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.

 

Ultimate Sin = Absence of God? Let's talk.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Let's keep our heads together in this one - if you happen to know you can't post in a topic where religion is discussed without getting ultrapissed, then you might not want to read on. Occasionally I'll wish to explain something in greater depth without derailing the flow of my thoughts, in which case I'll denote this with a (n), where n is an integer greater than 0, with a corresponding explanation/paragraph or so at the end of the post, marked with another (n).

The topic is Philosophy, specifically Human Nature, where we've been, where we're going, and why. I've got my own specific twist I'm running on this, but that'll fall into place as I go. If you've got time, I'm generally interested in hearing comments, and I think that (as long as we're civil and intelligent, keeping this about the subject, and not our own ingrained ideals or the people talking about the subject) we can have a good discussion here. On to the meat of the topic.

I've been in my philosophy class for a fair while now, and some of St. Augustine's thoughts have really gotten to me.

He claims that (as would have been the status quo in 400 AD) all human evil descends from Original Sin(1). We do tend to be generally good, and definitely we commonly want to be good, but in our vices, descending from that moment of Adam and Eve's weakness, evil works through us. For him, salvation, and good, comes from education, Christianity, and sorrow for your sins. According to him, the Ultimate Sin is to deny god. The Absence of God is the one ultimate thing that makes you a horrible pagan for him - and as Augustinian Platonic thought kind of governed the next millenium of thought, it pretty much carried onwards.

So, according to the man that many would argue is the greatest Christian Theologian ever to exist - definitely the first of them - Sin is disobeying the will of God. I've seen things to this effect in versions of the Bible, and other Christo-Theologian thought, and when you come down to it, it just makes sense.

A Sin is an act of departure from God's will. Okay. Next point.

Augustine also feels that we do indeed have free will. However, God knows our will. He knows it before we do. So, while we are free to make our choices, they are premade(2). The question is then: If we have free will, then what is Sin? Can two separate paths both obey God's Will? Can you commit an act outside of God's own Will without Sinning? I don't believe you can. The framework for such actions is not present in our system(3).

So, why do we have free will, if we are only really supposed to do what God wants us to do? What's the point? Let's look at an analogy. A Microcosm, if you will.

The HumanGod relationship could definitely be likened to the ChildParent relationship. Human, like Child, was begat by God, or Parents, respectively. God taught humans the basics. Parents teach children the basics. God gave us our first, eternally safe home: Eden. Our mother gave us that: The Womb. When young, you live your life by your parent's word. When young, we lived our life by God's word(4). As we grow, we slowly step away from our parents. As humanity grows, we have slowly stepped away from god.

To make the point, let's literalise this. Taking the analogy to the extreme, any action against the will of my parents is a Sin. As I learn more, I Sin more, making my own logical assumptions. As I grow more, I eventually leave my parents entirely, living on my own. A great Sin, as they don't really want me to go, and the safety and comfort of my parents' protection is just so nice. Eventually I start my own family. I become a Creator, a God. Soon, it is Sin for my spawn to go against me. After that, my own God dies. I live my life in absence of them. I live out Ultimate Sin in this microcosm.

Almost everyone does - that's just the natural course of life. We tend towards Sin - but it is only a bad thing when we lack the tools we need to protect and govern ourselves.

Expanding this, scaling it up, we can look again at our relationship with God. Our first Sin was learning. We ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. We disobeyed God's Will. As time goes on, we secularise. We Sin to a greater and greater extent, as God's Will means less to us, and our own judgement means more. We mature, we Sin. Have we moved out yet?

Some of us cling. Just as we cling to our parents. Clinging is easy. Just falling back, saying we'll live entirely by their rules. They'll protect us. We're not ready to go out on our own. We shouldn't Sin. We could get hurt. They could get angry.

Maybe we have already moved out - or we are in the process.

Maybe we haven't yet. I'm not the authority on it by any means.

The important point though, is that we are tending towards Sin, and while hurting each other and doing things we know are wrong do count as Sins, Sins don't necessarily count as doing things we know are wrong. As we grow, and mature, we Sin to a greater and greater extent.

We will become Gods ourselves. No longer will we universally fear playing God. Like a lanky, awkward adolescent, power bestowed to us far exceeds our maturity. As we continue to grow, there is great cause to believe that we will learn from our mistakes, that we will become God. We will eventually create life ourselves. We're on the threshold now on two fronts, Technological and Biological.

Likely not too long after we become (a?) God, after we've created our own spawn(5), we will realise, and live through Ultimate Sin. We will forget, or laugh at, or deride God altogether. We will have committed Ultimate Sin, and we will live in the absence of God - no longer needing him.

God will be dead. Nietzsche spoke too soon.

But it's not particularly a bad thing.



Footnotes: I didn't want to digress in the post, so see them here.

(1) - For those of you not in the know, Original Sin is when Adam and Eve allegedly ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, which God had specifically forbidden them from doing, ushering in their expulsion from The Garden of Eden, and the following half-hell on earth which mankind has endured. Of course, it's a Christian-only kind of thing, and I personally don't really think we all came from a Man and a Man's Rib-bone, but I'll let Augustine and the Fundamentalists run with it.

(2) - I won't get into the semantics of this - try to work it out in your head, free choice, where choice is known. It is possible. You can do anything, nothing influences or controls you - but the final outcome is known.

(3) - Only one true will can really be had - God could not wish 3 outcomes of a decision to happen. Were it that he did, you would only fulfill one, and not the other two, thus you Sin against him.

(4) - Technically, "Gods' Word(s)" - depending on how you feel we were created, how we developed, and when Time began, if you feel it exists or began at all. I moreso mean that Religion governed Humanity far more deeply in the first third of the last three millenia. Slightly less, but still completely in the second. And, now, to a lessening extent, though still considerably, in the third. Think Pharoah>Pope>President.


.. This was locked at Penny Arcade, because it was apparently too long.




posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Hello,

I want to thank you for that well written post, it should be the start of an interesting discussion.

You pointed out that we have freedom of choice, it is just that the choice we make is already known. This, to me, would mean that God wishes it to happen, nothing happens without God's will.

You define sin as a departure of God's will.

Who are we to pretend to know the will of the unknowable? When we sin, it is all part of God's plan. Because of the current human condition, sin is necessary for any real inner change to happen. Without seeing the consequences of sin in our daily lives, we would have no reason to go away from it.

I agree to a large extent with the rest of your post, although I would like to create a new definition of sin.

The conscious and deliberate act of breaking universal rules, and personal moral code.

[edit on 28/9/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Here's a slightly different approach--away from St. Augustine's pious thoughts somewhat--but I've never been big on the 'theologian' thing or the church 'father' thing, either. I'm not saying that they weren't the shining pupils in their generation--or that they were, either. I don't know. I do believe they were alive at a point in our human continuum in time that precluded certain understandings--they were alive in the 'adolescence' of the human race, perhaps.

For this approach, let's call Adam and Eve the human race, as a whole. In the garden, they were indeed in the womb (I like that analogy) but there comes a time in every developmental course that one must separate as an entity. Let's call Parents Spirits and children (humans) flesh. That's an easy one.


In interpreting the ancient Hebrew, 'flesh' and 'skin' were two different things. Think of flesh as your body, underneath your skin, and your skin is that which covers your flesh. Flesh is molecular matter composed by energy which is ultimately spiritual--the soul is in the blood, and that which makes 'flesh' into a working entity is spirit.

Adam and Eve were 'clothed with skins' when they got evicted from the Garden. Many people believe God killed animals to make them clothing from skins--but is not consistent with Genesis. Nothing physical died until Cain killed Abel. That was the first blood spilled in the ground, so therefore to understand what God did, we must think of things literally in a figurative way. He put them in skins. He hid them from His light. Essentially they were born as 'humans' like we are.

So they went out into the cold cruel world and began to learn, much like children. Much of what you say is in line with what I'm saying. But when it comes to maturity and having kids of one's own (being a Creator) I think that is what happens when we begin to see beyond the false separation from our brothers on the planet, which is imposed by skin.

The blindness to our essential unity as 'Mind' is due to 'skin.' Our disregard for God's will hasn't been something we willfully do--it was an inherent part of our planned 'growing up' process--and it was more of a case of not knowing God's will--therefore being unable to follow it. That is because we cannot perceive spiritual things when we believe that the material world is ultimate reality.

'Free will,' the way I see it, is that ability to reproduce spiritually--right now we just have what I think of 'opportunities to make choices.' After all, kids inevitably grow up to adulthood--and if the parent is responsible and mindful of the priority of parenting, the kid will grow up just fine and be a good adult and parent, themselves. For the sake of this discussion, if we say God is a perfect Father, then we have no other fate than to become gods ourselves--in His footsteps and the family business, so to speak.

I see 'sin' more as the blindness and narrowed perspective inherent to self-orientation which is every human's beginning nature. Once we understand the divine Mind and Will, we cannot help but to follow is, our only handicap is the limited scope of our understanding, just as is the case with human growth and development.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Okay, let us talk about the concept of original sin, or rather, let us think about it.

Original sin is the concept that Eve defied God, indulged in an act of some sort that she was not supposed to, then enticed her husband to do so as well. The premise then is that all humans to date have inherited this act of debasement of God’s wishes, by the first humans.

For sin to have existed, it would have had to be created or defined. Adam and Eve knew nothing of what constituted a sin, nor were they told that to eat of the fruit in the midst of the garden, it would be a sin, they instead were told they would surely die. It is debateable whether it was meant they would die as soon as they ate the fruit, since they lived for centuries more, while that same statement following later in The Bible proved to be immediate.

Since sin or the concept thereof, had to have been created, then one can argue it was not in fact original as pertaining to Adam and Eve. This is proven by the fact that the serpent knew of the concept of sin otherwise it would not have enticed the commission of the act. Hence, not only was God responsible for the creation and definition of sin, he was responsible for the creation of the serpent who introduced the act of sinning to humankind.

God supposedly is the creator of all and everything, consequently, the serpent as well. The serpent, recall, as the enticer, would therefore be the second instance of original sin, since, the concept and definition was solely that of God’s according to Jesus’ followers some 3800 years plus later. Assuming for the moment they had a revelation of epic proportions that no prophet prior was privy to while in their talks with God, the serpent, Adam and Eve, would themselves have been inheritors of original sin, that being from God himself. This begs the question then, who judges and punishes God for this creation of sin?

Next we must analyze the inheritance of original sin via the birth canal. If all humans are invested with the inheritance of that sin as happened in the Garden of Eden, then it is safe to say that Jesus himself, nourished in utero, and born of a human, would have inherited that very same sin. Therefore the concept that Jesus was born of perfection cannot be true.

If then we must cast a blind eye to all of the above and presume that Jesus was in fact born of a woman for whatever reason as offered in argument, we must also accept that he inherited human qualities, as is evident by his pleas for his life. If one does not wish to acknowledge this, then one should be asking themselves why when God created the first human from dust, he needed the human vessel for delivery of himself.

The next step in following original sin and its impact to this day, 5,765 years or so after the fact, would be the purpose of Jesus. It is as we are told that he died for the redemption of our sins. If this is so, then some 1,972 years ago as the story goes, he cleansed humans of the inheritance of original sin, so why to this day are humans still stigmatized with this inheritance?

On freewill: Given the stigmatized inheritance from Adam and Eve , it cannot be so that to disagree with any action of our parents is a sin as you claim. On the contrary, if the point is to support Augustine and original sin, then the parents sinned! Is it not the purpose of St. Augustine and all Christian philosophers to correct the sin of the parents, rather than follow?

The notion of freewill is self descriptive in that it is an action taken based on choices. It is unspoken that God must have given every human equal ability to reason, along with the ability to know right from wrong, therefore it goes without saying that God should have created each and every member of the human race with the same abilities, yet he did not. If one reasons without doubt in their own minds that all humans do not see eye to eye, as is evident, one can safely conclude that God did not infringe upon freewill, but rather caused diversity of thought. Christian interpretation of freewill therefore, cannot be a component of diversity of thought.

Will, cannot be free if one is told that they have multiple choices and dire consequences ensue unless the correct path as defined by anyone, God or otherwise, is declared and not followed. The granted ability to reason therefore, is nullified and usurped by fear.

St. Augustine’s privilege of the pen; the written word and his connections may have held sway 2,000 years ago, but would they today? Unlikely!


[edit on 9/28/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

[edit on 9/28/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   

as posted by Viendin
We will become Gods ourselves. No longer will we universally fear playing God. Like a lanky, awkward adolescent, power bestowed to us far exceeds our maturity. As we continue to grow, there is great cause to believe that we will learn from our mistakes, that we will become God. We will eventually create life ourselves. We're on the threshold now on two fronts, Technological and Biological.

What makes a 'god'?
What separates God from 'god'?
Do you really think that the creation of life is the hallmark for God or your 'a' typical run-of-the-mill 'god'?
If you believe so, then would not animals and bugs be 'gods' themselves because they can create life?
Becoming gods' is not like becoming God.
There is a significant difference, Viendin.




Likely not too long after we become (a?) God, after we've created our own spawn(5), we will realise, and live through Ultimate Sin. forget, or laugh at, or deride God altogether.

If the Ultimate sin is denying God, then that is already being done.
Btw, we create our "own spawn" in x-amount of numbers per day. They are called child births.
You must be making reference to cloning or some other creating measure?
Also, God is being derided today, and has been for thousands of years.



We will have committed Ultimate Sin, and we will live in the absence of God - no longer needing him.

A true God, not 'god', cares less whether you need him or not. A true God does not rely on or demand obedience. Btw, who wrote the Bible, the Koran [Qu'ran], etc? Man or God?



God will be dead. Nietzsche spoke too soon.

But it's not particularly a bad thing.

Again, a true God cannot ever be deemed dead. Worship and dedication is irrelevant to a true God. It only matters to a 'god'.
Nietzsche is an intellectually gifted but loony man.
He is the same man that proposed the concept of supermen and sub-humans, remember?

The study of Philosophy is swell and all, but if one is not cautious, it has a nasty habit of biting the one doing the interpreting in the rear.








seekerof

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The notion of freewill is self descriptive in that it is an action taken based on choices. It is unspoken that God must have given every human equal ability to reason, along with the ability to know right from wrong, therefore it goes without saying that God should have created each and every member of the human race with the same abilities, yet he did not. If one reasons without doubt in their own minds that all humans do not see eye to eye, as is evident, one can safely conclude that God did not infringe upon freewill, but rather caused diversity of thought. Christian interpretation of freewill therefore, cannot be a component of diversity of thought.


You are saying that to have free will you must have the same choices, and ability to discern between them, than the beings whom which you live with. I do not see, however, how this is a necessary condition for the freedom to choose as you will...



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWandererYou are saying that to have free will you must have the same choices, and ability to discern between them, than the beings whom[sic] which[sic] you live with.[sic] I do not see, however, how this is a necessary condition for the freedom to choose as you will...
Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. If one does not have that ability to discern between them as you interpret, then one has only one choice, one path, and there is no freewill in that.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. If one does not have that ability to discern between them as you interpret, then one has only one choice, one path, and there is no freewill in that.


Sorry, I meant to write and the same ability to discern between them. We all have the ability to discern between choices, maybe not everyone to the same extent, but it is present in every human being...



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
To revisit:


Originally posted by AkashicWandererYou are saying that to have free will you must have the same choices, and ability to discern between them, than the beings whom which you live with. I do not see, however, how this is a necessary condition for the freedom to choose as you will...
I said far more than that, but it is okay, I will address one issue at a time if that is where your comfort zone lies.

And yes, in order to have freewill, it is essential that everyone have the very same choices. Choices no less as implanted by God by way of intelligence and the derivate- the ability to think. But we know for a fact that not all humans share the same ability to think on the same level, case in point; there was only one Einstein; one Freud; one Mme. Curie…etc. If each and every human being is not granted the very same level of reasonability and intelligence, then it holds true that not all humans can in fact weigh equally and with the same ability, the pros- cons; realistic- unrealistic; reasonable-unreasonable aspects of choice.

It cannot be denied that freewill is made null and void when the measure of threat is imposed.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Ahh but what is missing, is the point of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil. The eating of a piece of fruit was irrelevant. The very nature of the incident is an analogy of free will. Before the fall we were perfect, but had no True freewill. Once we acted in rebellion, we became like G-d. We had the choice over our own decisions. Before that point we never exercised that choice, so we were de facto without a choice.

God really does not have a direct effect on your life. His rules were set as guides to a better life for your soul and there is quite a bit of grey. As you become older and wise I believe your accountability for your actions becomes greater. There is a sliding scale of accountability (i.e. how we judge toddlers verses a 40 year old adult). That is because when you are a child you are not yet in full capabilities. You are more at the whim of your environment. When you are an adult you have greater facilities to deal with life's hardships and triumphs. Environmental conditions and the actions of others do not disprove free will. The simply modify it. Diminished capacity does equal diminished accountability.

Free will is not the freedom from wrong decisions; it is the freedom to make good and bad decisions. Ultimately they are still your decisions, no matter how convenient blaming G-d is.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
And yes, in order to have freewill, it is essential that everyone have the very same choices. Choices no less as implanted by God by way of intelligence and the derivate- the ability to think. But we know for a fact that not all humans share the same ability to think on the same level, case in point; there was only one Einstein; one Freud; one Mme. Curie…etc. If each and every human being is not granted the very same level of reasonability and intelligence, then it holds true that not all humans can in fact weigh equally and with the same ability, the pros- cons; realistic- unrealistic; reasonable-unreasonable aspects of choice.


Free will is the philosophical doctrine that holds that our choices are ultimately up to ourselves. It has nothing to do with the choices that the person sitting next to you has, or their intelligence for that matter. Just because not every human can weigh choices equally, does not mean that they are not free to choose as they will...



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWandererFree will is the philosophical doctrine that holds that our choices are ultimately up to ourselves. It has nothing to do with the choices that the person sitting next to you has, or their intelligence for that matter. Just because not every human can weigh choices equally, does not mean that they are not free to choose as they will...
I want you to reread that which you wrote, specifically what is bolded. Then note, that I introduced nothing about what other abilities, which I take as being peers, might have.

You have not answered my question(s), yet again, on all points to which I responded, even though you prefer to limit your response to freewill. I am very clear on freewill: one cannot have freewill when fear is introduced into the decision, especially when that fear relies on eternal suffering and torture. A mild example of this was used for almost two millenia and was quite effective and that would be the simple act of excommunication. One cannot have freewill when one is told; I have given you the choice to choose, but you had better obey or else! and that command comes from the supposed creator.

Freewill in this instance denies that God has granted all humans the ability to reason for themselves, and that such reasoning might lead one to believe that the demand to agree or else is not God given, but in fact is deception by man. God cannot in his infinite wisdom, have provided diversity of thought and made same equal in all of humankind if all of humankind has not been, is not, and continues not to be in agreement.

I do not believe in your concept of freewill or its Biblical beginnings, or its manly creation, and I know that it is not because I am in defiance of God's wishes. It does not ring true to me logically when apllied and when reviewed within the context of the argument from the second century onward.

Consequently, when I confront God, the proponents of freewill will expect that he will expel my tail to some place where eternal fire and damnation will torture my flesh and or soul until he has decided that he has reveled enough in my torture, and all simply because I exercised the right he gave me to reason and found no basis in fact for the concept of freewill as put forward by Christians.

The absolute philosophical nature of man's revelation of God's concept is nothing but to impart unto God, humanlike qualities. This is ludicruous! He is God, he has no need for vengence, nor for a fan club. He is God.

Now since in you response you admit

not every human can weigh choices equally
It is obvious that you believe that God did not grant the same intellectual capacity or reasoning ability to all humans. Yet you expect that all humans bar none, come to the same conclusion about God. This makes no sense, and neither did Augustine, nor anyone else who holds steadfastly to the notion of freewill. If anything at all it shows that Augustine and all freewill advocates did not have the capacity of intellect to discern that nowhere within the 3,760 year history of the Jews the Old Testament purports to be about, did anyone, not even his beloved prophet, Enoch, speak to the notion of freewill.



[edit on 9/29/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Just one or two points I would like to throw into this mix:
1) Only Adam was forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge as he was told before Eve was even created so why was Eve and the serpent punished?
2) God told Adam that he would die if he ate from the tree. If there was NO death before the original sin how would Adam understand the concept and threat of death?
3)"Gods will", "Gods wishes","Gods plan". These statements all require Thought i.e to plan something requires thought, to wish for something requires something to wish for. Now if God thinks/plans then he cant know everything and not being omniscient therefore has no effect on free will as he doesn't know what we will do or say.




G



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Just one or two points I would like to throw into this mix:
1) Only Adam was forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge as he was told before Eve was even created so why was Eve and the serpent punished?
2) God told Adam that he would die if he ate from the tree. If there was NO death before the original sin how would Adam understand the concept and threat of death?
3)"Gods will", "Gods wishes","Gods plan". These statements all require Thought i.e to plan something requires thought, to wish for something requires something to wish for. Now if God thinks/plans then he cant know everything and not being omniscient therefore has no effect on free will as he doesn't know what we will do or say.




G


1.Eve does state to the serpent that she is well aware of the prohibition of eating of the tree. It is apparent that G-d did tell her.


Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


After all Genesis does state that G-d walked and talked with Adam. It is safe to assume that he communed with both Adam and Eve, following her creation. Additionally, the time period between Eve’s creation and the fall of man was most likely not a single hour day or minute. It has always been my contention that time did not exist, as we now know it, in the Garden. Time is measure of our lives/experiences. Before the fall there would have been not end of life so no need to quantify the portions of life. It could have been a thousand years or more, we simply do not know.

2.Somehow I would think that the Creator of all life, The Most High G-d, could get his point across, don’t you think! LOL

3.You are falling into a trap with this point. I call it “Putting G-d into a Human Box” Anytime a human tries to describe aspect of G-d, such as this, it breaks down. What we call planning and thought might better be described as “Set Up”. Fact is no matter how hard we try we will never understand a concept of Omniscience. For obvious reasons.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   


quote: Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die

If thats was the case (no eating, no touching) why have the tree there in the first place?



2.Somehow I would think that the Creator of all life, The Most High G-d, could get his point across, don’t you think! LOL

If there is nothing to base the concept of death on how would God explain it?



3.You are falling into a trap with this point. I call it “Putting G-d into a Human Box” Anytime a human tries to describe aspect of G-d, such as this, it breaks down. What we call planning and thought might better be described as “Set Up”. Fact is no matter how hard we try we will never understand a concept of Omniscience. For obvious reasons.

Ah but that is your opinion that god is omniscient, there are a few christian groups that dont believe that god is omniscient so my statement is still valid. I for one cant see how omniscience can possibly work, its illogical and logic is one thing that god cant change. I mean what is the point to omniscience, if god has a plan he already knows the outcome so the universe and everything in it is pointless.



G



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
If thats was the case (no eating, no touching) why have the tree there in the first place?


The tree represents knowledge. With knowledge comes labelling, and judgement, other words duality. Right now we live in a dual world, to go beyond duality is to go beyond the ego. When instead of labelling something as tall or short, you just let it BE. That is true awareness, the ego cannot be present in stillness.



If there is nothing to base the concept of death on how would God explain it?


Good point, this is why man was meant to "eat" from the tree of knowledge, to have a tatse of duality.



Ah but that is your opinion that god is omniscient, there are a few christian groups that dont believe that god is omniscient so my statement is still valid. I for one cant see how omniscience can possibly work, its illogical and logic is one thing that god cant change. I mean what is the point to omniscience, if god has a plan he already knows the outcome so the universe and everything in it is pointless.


It would also be pointless to not have a universe, if it doesn't matter either way then we might as well have one, don't you agree?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud


If thats was the case (no eating, no touching) why have the tree there in the first place?


Because without the tree there is no choice. With out choice there is no free will.



If there is nothing to base the concept of death on how would God explain it?


Once again, A being who SPOKE the universe into existing! He could do all that but he can not make a hairless monkey understand death. I do not know he just downloaded the concept into his brain...what do you want from me? LOL



Ah but that is your opinion that god is omniscient, there are a few Christian groups that don’t believe that god is omniscient so my statement is still valid. I for one cant see how omniscience can possibly work, its illogical and logic is one thing that god cant change. I mean what is the point to omniscience, if god has a plan he already knows the outcome so the universe and everything in it is pointless.

G

A few...is a minority. A vast Majority of theologians do not deny G-d his Omniscience. So using your argument, since a vast Majority agree with me; your statement is invalid….what silly logic that is, huh?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I want you to reread that which you wrote, specifically what is bolded. Then note, that I introduced nothing about what other abilities, which I take as being peers, might have.


Than what was the use of saying this in your previous post:

"But we know for a fact that not all humans share the same ability to think on the same level, case in point; there was only one Einstein; one Freud; one Mme. Curie…etc."



You have not answered my question(s), yet again, on all points to which I responded, even though you prefer to limit your response to freewill. I am very clear on freewill: one cannot have freewill when fear is introduced into the decision, especially when that fear relies on eternal suffering and torture.


Your logic releis on the relinquishment of free will, due to the free will of others to setup belief systems based on fear.

Imagine this (actually do it): A world in which there are no religions which promise any salvation, and no damnation. All choices are completely equal, and have equal outcomes. Now imagine I inhabit this world. I decide to create a religion called "Akashism." This religion is based around the fact that if you don't practice every single one of my rites you will go to hell forever. Does this mean that humans suddenly lose free will due to my belief system?

No. We can choose to succumb to the fear based tactics of others, or not to.



Freewill in this instance denies that God has granted all humans the ability to reason for themselves, and that such reasoning might lead one to believe that the demand to agree or else is not God given, but in fact is deception by man. God cannot in his infinite wisdom, have provided diversity of thought and made same equal in all of humankind if all of humankind has not been, is not, and continues not to be in agreement.


Agreed.



I do not believe in your concept of freewill or its Biblical beginnings, or its manly creation, and I know that it is not because I am in defiance of God's wishes. It does not ring true to me logically when apllied and when reviewed within the context of the argument from the second century onward.


This has nothing to do with the bible. It has to do with the fact that our choices are up to ourselves, and are not predetermined.



Consequently, when I confront God, the proponents of freewill will expect that he will expel my tail to some place where eternal fire and damnation will torture my flesh and or soul until he has decided that he has reveled enough in my torture, and all simply because I exercised the right he gave me to reason and found no basis in fact for the concept of freewill as put forward by Christians.


I expect no such thing.



The absolute philosophical nature of man's revelation of God's concept is nothing but to impart unto God, humanlike qualities. This is ludicruous! He is God, he has no need for vengence, nor for a fan club. He is God.


Agreed.



Now since in you response you admit

not every human can weigh choices equally
It is obvious that you believe that God did not grant the same intellectual capacity or reasoning ability to all humans. Yet you expect that all humans bar none, come to the same conclusion about God.


I expect no such thing.



This makes no sense, and neither did Augustine, nor anyone else who holds steadfastly to the notion of freewill. If anything at all it shows that Augustine and all freewill advocates did not have the capacity of intellect to discern that nowhere within the 3,760 year history of the Jews the Old Testament purports to be about, did anyone, not even his beloved prophet, Enoch, speak to the notion of freewill.


You mean write about the notion of free will.

I agree with you on all points, except the fact that you constanly use comparisons when talking about freewill. It does not matter if everyone doesn't come to the same conclusion. What matters is that they came to a conclusion at all, and have excercised their free will. It also does not matter if there are man based fear systems that try to take away a person's free will. A person can still choose not to follow them, or they can choose to follow them, which is all fine and dandy because they are excercising their free will.



[edit on 9/29/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

[edit on 30/9/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWandererThan what was the use of saying this in your previous post:

"But we know for a fact that not all humans share the same ability to think on the same level, case in point; there was only one Einstein; one Freud; one Mme. Curie…etc."
Simple, it was prefaced by;

It is unspoken that God must have given every human equal ability to reason, along with the ability to know right from wrong, therefore it goes without saying that God should have created each and every member of the human race with the same abilities, yet he did not.
Hence yours:

Free will is the philosophical doctrine that holds that our choices are ultimately up to ourselves. It has nothing to do with the choices that the person sitting next to you has, or their intelligence for that matter.
which incorrectly implies that I addressed choices. I addressed the abilities of peers. It is clear that I made the distinction that not everyone of humankind has the same intellectual capacity and therefore not everyone can come to the same conclusion. Now if we can stay on point rather than attempt to assert something that was not said was said, we might actually discuss the philosophy you raised initially.


Your logic releis on the relinquishment of free will, due to the free will of others to setup belief systems based on fear.
On the contrary, that would be your logic. I could not have made it any clearer by stating what my confrontation with the God you obviously believe in might encompass. It is so that the notion of Christian freewill is reliant on fear, and that such fear will drive one to accept the mandated doctrines of specific religions as they perceive God to be imposing. A Christian might rationalize within their own mind that there is no harm in open-mindedly investigating and learning about the Islamic doctrine for the purpose of determining whether or not the Islamic Allah is but another aspect of the Christian God. Such would be freewill, it could even be enlightening. Yet, if that Christian were instead determined to undertake such an investigation believing that such a doctrine was wrong, then they do so, not from freewill which must consist of the intellectual ability to reason for oneself, but from an external requirement that non-Christian faiths are false and evil, ergo, freewill has been subordinated.

The point is proven by your response to Shihulud, when you state that it is apparent that God told Eve about the prohibition on eating of the tree. There is no basis in fact for your position, yet you defend that position without support and expect it to be accepted. In other words, your freewill has been robbed of you, and you just repeat that which you are trained to, not what you can actually reason through.


Imagine this (actually do it): A world in which there are no religions which promise any salvation, and no damnation. All choices are completely equal, and have equal outcomes. Now imagine I inhabit this world. I decide to create a religion called "Akashism." This religion is based around the fact that if you don't practice every single one of my rites you will go to hell forever. Does this mean that humans suddenly lose free will due to my belief system?

No. We can choose to succumb to the fear based tactics of others, or not to.
I can in fact imagine it, since such has manifested itself many times over. You cannot? Religion relies on doctrinal concepts of God as defined by few men in positions of power. Why exactly must religion promise salvation? There is no reason unless one believes man’s interpretation that damnation awaits those who are under-qualified to assess God’s purpose and passion, and so cannot accept the teachings of the few preaching damnation as it suits their idealism.

Herein lies the lie! It is philosophically evident in my previous posts which remain elusive, that if it is accepted that God the omnipotent requires that all men come to the same conclusion about him, then God would not and could not distribute intelligence unequally, nor would he find the need to impart his knowledge only to a miniscule number of men, then insist that everyone of his human creations accept that he speaks only to a select few because only they are worthy of receiving his word directly. To do so would require that the non-elect accept that they have not been granted the wherewithal; the ability, or the intellect of the elect to exercise freewill, and are but nought in their creator's eyes.


(freewill) This has nothing to do with the bible. It has to do with the fact that our choices are up to ourselves, and are not predetermined.
It has everything to do with The Bible…the Christian Bible, specifically the New Testament from where comes the interpretation of Augustine’s freewill.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join