Endless Punishment, Fundie style

[bruto]

You're presuming one needs intellect to sin, bruto. That is the sin of the angels, or of mentally developed man. The philosophy in question presumes one only needs free will and be made in the image of God.

Cpl Ferro

No, not at all. I am presuming that the existence of free will in potential is not a sin until you use it. The question is not whether people tend to sin, but whether a baby is presumed not simply to be a potential sinner, but condemned for already having committed the sin of Adam at the moment of its birth. The idea that a baby is a sinful user of free will seems utterly preposterous.

An interesting peripheral question arises here, since if a baby is a miserable sinner and exerciser of free will at birth by virtue of its mere humanity, and a fetus is sacred because of its humanity, why is a fetus not a miserable sinner before it is born?

Aren't you at great risk if you don't perform an in utero baptism at the moment of conception? What punishment for sin do the unborn deserve? If none, why not?

 

[CplFerro]

No, not at all. I am presuming that the existence of free will in potential is not a sin until you use it. The question is not whether people tend to sin, but whether a baby is presumed not simply to be a potential sinner, but condemned for already having committed the sin of Adam at the moment of its birth. The idea that a baby is a sinful user of free will seems utterly preposterous.

An interesting peripheral question arises here, since if a baby is a miserable sinner and exerciser of free will at birth by virtue of its mere humanity, and a fetus is sacred because of its humanity, why is a fetus not a miserable sinner before it is born?

Aren't you at great risk if you don't perform an in utero baptism at the moment of conception? What punishment for sin do the unborn deserve? If none, why not?

Dear bruto,

Having a baby be "a sinful user of free will" is what is meant by the phrase, "monsters of iniquity." I don't find it impossible to imagine that a baby could be such a monster, regardless of how it appears to others. Ravi Zacharias is fond of quoting Malcolm Muggeridge,

"The depravity of man is at the same time the most empirically verifiable fact even as it is the most intellectually resisted."

Your peripheral questions are interesting. I don't understand why the Church doesn't hold funerals (with miniscule coffins!) for miscarriages, or baptise prior to birth.

I imagine the Church holds that until birth someone is in a kind of Limbo.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Ravi Zacharias is fond of quoting Malcolm Muggeridge,

Your consistent reliance on the words of that homophobe (Zacharias) is not helping your credibility in these discussions.

 

[CplFerro]

Your consistent reliance on the words of that homophobe (Zacharias) is not helping your credibility in these discussions.

What apologist is credible in your opinion, Frozenwolf?

Cpl Ferro

 

[Frozenwolf150]

What apologist is credible in your opinion, Frozenwolf?

Cpl Ferro

I say you should look to actual psychological studies and scientific research on the moral development of children, rather than quoting apologists, or simply asserting that babies can be monsters because it fits your existing beliefs. A good place to start would be to read up on the work of Skinner and Piaget.

 

[bruto]

Dear bruto,

Having a baby be "a sinful user of free will" is what is meant by the phrase, "monsters of iniquity." I don't find it impossible to imagine that a baby could be such a monster, regardless of how it appears to others. Ravi Zacharias is fond of quoting Malcolm Muggeridge,

"The depravity of man is at the same time the most empirically verifiable fact even as it is the most intellectually resisted."

Your peripheral questions are interesting. I don't understand why the Church doesn't hold funerals (with miniscule coffins!) for miscarriages, or baptise prior to birth.

I imagine the Church holds that until birth someone is in a kind of Limbo.

Cpl Ferro

Of course obviously one can and perhaps must believe what one believes, but as far as I'm concerned if a baby is "a monster of iniquity" from the moment of its birth simply because it is human, then the term "monster of iniquity" is synonymous with being human, and has no more meaning than pointing out that a baby generally has ten toes. If one is considered a sinful user of free will without either using it or knowing what it is, then the words have no useful meaning. It's all gibberish.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

My original sin was being born with a big head and a painful delivery.

 

[bruto]

My original sin was being born with a big head and a painful delivery.

Worse luck for you. I, like MacDuff, was from my mother's womb untimely ripped, even my very nascence at the whim of others, inviting a life of contradiction, each new sin original in its own right. Unlike those of the feeble babe paying off the mortmain of a thousand generations, mine are mine alone.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Worse luck for you. I, like MacDuff, was from my mother's womb untimely ripped, even my very nascence at the whim of others, inviting a life of contradiction, each new sin original in its own right. Unlike those of the feeble babe paying off the mortmain of a thousand generations, mine are mine alone.

You think you've got problems...

 

[CplFerro]

I say you should look to actual psychological studies and scientific research on the moral development of children, rather than quoting apologists, or simply asserting that babies can be monsters because it fits your existing beliefs. A good place to start would be to read up on the work of Skinner and Piaget.

Dear Frozenwolf,

So, then, no apologists are credible to you, so there's no reason to single out Zacharias.

Is there a psychologist or scientific researcher who scrutinises sin?

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

Of course obviously one can and perhaps must believe what one believes, but as far as I'm concerned if a baby is "a monster of iniquity" from the moment of its birth simply because it is human, then the term "monster of iniquity" is synonymous with being human, and has no more meaning than pointing out that a baby generally has ten toes. If one is considered a sinful user of free will without either using it or knowing what it is, then the words have no useful meaning. It's all gibberish.

Dear bruto,

It indicates an inimical tendency in the human heart that authors of utopia would do well to understand.

What I find interesting is the contradiction between the idea of MOI and the "spark of divinity" located in the human soul--the reason God values us in the first place. As Lyndon LaRouche has said, "God is a god of good taste."

So, there we have two warring impulses or potentials in fallen man.

Cpl Ferro

 

[catsmate]

Thank you for that translation from nonsense to even less sense. Does the infant get a choice about being born with a rational soul?

It makes no sense at all. What you're saying is that the human tendency to sin, a condition with which we are always, and inevitably born, is freely chosen by a baby who knows nothing about anything. The idea of what sin is, and what a choice is, are rendered utterly worthless.

This is the problem with xians, especially the god botherers; they attempt to derive rules, and concepts for today from a collection of stories from a primitive, tribal culture at the edge of civilisation who never even thought about most of this stuff.

Dear bruto,

Having a baby be "a sinful user of free will" is what is meant by the phrase, "monsters of iniquity." I don't find it impossible to imagine that a baby could be such a monster, regardless of how it appears to others. Ravi Zacharias is fond of quoting Malcolm Muggeridge,

"The depravity of man is at the same time the most empirically verifiable fact even as it is the most intellectually resisted."

How utterly typical. You're quoting an unpleasant homophobe's fabricated quotation from a media personality who was out of touch with reality fifty years ago.
Someone who not only inflicted that vile canting hypocrite Anjezë Bojaxhi on the world but demonstrated his contempt for honesty during the "Life of Brian" debate.

My original sin was being born with a big head and a painful delivery.

Geneticists will fix that eventually.

 

[Donn]

To me religion is like a doughnut with a lot of stuff built around nothing.

A most excellent simile.

Wouldn't original sin in reality be a criticism of the creator?

You'd think; however the closer you get to the middle of the doughnut, the more bitter the taste, for it's comprised of concentrated lawyers farting Sophisticated Theology and there is no way to use common sense.

 

[Donn]

The right question is whether or not an infant born with a rational soul has any choice in his will being wrongly inclined or not.

No, the right question is does this infant even have a soul? The answer is no, nothing has a soul. All the rest is sophistry.

 

[turingtest]

No, the right question is does this infant even have a soul? The answer is no, nothing has a soul. All the rest is sophistry.

I have to admit, though, that I'm almost impressed (and sort of train-wreck fascinated) by someone willing to work as hard as CplFerro at counting angels, splitting hairs, picking nits, and overall making logic scream in protest at its torture, all to justify a belief in babies born damned. But it's the sort of "impressed" I would be at a display of any other useless talent; theological sophistry is about as useful as someone who can belch hugely on demand.

 

[Donn]

At least belching relieves stomach ache, Theology causes it.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

My big head probably hurt my mom more than I ever did during her life. Now I should wear sack cloth and ashes. The video about test tube babies is very funny. Maybe some time a person will sue the test tube company for some deformity. How would the maker defend themselves?
Also, when you watch them transmit people on Star Trek what if the person comes back missing and arm or what not? God can just shrug his shoulders and say I'm off the hook this time

 

[turingtest]

At least belching relieves stomach ache, Theology causes it.

(Shrug) Chewed wind either way.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

So, then, no apologists are credible to you, so there's no reason to single out Zacharias.

You're the one singling him out by constantly referring to him as an authority. He's just as useless as every other apologist out there. You really ought to demonstrate that your arguments can stand on their own, rather than appealing to authority as if it proves your beliefs right just because Zacharias said so.

Is there a psychologist or scientific researcher who scrutinises sin?

Sin is an imaginary concept. The moral development of children is very real, and can be studied. Take your pick.

 

[CplFerro]

You're the one singling him out by constantly referring to him as an authority. He's just as useless as every other apologist out there. You really ought to demonstrate that your arguments can stand on their own, rather than appealing to authority as if it proves your beliefs right just because Zacharias said so.

"Ought" implies an objective moral standard, Frozenwolf. I "ought" to be doing just as I am doing, and no amount of atheist needling will stop me.

Sin is an imaginary concept. The moral development of children is very real, and can be studied. Take your pick.

I choose both.

Cpl Ferro