It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

sin is a biproduct of freewill, right?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: LongishLongo
If sin is a biproduct of freewill, and there's no sin in heaven... then wouldn't that mean you don't have freewill in heaven?


Logic!


If you use the 'internal (assumed) logic' against a 'global logic' model (i.e. Working from the specific to the general), these inconsistencies become obvious...

There must be an understanding of the mechanism of free will, to argue its appearance (or not) before shouting 'eureka!'...essentially (and interestingly) the athiest position is more in alignment with the 'mechanism'...there's a clear paradox!

Å99




posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
First I need to address the somewhat obvious likelihood this question is bait and the OP does not truly intend to consider the possible answers to his/her question. Baiting for the pleasure of watching people jump into the fray is somewhat intellectually dishonest and in my opinion rather juvenile.

Secondly, for the sake of those who DO care about this very important question let me pose the following observations, rhetorical questions and possible answers.

Question 1. What IS logic? As another member pointed out with regard to the definition of 'free will'....definitions are important and can play a pivotal role in how one arrives at an answer.

Logic as we casually define it refers to a reasonable process where A plus B equals C or something along those lines. Logic likes a reasonable consequence to an action, not one that is NOT forseen or intended. If you jump off a cliff knowing from previous experience or observation that what goes up must come down hoping or assuming you will grow wings to fly or gently float to the ground is NOT logical.

Logic is also not only overrated in the grand scheme of things, since there are many things that cannot be explained by logic but must be experienced, but it is also domain specific, that is to say, what seems logical and reasonable for humans would not be logical for animals. Would we say that the behavior of monkeys is logical or illogical? Would we characterize the behavior of stars, quasars, novas, nebulaes, galaxies as illogical? Logic cannot be magically overlaid or applied like a template to everything we observe in order to explain it in a nice tidy, detached, manner.

Therefore OP, your inclination or attempt to use YOUR version of logic to understand what may or may not have happened in heaven is an exercise in futility. For your question to have any merit at all you would have to make some assumptions about heaven, some of which may be false and some which may be true. If however you take the biblical account of what happened the problem of sin and freewill are fairly easily explained, though not necessarily to anyones satisfaction. That is to say, just because you ask a question and get the answer doesnt mean you will LIKE the answer or agree with it, though it may in fact be true.

Question 2: What is free will? As another member pointed out we need a clear definition in order to successfully explore the topic. If we assume that that free will does not mean UNLIMITED will or choices or options then we can make sense of what happened in heaven. IF you care to read the biblical account most scholars agree speaks of Lucifers fall you can find it in two places, or even three if you include Revelation. First read the account in Ezekiel 28:15 and Isaiah 14:12. In Ezekiel it says of Lucifer

28:15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you

Read the narrative in Isaiah to find out WHY Lucifer was cast out. He wanted to "be like the most HIGH" but more than that....he wanted to BE GOD...to TAKE GODS place as ruler of the universe. Some preachers have cleverly pointed out that Lucifer had an "I" problem, I being the middle letter in the word sin. Lucifers downfall was his pride, or so it is commonly believed. He was not happy with his place among the heavenly host, though he was the covering cherub which was the highest position of all the angels next to St. Michael himself, the pre-incarnate Christ according to some Christians.

Question: What is sin? Sin at its core is not killing or lying or stealing or any of the things we normally associate as evil. Sin at its core is not even selfish. I have a rant on selfishness I will write out one of these days. Put simply if a person is truly selfish they will seek to secure those things in life to procure the best advantages for themselves, that means not going farther than what is reasonable to do so. Many of the Greek tragedies explore the concept of "hubris", which is when a person wants something but goes beyond what is necessary to have what they want, they end up wanting more and more and extending themselves beyond their capability and ability to handle the consequences of what they do. Thats not the best explanation but read the Greek tragedies yourself for better illustrations of what hubris is along the lines of pride and self destruction.

Self destruction is really what sin is. Its wanting to do something that you are not designed to do or to have. We dont drink gasoline instead of water because we are DESIGNED to consume only certain kinds of liquids. Everything in the universe has operating parameters. If you exceed those parameters you do so at great risk. The absurdity of what Lucifer did was akin to asking yourself "why cant i just turn my body into water vapor and float anywhere i want" or any number of absurd and rediculous ideas. Of course most reasonably intelligent people who get themselves into trouble always manage to convince themselves that they either deserve something, or that they can do it without serious consequence. In short, they find ways to make their behavior or desires reasonable or logical.....self deception.


Conclusion:

Invariably the next question after this one comes "if God allowed sin to manifest and God is all knowing, powerful etc. then isnt God ultimately to blame for the existence of sin? " and also in the same vein "if God is all everything and he allows the innocent to suffer, then isnt God tacitly responsible for the horrors of sin in this world?". Questions like those seem reasonable on the surface....but they are based in very immature understandings of biblical truth/teaching as well as the assumptions that must be made about the nature of sin and the conflict between good and evil that has ensued as a result.

In order to explain the problem of suffering we must agree to assume that once Lucifer was cast out of heaven and came here that since that time he has endeavored to wreak havoc and suffering upon humanity which is made in the image of God. There are complex and lengthy permutations to this struggle to parse and understand, but it is not an impossible theme to grasp once some basic information is obtained. In short, everything has rules.....like physics.....and even in the spiritual realm there are rules that govern how the conflict can be played out. You dont have to like the way things are....but that doesnt change the way things are. I for one do not like the way things are.....but i am held captive to my understanding of reality as i know it and have come to know it. Some things once they are done cannot be undone. Such is the burden of certain kinds of knowledge when Solomon lamented thus:

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow
Ecclesiastes 1:18



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: akushla99


There must be an understanding of the mechanism of free will, to argue its appearance (or not) before shouting 'eureka!'...essentially (and interestingly) the athiest position is more in alignment with the 'mechanism'...there's a clear paradox!


free will is the capacity to make a choice for yourself.

complete and absolute foreknowledge, along with complete and absolute control, eliminates this capacity because your choice is already known and the consequences foreseen. furthermore, the factors required to evoke any one particular choice would also be fully available due to absolute foreknowledge and absolute control.

this means that whatever choice you make using your free will is a direct result of that foreknowledge saying "i very clearly see this coming" and that absolute control saying "im okay with it/i dont care". two filters whose functions eliminate the practicality of free will. unless, of course, the filters are not engaged. in which case, why respect them? or the entity who wields them?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ratsinacage

I'd have to agree with the 'spirit' of Your post (albeit, the narrowcast of One Golden Book, to explain it)...

Å99



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: akushla99


There must be an understanding of the mechanism of free will, to argue its appearance (or not) before shouting 'eureka!'...essentially (and interestingly) the athiest position is more in alignment with the 'mechanism'...there's a clear paradox!


free will is the capacity to make a choice for yourself.

complete and absolute foreknowledge, along with complete and absolute control, eliminates this capacity because your choice is already known and the consequences foreseen. furthermore, the factors required to evoke any one particular choice would also be fully available due to absolute foreknowledge and absolute control.

this means that whatever choice you make using your free will is a direct result of that foreknowledge saying "i very clearly see this coming" and that absolute control saying "im okay with it/i dont care". two filters whose functions eliminate the practicality of free will. unless, of course, the filters are not engaged. in which case, why respect them? or the entity who wields them?



...depends 'who' you think is 'wielding' what...

Å99



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ratsinacage


Invariably the next question after this one comes "if God allowed sin to manifest and God is all knowing, powerful etc. then isnt God ultimately to blame for the existence of sin? " and also in the same vein "if God is all everything and he allows the innocent to suffer, then isnt God tacitly responsible for the horrors of sin in this world?". Questions like those seem reasonable on the surface....but they are based in very immature understandings of biblical truth/teaching as well as the assumptions that must be made about the nature of sin and the conflict between good and evil that has ensued as a result.


i dont see whats immature about that. leaving a gun on the dining room table with the full knowledge that your kid is watching you put it there, then calling the kid stupid when he picks it up and shoots himself? theres your free will. both the free will to pick up an unfamiliar object and the free will to knowingly give a child access to that which they are unable to resist and will probably cause themselves harm with. evil or just stupid, doesnt matter. being all powerful and all knowing inherently makes you the most responsible being in existence. but we are expected to be responsible on his behalf so he doesnt have to use any of that stuff that makes him so useful. then we suffer tragedy and turn around and thank him for not making it worse. counter intuitive in the extreme. he could have put the tree of knowledge on pluto. he could have conjured an anti-satan force field. he could have turned satan into a mushroom the instant he spoke to eve. he could have done ANYTHING. literally. but the only way those events in the garden and everything that followed throughout the whole book could have happened...the ONLY WAY...is for him to sit back and do NOTHING.

the entire bible is a massive story in the art of negligence. made all the worse by the fact that negligence is the one word that shouldnt even be in your gods vocabulary, let alone on his subpoena.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ratsinacage


Invariably the next question after this one comes "if God allowed sin to manifest and God is all knowing, powerful etc. then isnt God ultimately to blame for the existence of sin? " and also in the same vein "if God is all everything and he allows the innocent to suffer, then isnt God tacitly responsible for the horrors of sin in this world?". Questions like those seem reasonable on the surface....but they are based in very immature understandings of biblical truth/teaching as well as the assumptions that must be made about the nature of sin and the conflict between good and evil that has ensued as a result.


i dont see whats immature about that. leaving a gun on the dining room table with the full knowledge that your kid is watching you put it there, then calling the kid stupid when he picks it up and shoots himself? theres your free will. both the free will to pick up an unfamiliar object and the free will to knowingly give a child access to that which they are unable to resist and will probably cause themselves harm with. evil or just stupid, doesnt matter. being all powerful and all knowing inherently makes you the most responsible being in existence. but we are expected to be responsible on his behalf so he doesnt have to use any of that stuff that makes him so useful. then we suffer tragedy and turn around and thank him for not making it worse. counter intuitive in the extreme. he could have put the tree of knowledge on pluto. he could have conjured an anti-satan force field. he could have turned satan into a mushroom the instant he spoke to eve. he could have done ANYTHING. literally. but the only way those events in the garden and everything that followed throughout the whole book could have happened...the ONLY WAY...is for him to sit back and do NOTHING.

the entire bible is a massive story in the art of negligence. made all the worse by the fact that negligence is the one word that shouldnt even be in your gods vocabulary, let alone on his subpoena.


Yep...absolutely!

Å99



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99

...and at the outset (in relation to the Golden Book being referenced) one would have to agree with the premise that Source WOULD create a rock it cannot lift...and after about 1200 pages, agree that this Source would wage a final battle with this rock, and come out victorious - negating a premise you agreed with...in the beginning?!

This is the 'global logic' that makes no sense...

Å99
edit on 20-5-2015 by akushla99 because: Addd



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

But then we have to consider this.

As you made the analogy of children, previously you premised that upon the notion of forethought, then children are exercising their free will with full understanding or limited understanding?

If the parent limits the child from touching the gun, then there is no free will for the child.

You have now introduced two subchoices, the free will of the parent to place the gun there, the free will of the parent to prevent the child from picking it up, the free will of the child to pick it up.

Somewhere in there someone is not going to have free will if the parents with forethought prevent the child from touching the gun. I am assuming that the child in question is reasonably able to make a judgement call on whether or not to pick the gun up.

Stanford.edu:Free Will


“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives


Free will, philosophically, is determined by rationality.

Philosophers who distinguish freedom of action and freedom of will do so because our success in carrying out our ends depends in part on factors wholly beyond our control. Furthermore, there are always external constraints on the range of options we can meaningfully try to undertake. As the presence or absence of these conditions and constraints are not (usually) our responsibility, it is plausible that the central loci of our responsibility are our choices, or “willings.”


Leaving the gun on the table, is it a matter of freedom of action or freedom of will? Because there are external constraints, i.e. the law, parental restriction, etc. that prohibit freedom of action, we then have to question if the Bible, that the OP is trying to assume is negative toward, is total freedom of action beneficial for any society?

Freedom of the will is determined by several things, external and internal consequences by forethought, hence we do not do things that we know are harmful to us or others because we know the consequences, therefore we place our will in check to our own internalized morality.

Freedom of action does not always require forethought, in those instances that it does, there are externalized factors that suspend temporarily internalized morality.

The idea of Satan being cast out of heaven was not a result of his own free will, which is internalized morality, but rather freedom of action.


The main perceived threats to our freedom of will are various alleged determinisms: physical/causal; psychological; biological; theological. For each variety of determinism, there are philosophers who (i) deny its reality, either because of the existence of free will or on independent grounds; (ii) accept its reality but argue for its compatibility with free will; or (iii) accept its reality and deny its compatibility with free will


Determinism is a thought process of free will, you can freely think about what you want to do, but determinism causes one to act out on it, except for cases of impulsivity. Freedom of action is therefore the impulsive nature, when one overrules their internalized morality in order to accomplish a task, whether that task is good or evil.

Therefore, the adult freely acts upon his determination of placing the gun on the table. The child who does not rationalize and neither has formed a solid internalized morality then acts impulsively to grab the gun, there is no determination of his part.

The OP is assuming that free will is freedom of action. Freedom of action does not require internalized morality, freedom of will does. As the individual has freedom of will, they then choose to act upon it or not. So yes, there is freedom of will in heaven, but there can be no freedom of action, because total freedom of action cannot work on earth any more than it can anywhere else.

The teaching of Christianity is that we should have internalized morality, but that internalized morality cannot come from any human source that also believes in total freedom of action. You might have an internalized morality that dictates to you the limits of your own freedom of action. Did that come to you externally? Did society tell you not to drive 105 mph in a school zone and that is why you don't? If you have free will, then you internally determine to not impulsively break the law.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


As you made the analogy of children, previously you premised that upon the notion of forethought, then children are exercising their free will with full understanding or limited understanding?

If the parent limits the child from touching the gun, then there is no free will for the child.


common sense boundaries, like touching stuff that isnt ours that could possibly kill us or someone else, have to be taught. the stuff you arent born knowing. dont touch fire, dont drink detergent, dont stick your finger in a light socket. this isnt a matter of limiting people, its a matter of helping them out. what this does not mean is that they lose their capacity to go read a book or play with their toys. a number of perfectly healthy options remain open with perfect liberty to choose between them. so no, "limiting" the child doesnt hurt their free will. no more than airport security limits our freedom to go to the movies.


You have now introduced two subchoices, the free will of the parent to place the gun there, the free will of the parent to prevent the child from picking it up, the free will of the child to pick it up.


um, thats three. and lets get rid of the middle one since the first covers it.


Somewhere in there someone is not going to have free will if the parents with forethought prevent the child from touching the gun. I am assuming that the child in question is reasonably able to make a judgement call on whether or not to pick the gun up.


you must not be too familiar with children.


Leaving the gun on the table, is it a matter of freedom of action or freedom of will? Because there are external constraints, i.e. the law, parental restriction, etc. that prohibit freedom of action, we then have to question if the Bible, that the OP is trying to assume is negative toward, is total freedom of action beneficial for any society?


i agree. thats why we have laws. including laws against...wait for it...entrapment. like putting a magical tree in the only place that the only two humans in all of existence could possibly reach it. and then leaving the gate wide open so the biggest baddie in all of existence can waltz right on in. and, despite being all knowing and all powerful, remaining most mysteriously absent until its too late to stop what, according to the definition of omniscience, you should have known was coming the second you took your first breath. and then pretending like you couldnt have done a damn thing about it, and punishing them anyway.

...but i digress.


Therefore, the adult freely acts upon his determination of placing the gun on the table. The child who does not rationalize and neither has formed a solid internalized morality then acts impulsively to grab the gun, there is no determination of his part.


we are not talking about an infant here. we are talking about a child who can walk and talk (since he is capable of picking up the gun), which demonstrates at least a basic mastery of their senses and mobility. in either case, what you just explained makes the adult look even more stupid for knowing it would happen, and doing it anyway. as i was just saying.


The OP is assuming that free will is freedom of action. Freedom of action does not require internalized morality, freedom of will does. As the individual has freedom of will, they then choose to act upon it or not. So yes, there is freedom of will in heaven, but there can be no freedom of action, because total freedom of action cannot work on earth any more than it can anywhere else.


there is freedom of will in your heaven as long as it is gods will you are using your freedom to follow. everything that is not gods will is wrong. right?


You might have an internalized morality that dictates to you the limits of your own freedom of action. Did that come to you externally? Did society tell you not to drive 105 mph in a school zone and that is why you don't? If you have free will, then you internally determine to not impulsively break the law.


and god knows exactly how to make you break that law, too. one bad day is all it takes. thats why some people do more than break the speed limit. because omniscience and omnipotence are buzz words for the god of taking credit when it suits. god taking credit for your sins, god taking credit for your fortune, god taking credit for all of the things that make him look good but nowhere to be found when it all goes south.

in my opinion, sin the byproduct of negligence. its the byproduct of learning the hard way, of living in a dog eat dog world, of making do with the worst. daddy was never home so you had to learn survival and learn fast. sometimes that means fighting dirty. sometimes it means bending rules. is that bad? damn, too bad jesus couldnt have just lived and friggin ruled instead of tricking the romans into releasing him like that calypso chick from pirates of the caribean. maybe we could have avoided this whole mess. but thats too easy for a guy playing chess with the universe, i suppose. hes too busy finding people to blame for his being a crappy chess player.









edit on 20-5-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Let me reply in a separate post because I don't want to make the quotes too long.

Can you explain to me why then children who are taught to not play in the street do? Common sense isn't something everyone exercises or even cares about.

Here you said


i agree. thats why we have laws. including laws against...wait for it...entrapment. like putting a magical tree in the only place that the only two humans in all of existence could possibly reach it. and then leaving the gate wide open so the biggest baddie in all of existence can waltz right on in. and, despite being all knowing and all powerful, remaining most mysteriously absent until its too late to stop what, according to the definition of omniscience, you should have known was coming the second you took your first breath. and then pretending like you couldnt have done a damn thing about it, and punishing them anyway.


And now let me ask this, putting a "magical" tree was impetus for Adam and Eve to take it? So if you knew the hemlock was poison and an authority told you not to drink it, then it is the fault of the authority? Or could it maybe just maybe, perhaps maybe just be your fault for drinking it?

It is called self-accountability and self-responsibility.



we are not talking about an infant here. we are talking about a child who can walk and talk (since he is capable of picking up the gun), which demonstrates at least a basic mastery of their senses and mobility. in either case, what you just explained makes the adult look even more stupid for knowing it would happen, and doing it anyway. as i was just saying.


Not quite, it is merely the child's mobility that is demonstrated, because children aren't aware of what a gun is or what it does unless it is shown by the parents. If that parent took the gun and shot it into the wall a few times, I am sure the small child would be afraid of it. Unless the child knows, then it could only treat the gun as harmless.



there is freedom of will in your heaven as long as it is gods will you are using your freedom to follow. everything that is not gods will is wrong. right?


Do you know what God's will is?



and god knows exactly how to make you break that law, too. one bad day is all it takes. thats why some people do more than break the speed limit. because omniscience and omnipotence are buzz words for the god of taking credit when it suits. god taking credit for your sins, god taking credit for your fortune, god taking credit for all of the things that make him look good but nowhere to be found when it all goes south.


Oh dear, another example of refusal to accept personal responsibility.

Moral Responsibility


Reflection on these factors gave rise to fatalism—the view that one's future or some aspect of it is predetermined, e.g., by the gods, or the stars, or simply some facts about truth and time—in such a way as to make one's particular deliberations, choices and actions irrelevant to whether that particular future is realized (recall, e.g., the plight of Oedipus). If some particular outcome is fated, then it seems that the agent concerned could not be morally responsible for that outcome. Likewise, if fatalism were true with respect to all human futures, then it would seem that no human agent could be morally responsible for anything. Though this brand of fatalism has sometimes exerted significant historical influence, most philosophers have rejected it on the grounds that there is no good reason to think that our futures are fated in the sense that they will unfold no matter what particular deliberations we engage in, choices we make, or actions we perform.


Yours is an argument of fatalism.

BTW, my link is from Stanford. The link in the previous post was also from Stanford.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: PeachesNCream
a reply to: LongishLongo
Well logically you would be right but you can't use logic when addressing religion.


I 100% agree! Religion is completely and utterly illogical.

To further your question. (and I hate to be a broken record, but....) If god knows all your decisions, and he is all knowing and absolute with his power, then there is no possible way you could choose something he didn't already know you were going to choose. There for, if you are bound by God's Omniscience, then choice is just an illusion. There is no free will to begin with.

Which means there sure as hell isn't any free will in heaven.

Exactly my point, well said



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

Skunkape, this isn't the first time we've shared the same religious views lol



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ratsinacage


Invariably the next question after this one comes "if God allowed sin to manifest and God is all knowing, powerful etc. then isnt God ultimately to blame for the existence of sin? " and also in the same vein "if God is all everything and he allows the innocent to suffer, then isnt God tacitly responsible for the horrors of sin in this world?". Questions like those seem reasonable on the surface....but they are based in very immature understandings of biblical truth/teaching as well as the assumptions that must be made about the nature of sin and the conflict between good and evil that has ensued as a result.


i dont see whats immature about that. leaving a gun on the dining room table with the full knowledge that your kid is watching you put it there, then calling the kid stupid when he picks it up and shoots himself? theres your free will. both the free will to pick up an unfamiliar object and the free will to knowingly give a child access to that which they are unable to resist and will probably cause themselves harm with. evil or just stupid, doesnt matter. being all powerful and all knowing inherently makes you the most responsible being in existence. but we are expected to be responsible on his behalf so he doesnt have to use any of that stuff that makes him so useful. then we suffer tragedy and turn around and thank him for not making it worse. counter intuitive in the extreme. he could have put the tree of knowledge on pluto. he could have conjured an anti-satan force field. he could have turned satan into a mushroom the instant he spoke to eve. he could have done ANYTHING. literally. but the only way those events in the garden and everything that followed throughout the whole book could have happened...the ONLY WAY...is for him to sit back and do NOTHING.

the entire bible is a massive story in the art of negligence. made all the worse by the fact that negligence is the one word that shouldnt even be in your gods vocabulary, let alone on his subpoena.


Tzar, thank you! What's immature about it, is when a religious person takes offense over an atheistic post. Nothing immature at all about what I said.
Thanks again Tzar!



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


Can you explain to me why then children who are taught to not play in the street do? Common sense isn't something everyone exercises or even cares about.


which is why we should remove all the warning labels and let the idiots take care of themselves. and by idiots, i mean people who dont learn the first time. or second. or third. and the people who do learn are the ones we can trust to teach kids the basics of how life works. without, you know, putting their lives at risk.


And now let me ask this, putting a "magical" tree was impetus for Adam and Eve to take it? So if you knew the hemlock was poison and an authority told you not to drink it, then it is the fault of the authority? Or could it maybe just maybe, perhaps maybe just be your fault for drinking it?

It is called self-accountability and self-responsibility.


you have a very strange habit of skewing your analogies. to begin with, where is satan in this? you gotta have someone urging your hand and convincing you the hemlock is actually a refreshing glass of water. forgot that detail, did you. and you fail to address the fact that satan got into gods private garden with no trouble whatsoever. so whose self-accountability is that? not to mention that any authority leaving actual poison just sitting in front of you is also a complete idiot. after all, common sense isn't something everyone exercises or even cares about.



Not quite, it is merely the child's mobility that is demonstrated, because children aren't aware of what a gun is or what it does unless it is shown by the parents. If that parent took the gun and shot it into the wall a few times, I am sure the small child would be afraid of it. Unless the child knows, then it could only treat the gun as harmless.


everyone knows what guns do. everyone who has access to any kind of media at all. they might not understand it completely, but thats why you dont put a freakin' gun (or the tree of knowledge) where they can reach it. and i am not debating the talents of a toddler with you.


Do you know what God's will is?


"love me or perish when i get around to it in a few thousand years or so. and dont get in the way of anyone else loving me either or youll perish for that too. ....hold on, im sure i'll come up with something else. just sing praises or something, once a week at least. and make babies. lots of 'em. i'll get back to you, and you better have my money too!"

not word for word exactly, but i think i got the gist. thats the judaic one, by the way...maybe not the one you meant.


Oh dear, another example of refusal to accept personal responsibility.

Yours is an argument of fatalism.


yes. gods powers, the same powers that are rumored to guarantee him victory in the end times, are the same powers that made the entire war possible/necessary. from lucifers fall, to the garden of eden, to the flood, all the way to the last second of the fight at the end of revelations. god owns the battlefield, both teams, and every weapon. he is essentially playing battle ship with himself and we are merely collateral, every day of our lives determined beforehand through his omniscience and omnipotence working in tandem. he knew what toppings you would put on your hotdog on this day in this city (hypothetically) centuries before even attila the hun was born, because he planned it. he saw it coming (he knows everything) and he let it (he is all powerful). or maybe he just didnt care. but if he had decided to care, that hotdog...hell, your eyes would never have beheld that city. im assuming he is at least that assertive. you might not have even been born if your tentative future had upset him. he might even have canceled your prospective parents just to be sure. and he could answer any challenge, any challenge you care to imagine, just that easily. and when miracles spring off your fingertips just that easily, dont you think you have an obligation to do all the good with it you possibly can? isnt that also self-accountability?

point being, fatalism is one of very few options available with both omniscience and omnipotence being very actively in the same room. this presumes that god is still alive and that he cares what we do. which most modern religion does presume. with that being said, if philosophers generally agree that fatalism is tripe, then that kind of shoots god in the knee cap. he better pray to his own god for strength to carry on. or is it sinful to exhibit weakness as a god? maybe its just unpopular.
edit on 20-5-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LongishLongo

Sin is a biproduct of people misusing free will because they are not completely good down to the core of their being . Christ makes you into something new and when you enter heaven you gain a heavenly body and a heavenly mindset the thought to sin just doesn't cross your mind because of who you are and he you think



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That's a lot of absolute knowledge for a belief system that requires belief without evidence (faith)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

The word we translate as faith from the new testament is pistis which is synonymous to a deep trust, it simply doesn't mean what you think it does in the context of Christianity.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: LongishLongo


If sin is a biproduct of freewill, and there's no sin in heaven... then wouldn't that mean you don't have freewill in heaven?

Are we discussing Christian theology?

If we are on the same page then you may have to rethink your thread. There was sin in heaven and it was cast out to the terrestrial realm according to Christian Apostles. The question is there sin in heaven now?

According to Isaiah and the Apostles there is now a celestial city named New Jerusalem which is now called paradise. This city sits upon a new world of terrestrial substance of some sort. The New Jerusalem has a great wall about it with three guarded gates on all four sides of the wall.

Rev 21:10 -14
(10) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, (11) Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; (12) And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
(13) On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. (14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Rev 22:14,15
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Did not the angels have free will to sin?

According to early Christianity, all who now die will go directly to New Jerusalem and outside the city is all manner of sin.
I know that i will get a slap across the head but let's discuss this with biblical theology.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

When I say "belief without evidence" it implies that belief is there due to deep trust. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to claim faith is other than that?




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join