Forgiven for what, eactly?

[Agatha]

I'm not sure anyone, Bishadi included, understands Bishadi's posts.

It's interesting that you include this example. Where's the voluntary commitment, here? Isn't the responsibility imposed on you whether you want it or not?
If you have the responsibility to obey the laws of our society by living in our society, why don't you have the reponsibility to obey the laws of God's universe by living in God's universe?

If I believed that the universe was created, maintained and/or ruled by a god, then possibly I would have the responsibility to obey that god's laws. But I don't hold that belief, I never have, and so the concept of "sinning" against a god makes no sense at all to me.

I admire the patient way you explain your faith, AvalonXQ, even though I don't share your beliefs.

 

[Seismosaurus]

It's interesting that you include this example. Where's the voluntary commitment, here? Isn't the responsibility imposed on you whether you want it or not?

No. I could leave.

If you have the responsibility to obey the laws of our society by living in our society, why don't you have the reponsibility to obey the laws of God's universe by living in God's universe?

But you missed out the important word "democratic" which I used. A democratic society is justified in imposing laws and rules on me because, and ONLY because, I had a hand in choosing the governing body of that society. The laws are, therefore, a reflection of the people they govern and carry the authority of the people they goven - and can ultimately be changed by the people they govern.

In "god's universe" the rules are handed down by dictat, quite literally. There is no appeal, no way for us the ordinary folk to object to or modify a rule or to request a change of government. Indeed the one time that the population as a whole tried it, god responded by inflicting mass genocide upon them.

Does a North Korean citizen have a responsibility to obey his tyrant? Obeying might be the SENSIBLE thing to do, given the tyrant's overwhelming power advantage... but then we're into might makes right, with no pretence of morality.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

...snip...
Then whole idea that "God is omnipotent; he could have done things differently" doesn't sit with me -- because I'm confident that he couldn't have done things differently without changing the value of something valuable in the current system, and I have no idea what the implications of that are. Neither do you.

This here is my stumbling point. You say that God “couldn't have done things differently” without changing something He didn't want changed. This suggests that God is subject to rules or laws which are greater, more fundamental than Himself.

If that's true, then who's responsible for those greater laws? Why worship the God who has to obey them (the Christian God) rather than the (presumably) larger God who created them?

 

[Robin]

That Avalon XQ does not know the details of specific sins does not, to me, invalidate what he says. And I don't think it arrogant for him to be seeking to teach what he knows about the subject.

Actually I am quite interested in what he is saying.

As I understand it, if I don't believe in God and genuinely believe a particular action to be moral, then I am not sinning by doing that action - even if God considers it a sin.

And presumably if I am doing something that I consider wrong but God does not consider wrong then I would not be sinning.

So I am only sinning in those actions that both I and God would agree to be wrong.

And we have established that there is no easy formula for deciding what is right and wrong - for example killing a child because her parents worship the wrong God might be considered a morally perfect action.

 

[Cainkane1]

This here is my stumbling point. You say that God “couldn't have done things differently” without changing something He didn't want changed. This suggests that God is subject to rules or laws which are greater, more fundamental than Himself.

If that's true, then who's responsible for those greater laws? Why worship the God who has to obey them (the Christian God) rather than the (presumably) larger God who created them?

Judging by the events and tradgedys and injustices in the bible human laws are generally better than what god and his prophets levied on the human race.

 

[AvalonXQ]

And presumably if I am doing something that I consider wrong but God does not consider wrong then I would not be sinning.

Actually, doing what you believe to be wrong is sinful. Because sin is so caught up with the condition of the heart and the choices we make, what we consider sinful is sinful for us.
We have to be careful, though, not to assume that what is sinful for us is sinful for others.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It was possible for me not to have done it. I chose to do it anyway. That's the "free will" part.

But if God knew it would not happen, how was it possible?

God knowingly created beings that would later make a free choice to sin, yes.

That He knew would later make a choice to sin. He therefore created us, knowing that we would sin, yet it is our responsibility that we sin.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

A free moral agent is free, at least theoretically, to act correctly at every turn. Just as a baseball player is free, at least theoretically, to hit every baseball.

But a baseball player is not held to have sinned if he fails to hit every ball, nor is he eternally damned if he doesn't beg forgiveness for batting less than a perfect average.

Dave

 

[Bishadi]

Judging by the events and tradgedys and injustices in the bible human laws are generally better than what god and his prophets levied on the human race.

mankind wrote 'the' word

 

[AvalonXQ]

That He knew would later make a choice to sin. He therefore created us, knowing that we would sin, yet it is our responsibility that we sin.

That's correct.
The conflict between perfect knowledge and free will is very well-recognized and often discussed. You consider the two incompatible; I do not. I've yet to find any argument or explanation that seems to convince anyone from either side that their side has it wrong; it seems to be entirely a matter of intuition. I see no conflict between foreknowledge and free will.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But a baseball player is not held to have sinned if he fails to hit every ball,

You've mixed the metaphor in order to sneak in an argument from consequences.
A baseball player is held to not have a "perfect batting average" if he fails to hit during every single at-bat, despite the fact that nothing stops him from theoretically hitting every ball.
Even the fact that no major league player will ever retire with a perfect record doesn't suddenly mean anything about the theoretical possibility of doing so. As long as every at-bat is fair, the game is fair. It's the players that are imperfect.

 

[TimCallahan]

Christianity is based on the rather distressing "news" (I use the scare quotes because most of us know this pretty well intuitively) that all of us are imperfect, that we have all made bad decisions and separated ourselves from God. I wouldn't call this "assuming the worst" of anyone, although it's certainly assuming something bad about each person, so I can see why you'd characterize it that way.
But sin is a basic part of Christian teaching, along with its remedy. This should not be surprising. None of us are good enough to make it to Heaven without help.

Okay, agreed: We are all imperfect, hence prone, at least part of the time, to err. Again, I have to point out that a belief in a universal God means that we are as God made us, i.e. prone to error. So God made us this way, but we have to ask his forgiveness for being the way he made us. Don't you see something of a conundrum in this?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Okay, agreed: We are all imperfect, hence prone, at least part of the time, to err. Again, I have to point out that a belief in a universal God means that we are as God made us, i.e. prone to error. So God made us this way, but we have to ask his forgiveness for being the way he made us. Don't you see something of a conundrum in this?

I understand why you'd see it as a conundrum, but again what we're really talking about is that God made us with the potential to make bad choices. When we actually make an immoral choice, then we have to deal with the consequences of that. It's not immoral to make a being which can, of its own free will, make an immoral choice.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I understand why you'd see it as a conundrum, but again what we're really talking about is that God made us with the potential to make bad choices. When we actually make an immoral choice, then we have to deal with the consequences of that. It's not immoral to make a being which can, of its own free will, make an immoral choice.

The fact that people inevitably sin is the problem. You said upthread that God did make an “agent” which has never sinned...

Is it impossible that there exists a free moral agent on Earth who has not wilfully committed an evil act?

Such an agent could exist (and did at one time), but does not today.

So it's possible for God to create such a being. Yet He apparently chose not to make everyone that way. That's the conundrum.

 

[SnnTsd]

As I said earlier, Original Sin isn't Biblical. I don't agree with the concept.

Could you explain how Original Sin not is Biblical when the Bible says this, and what does this then mean:

Romans 5:12-21(only included the most relevant sentences below)

Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so death passed onto all men, for all have sinned.(...)

For if by one man's offense death reigned by one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ.

?

 

[SnnTsd]

God knowingly created beings that would later make a free choice to sin, yes.

Where do you have that from? This imply something else:
Genesis 3:11

And He said, "Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

(The three God speak of here is capable of:"your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.")

 

[Cainkane1]

I'm not sure anyone, Bishadi included, understands Bishadi's posts.



If I believed that the universe was created, maintained and/or ruled by a god, then possibly I would have the responsibility to obey that god's laws. But I don't hold that belief, I never have, and so the concept of "sinning" against a god makes no sense at all to me.

I admire the patient way you explain your faith, AvalonXQ, even though I don't share your beliefs.

I don't know why youd feel that you necessarily had to obey this creatures laws. It isn't as if this god isn't an atrocious excuse for a living being. He is in fact horrible. I might "obey" him out of fear of being tossed into a pit of fiery worms and ugly demons but it wouldn't be because I loved or admired him or it or whatever.

 

[Bishadi]

I don't know why youd feel that you necessarily had to obey this creatures laws. It isn't as if this god isn't an atrocious excuse for a living being. He is in fact horrible. I might "obey" him out of fear of being tossed into a pit of fiery worms and ugly demons but it wouldn't be because I loved or admired him or it or whatever.

then try an analogy that is direct and easy to comprehend; "lying is for dying"

(by using your life to cause a loss to the common, you will fade over time; the unevolved fade, the good live)



it is easy.

 

[Hellbound]

Where do you have that from? This imply something else:
Genesis 3:11

And He said, "Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

(The three God speak of here is capable of:"your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.")

So, let me ge tthis straight.

1. They were created without the capability to tell right from wrong.

2. They ate the fruit (something they could not know was wrong, see point 1).

3. They, and all their descendents from that point on, to whatever generation, were then punished with the threat of eternal damnation.

SO, because God mad ethe first humans without the capacity to understand wrong versus right, all of us now have to beg for forgiveness, because he couldn't, oh, I dunno, put up a fence, maybe? Really, I don't hold my dog responsible for things he does, because he doesn't know better. But if I don't want him chewing up my shoes, I don't put the shoes where he can get them.

Either way, it's a rigged game, and we pay for God's lack of foresight.

 

[TimCallahan]

I understand why you'd see it as a conundrum, but again what we're really talking about is that God made us with the potential to make bad choices. When we actually make an immoral choice, then we have to deal with the consequences of that. It's not immoral to make a being which can, of its own free will, make an immoral choice.

Very well, do you contend, then, that God does not know what choices, good or bad, we will make, until we make them? Or do you contend that God, being omniscient, foreknows what choices we will make before we make them?