each other. Rather than deal with your points (unless you have a burden for me to repeat myself), allow me try to succinctly put a cap on this argument:Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
The discussion about Creation vs. Evolution is really a discussion as to whether or not God exists – that and nothing else (this is my opinion – arguing with it won’t change it). Here’s why I say this: I believe in a Supreme Being whom I know as “God” – He is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present; He is good, merciful, kind, just, compassionate, and most of all – loving. From that basis, all other things fall into place. For example, the Bible – rather than a book of “myths” put together by deluded human beings, becomes a living text – the transcendent word of God Himself – His thoughts (not humanity’s) put down on paper by an inspired human hand. As such, any account the Bible gives (including the Creation) I must now see as having Divine Authority behind it – which is what establishes its credibility to me – not the validation of various scholars and historians.
Once you accept that God is who the Bible says He is – that His knowledge, intellect and understanding are perfect, as are His love, justice and mercy - it then follows that what He says now has authority for the believer – an authority that ultimately trumps social/cultural trend, “political correctness” and – if necessary – even the unproven claims of science. Science is a good thing – I believe in science. But I believe more in God – and that’s the crux of this disagreement, because if you don’t believe in God, then the Creationist position collapses like a house of cards. If God doesn’t exist, then yes: the Christian position is silly and fully incredible.
For the Christian, God’s authority is the final arbiter of things. That doesn’t mean I’m always right – but it means that (as far as my imperfect mind is capable of understanding) I trust that God is who He says He is – and if He is who He says He is – then He obviously is smarter than I, wiser than I and is in a better position to tell me the nature of reality than anybody or anything else – even the sophisticated tools of science (which are products of imperfect human hands) for the simple reason that I believe He created reality (and I believe thusly because the book which I believe carries Divine Authority says He created reality).
Honestly, I’m impressed by the mountains of evidence evolutionist’s have, but I’m not interested in scouring the web for counter-arguments from Christian Science websites because – ultimately – we will both invalidate the other’s “evidence” because of the different foundations they rest on and the corresponding authority we ascribe to each. I’m tired of the argument – not because of you, but because of the circularity of our posts – a circularity I’ve repeated with a number of atheists who generally say the same thing to me in return.
The bottom line is belief in God. No amount of scientific evidence will erase that. It may alter my idea about life here on earth, it may not. But God it cannot touch.
I thank you for your comments and counter-arguments. You are clearly a sharp thinker, but – as Pendragon has posted in this forum more than once – I feel like I’m just beating the same dead horse over and over. I’m not asking you to believe me: I’m asking you to consider the foundation of my position – that God is real and Supreme. If you won’t even consider that that is a possibility, then we can learn nothing from each other because you will simply consider me a deluded madman instead of an intelligent and reasonable being – and why debate if we’re not interested in learning?
Final word: just because you don’t believe God exists doesn’t mean He doesn’t. Remember: you could be wrong and you have no way to prove God doesn’t exist – just like I don’t have anyway to prove evolution didn’t happen.
(PS - I know myself well enough to know that I won't permanently absent myself from this debate, but right now it's just an endless circle and I feel stupid repeating myself again and again and again. :sick: )
Hi Red,Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Sounds like you're becoming more agnostic! So, you are not 100% certain that God exists? If that's the case, then I'm with you. Its the absolute certainty that many proclaim that bothers me the most. Regardless, thanks for a lively discussion.
Well, actually, I do believe w/ 100% certainty that God exists - what I do not believe is that anybody else should accept that 100% certainty. I can no more prove that God exists than the atheist can prove evolution happened - there is no way to prove 100% certainty of either. I can acknowledge that God is not provable - what I want the evolutionist to acknowledge is that evolution is no more "provable" (at least to the level of certainty that many seem to claim). Mountains of evidence don't equal certainty; they equal significant probability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
Either way, I do appreciate your stance on uncertainty - because much of life we assume to be true is actually based on unquestioned assumptions. Less of life is "provable" than we're willing to acknowledge.
Thank you for your thoughtful proddings - they've kept me on my toes :)
I think this is the part where a lot of proponents of evolution (ok, me) get annoyed. I have no problem with people wanting to believe the world was created in 7 days, Methusala lived to whatever age etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Where I begin to get annoyed is when it is suggested that there is the same amount of evidence for either theory, there is not. For the theory of Creationism there is the Bible and faith.
For the theory of Evolution there is a large amount of scientific evidence (in the form of fossils, closeness in DNA, observances of speciation taking place in other organisms etc), however we are still in need of the "missing link" and that is why we call it a theory. As far as certainty goes, the theory as it stands may not be 100% - we may find something that fundamentally rejects the theory, however more likely we will find something which leads to either a slight alteration to the currently accepted process or in the case of the missing link proves the theory once and for all. (Just now I would say I am 90% certain the evolution theory as it is just now is correct - further findings will effect this percentage)
I wouldnt mind if proponents of Creationism just said until definitive proof of evolution is found I choose to believe the bible instead, but please dont suggest the amount of evidence is similar.
This topic is more of if you believe in God, but I would like to point out that a lot of people who believe in the evolution theory also believe in the divine.
But yea, this topic is going in circles.
I disagree with your statement of Creationism having less evidence then evolutionism. And on the side of creationism we don't just have the Bible and faith because historical documents have been found that prove biblical people actually lived. There is historical evidence that Jesus walked this earth, and that so did Moses and other major Biblical figures. There is also proof of the "great flood". Please don't assume there is no evidence on the side of God existing and creating the world. Also, did you ever consider that "the missing link" hasn't been found because it doesn't exist?