Continuation of Christianity debate.

[MR. Nate]

I think the issue is less "should gay couples adopt" which is entierly political, and more "Make those catholics help gay couples adopt" which is intolerance by the government of the Catholic Churches belief.

This is akin to the government requireing all children to attend mass. Clearly, some people think that's the way it should be. Others, and presumably others in this forum, do not want their children around priests. (OK, somebody make the joke . . .) It's not that you're making a moral decision about whether mass is right or wrong, you're simply not a fan of the government making that decision for you.

In your case, the government has dictated that the Catholic church do something it believes is wrong, which smacks of arrogance and intolerance.

But, before we descend into a drawn out discussion on homosexuality, what "Modern ethics" do you propose we determine right or wrong by? Are you a deontologist? virtue ethicist? utilitarian? Who decides?

[manicman]

If God is all powerful then he should be able to forgive the sinner regardless of punishment or not. That's the nature of being all powerful.

God did have the power to forgive without the death of Jesus, but then the Bible prophecies of Jesus would not be true, making it so we could not trust Him. But God stuck with the plan to send Jesus to die for our sins, so therefore you should believe the entire Bible as the direct and true Word of God.

So god sent Jesus to fulfill his own prophecy and despite being omniscient, god made this prophecy in the first place knowing it would lead to a lot of trouble that could easily be avoided. Plus god could have taken the memory of the prophecy out of humanity's minds to get around that trouble because god is all powerful. And even besides all these logical errors on the part of god who is supposed to be without error, you still have no evidence to prove that this is true since your last point I rebutted.

I already addressed this.

No you didn't. If you did then copy and paste it.

[manicman]

If God is all powerful then he should be able to forgive the sinner regardless of punishment or not. That's the nature of being all powerful.

God did have the power to forgive without the death of Jesus, but then the Bible prophecies of Jesus would not be true, making it so we could not trust Him. But God stuck with the plan to send Jesus to die for our sins, so therefore you should believe the entire Bible as the direct and true Word of God.

Caleb that is circular reasoning and your not answering the question.


The reason Christ had to die is, in order to be just God had to have an atonement for the sins, He chose blood to be that atonement. You can see this throughout the old testament as they sacrificed animals to atone but these were not permanent. Christ had to die because we needed a perfect sacrifice for the sins we committed and still commit to this day.

God is all-powerful but he is also righteous, part of being righteous is perfect justice. Without a payment for sins (or violation of the law) there would be no justice that payment is the blood of Christ. In order for the payment to fulfill God's righteous nature it had to be a perfect sacrifice, Christ was perfect in that he never sinned, he could have, but he didn't. None of us can earn our way because none of our deeds can ever make us righteous, and because of that we had to have a way provided to us.

Okay first of all most religious people tend to think that justice and what is right is decided by God so he doesn't have to change his actions to fit his standards, he can change his standards to fit his actions.
And if justice and rightness are independant even of god then howis it justice that someone who never sinned died to help out a sinful people?
Should we put babies to death as punishment for murderers and rapists? It looks like the really sinful crowd got a free pass on this one.

We all got a free pass. Only you have to take the offered pass from the hands of the Saviour through faith.

So if god decides right then why didn't he change what was right to make it right for him to give us a free pass without putting his son through such horrible things. And if right is independant then is it really right that humans with so many sins get to eternal paradise without any work or penance.

[manicman]

On 2. If you decide that God's actions are evil does that make them so? No, all his actions are righteous. We just do not have the mind of God to know the big picture.

here is a charming passage from Numbers:
"Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Murder and rape (presumably of young girls) = righteous! All those naughty idolatrous women and children. God wasn't too bothered by this was he?


So.. the OT is full of incest, rape, filicide, mindless slaughter... and these are all, given a god and the right context, righteous. You have just explained and absolved the actions of every muslim extremist and every suicide bomber. This is why we need to be brave and get rid of these crutches. We don't need them anymore - we don't need them to get along with each other or to provide moral guidance. In fact they are hindering us.

And how can you claim to 'know god' like this at one point and then dismiss the paradoxes brouhgt up be Jesse et al by saying we can't know god? You can't have it both ways - although, blinkered as you are, you probably do.

God demanded they be killed. Why. you may ask. They would lead the Israelites away from him. The entire OT is full of such things but they serve the purpose of preserving the bloodline down to Christ which brought salvation for all. So, if you think that is evil so be it, but you would be wrong to think that.

My meaning behind that is that without understanding the backstory he will never understand God. We can know God, through the Bible. It gives us much understanding of the character of God. Can we know everything? No, but 99% of the questions your bringing up there are answers. I refuse to entertain the idiotic logical paradoxes because they do not constrain God. He is altogether outside the laws of man. He does not have to abide by the laws of logic we have constructed but you seem to think he has to. He exists both inside and outside of the physical realm therefore he does not have to abide by the physical limitations of this world. I'll let you in on a secret, he created it all, I think that puts him outside of our understanding about his limitations, if any, he may have.

So if god is completely beyond our understanding then why bother at all? Maybe he does want us to worship Jesus but he's going to leap out and say gotcha when we die and cast us into hell. If something is utterly and completely beyond understanding why think about it at all since no conclusion can be drawn regardless of its actions?

Also I demand the answer to this question. Does god decide what is right or is right an independant thing that even god doesn't get to have a say in?

[MR. Nate]

maniacman:
I think you're trying to isolate the doctrine of omnipotence. God has the power and control over everything He has created, but He's not going to do anything inconsistent with His character. Justice is a part of his character, as is holiness. So it would be inconsistent for him to allow unpunished rebellion to continue eternally. It is an affront to both justice and holiness. This also explains why He will never sin. It is entirely inconsistent with His character.

As far as the trouble He could have avoided by not having the prophecy in the 1st place, we don't really know all the possible ways it could have worked out, do we? However, an omniscient God would, and so we are forced to allow Him to make the best decision based on the information available to him

As for your demands . . .
It's a false dilemma. What is "right" emerges from the charechter and being of God. It is as intrinsicly a part of Him as your humanity is a part of you.

[manicman]

maniacman:
I think you're trying to isolate the doctrine of omnipotence. God has the power and control over everything He has created, but He's not going to do anything inconsistent with His character. Justice is a part of his character, as is holiness. So it would be inconsistent for him to allow unpunished rebellion to continue eternally. It is an affront to both justice and holiness. This also explains why He will never sin. It is entirely inconsistent with His character.

As far as the trouble He could have avoided by not having the prophecy in the 1st place, we don't really know all the possible ways it could have worked out, do we? However, an omniscient God would, and so we are forced to allow Him to make the best decision based on the information available to him

As for your demands . . .
It's a false dilemma. What is "right" emerges from the charechter and being of God. It is as intrinsicly a part of Him as your humanity is a part of you.

So is it justice for god to allow so many sinners to go unpunished?
And in your second paragraph you sidestepped what I was saying. Couldn't god have avoided putting Jesus through all that through different decisions?
And to the third, so you think that God decides what is right. So why couldn't he have made it right that (insert random bad thing here) happened? Why couldn't he have changed their nature from wrong to right?

[MR. Nate]

There is currently significant injustice in the world, including a large amount of unpunished sinners. That will eventually be rectified.

Could God have avoided putting Jesus on the Cross? Yes, He could have allowed all of humanity to roast in hell for their sins. In his infinite love, Christ offered himself as the payment for sin, so that man could enjoy fellowship with God. There was no way for sin to be atoned for without the cross.

You didn't read what I said. God does not decide what is right, nor is right somehow a law that is above him. God IS right. He is the definition of right. We are wrong only in that we are not aligned with the moral fiber of God.

[Guiscard]

No-ones answered by assessment of the problem of evil posted a couple pages back... Other than to say that God isn't actually omnibenevolent. I assume any theist will acknowledge that God is perfect, and 'm afraid omnibenevolence is sort of a prequesite to being perfect. If yoy're gonna not be completely good then thats not completely perfect... Anyone else want to have a crack without relying on 'transcendant, we can't understand' cop-out, which makes every post in this thread null and void.

[ksslemp]

Here's a simple question.

What is Sin?

[manicman]

There is currently significant injustice in the world, including a large amount of unpunished sinners. That will eventually be rectified.

Could God have avoided putting Jesus on the Cross? Yes, He could have allowed all of humanity to roast in hell for their sins. In his infinite love, Christ offered himself as the payment for sin, so that man could enjoy fellowship with God. There was no way for sin to be atoned for without the cross.

You didn't read what I said. God does not decide what is right, nor is right somehow a law that is above him. God IS right. He is the definition of right. We are wrong only in that we are not aligned with the moral fiber of God.

1. If god were allways just he would rectify those sins now.
2.You are arguing in circles. What I am saying is couldn't god have forgaven humanity's sins without putting Christ on the cross?
3.And you sidestep the question again.If God is right then is it because he conformed to a concept of rightness that was there first or because he gets to choose what right is? Saying god is right is logically bad as god is a conscious entity and right is a concept of morals.

[heavycola]

They are attempting to use logic (falsely) to destroy the argument for God. They think themselves wise.

Because of course logic and reason have no place in an argument such as this.
And this in fact is where it all falls down, as far as I am concerned. Everything you say reverts back to the bible. Everything. eg:

Could God have avoided putting Jesus on the Cross? Yes, He could have allowed all of humanity to roast in hell for their sins. In his infinite love, Christ offered himself as the payment for sin, so that man could enjoy fellowship with God. There was no way for sin to be atoned for without the cross.

There was no other way? An omnipotent god had to have his son crucified to prevent his own creation from roasitng in a hell he also created?
Logically this makes no sense, and so instead you guys point to the bible and say 'this is the truth'. Why? because the bible says so. It's circular. You deny logic and point to a book that contradicts itself over and over again, and which makes claims for which there is not the slightest bit of proof evident in the world around us. The laws of physics (hardly our laws, Kokunai) are broken over and over again in the OT and the NT, and yet they have held immutably fast in every experience anyone posting here has had. And yet despite all that, the bible is truth and god can sidestep any reasoned, sensible argument against his existence by, well, being god. Circles. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Comforting nonsense.

Sneer at logic all you like Kokunai - it governs the reality you take for granted. Shame it stops at your ears.

I think that a lot of valuable learning can occur when we look at the OT as a whole, rather than picking out the bloodiest stories to subvert the NT.

But the whole bible is god's word. I am merely cherrypicking from perfection, which MUST be OK, yes?


PS and as for catholics being refused exemption from equality laws, well, you suck. Like Bertros said, the UK is no longer going to allow bigoted and outdated dogma to interfere with people's happiness and human rights. Unlike most of the OT.

[MeDeFe]

You're asking the wrong question, manicman, asking "could he, could he, could he" will get you nowhere. You'll just get "yes, because... but..." with the words "sin" and "love" thrown in somewhere.


Concentrate on the inherent contradictions instead. And no, I don't mean asking if god can create a stone he cannot lift since he's omnipotent, and if he can't lift it, is he still omnipotent. That's like asking what the barber who must shave all those who don't shave themselves is supposed to do. Shave himself or not?
You end up with one of those "if A then not A, if not A then A".


So... god is utterly "good", whatever that means, and god is the "moral standard" to which everything else must be measured.

Sorry, religious folks, but if you claim that you will have to accept that mass-murdering others CAN be ok in some situations, while in other situations it's not, and you never really know when it's which. God in the OT is a pretty unpredictable fellow to say the least. Sacrificing an animal is fine, but woe on you if you bring him any vegetables.

"Hey, I'm omniscient, I know everything that's going to happen, but let's see just how much Abraham loves me, would he sacrifice his own son? Nevermind, I reconsidered, here's a sheep, sacrifice that to me instead."

"I bet I can make Job turn against you." "No, you can't." "Yes I can!" "Prove it!" And guess who has to suffer? And before one of you says "but he was rewarded in the end". F*CK THAT! Is it ok to kill someone's kids and steal or destroy all he owns and make him fall sick, if you give him back twice what he had before? Oh, I forget, since god's the standard he can change it at will and do whatever he wants.

And who was the first king again? I think Saul or some such, anyway, I clearly remember that god regretted having let him become king. So he knew all along, still did it, and then regretted it? Somewhat fishy, don't you think?

And then that amazing tree in the middle of Eden. "DON'T TOUCH THAT!" Of course god knows what'll happen, but he doesn't really act accordingly, like NOT putting that tree there in the first place. Oh, a mysterious plan. Or maybe just a pretty story to offer an explanation of why humans have reason while animals don't and why there's so much seeemingly unnecessary suffering on earth.


Really, most of the OT is nothing more than "Obey these laws (the priesets gave us) or you'll know the reason why".



Then we have the NT. The earliest parts were written down some 30 years (If I remember correctly) after the death of the protagonist. Who in places is pretty inconsistent himself. Preaching love and non-violence, but he really gives the people in the temple hell shortly before he dies, doesn't he? I think he whips them out. Not very non-violent behaviour, eh?




And just by the way an interesting piece of information, the old testament and the new testament were compiled/written at the same time, the Torah was also compiled then. Before that the different pieces of writing were exactly that: different pieces of writing, all dealing with religion but not to be read in any specific order.

[dewey316]

1. If god were allways just he would rectify those sins now.

The key word there is now. God is just, and all sinners will be held accountable. This icludes me, and you. All of us will be judged. God allowing sin to go unpunished would be unjust. That is not the case, all sins will be paid for, either by the person who sinned, or by Christs bloods. Are you expecting a lightning bolt to come down and kill everyone, the moment they sin the first time?

If you are looking for an explanation of how a loving God can allow evil to excist. I would be happy to point you in the direction of several books on the subject.

2.You are arguing in circles. What I am saying is couldn't god have forgaven humanity's sins without putting Christ on the cross?

He could have, but that wouldn't have been just. The president of the US, could have pardon every person who commited a crime, is that justice? The first question you asked, if why doesn't God punish all sin immediatly with death?, the next is why doesn't he ingore it all? (just to clarify)

3.And you sidestep the question again.If God is right then is it because he conformed to a concept of rightness that was there first or because he gets to choose what right is? Saying god is right is logically bad as god is a conscious entity and right is a concept of morals.

I don't understand what you are asking here either. It seems like you are trying to bring in the chicken and egg argument, into morilty?

[MR. Nate]

Is God omnibenevolent? Yes, God loves everyone.

God created a perfect world in which people had the choice to follow Him or not. They chose not to. It was called sin. That first choice to not follow God was called original sin. Because people were supposed to be the caretakers for the world, their original sin impacted everything. Everything. That includes, by the way, the laws of physics, all of nature, and the attitude of people. As a result of original sin, the world has major problems, including tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes malaria and famine. So while YOUR free choice does not immediatly cause worldwide plauge, the legacy of human sin in the world does.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. Evil in the world is a result of God allowing us free choice. That's a part of his love. We rejected him, as a race, and the impact on the universe is off the charts. From that rejection, all the evil that we see in the world has emerged. It's not God's fault, it's our fault. And one day, it's all going to be put in order. All the wrongs will be punished, and the rights rewarded. Going to hell is our choice. The sacrifice of Christ was to rectify our rejection of God, to make it so that we could repent & return to God. The Cross was necessited by our sin, nothing else.

Sin: what we do when our actions are not consistent with the moral and ethical nature of God. The original word means "To miss the mark" meaning, the mark of perfection.

What I was referring to is the SELECTIVE use of the texts. The OT is usless without an understanding of the overall story. So picking out short stories as "evidence" that God is unjust does not support your point, becuase your not looking at the broader picture.

And to prove my point:
vegatables were acceptable, hard hearts were not.
God is more interested in our actions (faith without works is dead) Abraham was being asked to believe God, not sacrifice his son
Satan did the stuff to Job, not God
God gave Saul the opportunity to rule, and his sin caused God to remove his favor. The "Regret" is a figure of speech
The tree of Knowledge was there as the offering of Free will, which I have previously mentioned.
Christ clearing the temple was a demonstration of the holiness of God, the priests were directly disobeying God's command.

Your "interesting" piece of information is pretty well discredited by scholars. It's called the "Documentary Hypothesis" and it doesn't sit well with the evidence.

[heavycola]

As a result of original sin, the world has major problems, including tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes malaria and famine.

What? tsunamis and earthquakes are geological phenomena that happen because the earth's crust is still coming to a standstill. Malaria is a parasite that has evolved very successfully and which happens to prey on humans. Famine? Do you believe thousands of children are dying every day because some woman 6,000 years ago ate the wrong apple? And why Africans particularly? Why don't americans die of famine?

The sacrifice of Christ was to rectify our rejection of God, to make it so that we could repent & return to God. The Cross was necessited by our sin, nothing else.

Again, why? For what reason? Why a man on a cross? why didn;t god just turn every rabbit into a cake? Or make a lapdancer take up knitting? It is arbitrary in every way but one - it was written down in a book a long time ago. Which is not proof of anything. More circular argument.

Instead consider this for a second: what if god doesn't exist? Suddenly everything makes sense and every question is answered. Perfectly.

[Guiscard]

[quote="MR. Nate]I have said it before and I'll say it again. Evil in the world is a result of God allowing us free choice. That's a part of his love. We rejected him, as a race, and the impact on the universe is off the charts. From that rejection, all the evil that we see in the world has emerged.[/quote]

Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent... he simply can't be all-loving if he allows evil on such a large scale... even if it is through free will. He is omniscient so he knows humanity is going to carry out genocide before he gives us free will... As I;ve said before (and no-one responded, conveniently) even if this were the case, and that he has given us free will and does allow this evil, surely such a God is not worthy of worship!

[Anarchist]

Couldn't God have forgiven humanity's sins without getting Jesus killed?

Basically, the reason Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) and only God can satisfy the Law requirements of a perfect life and perfect sacrifice that cleanses us of our sins.
All people have sinned against God. But, God is infinitely holy and righteous. He must punish the sinner, the Law breaker. If He didn't, then His law is not law for there is no law that is a law without a punishment. The punishment for breaking the Law is death, separation from God. Therefore, we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God. Since we are stained by sin and cannot keep the Law of God, then the only one who could do what we cannot is God Himself. That is why Jesus is God in flesh. He is both divine and human. He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:5-6) and He fulfilled it perfectly. Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God.



Rom. 8:3-4, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh. 4in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."

1 Peter 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."

You know when you qoute the bible like that, it reminds me of how sick the religion is.

The purpose of his life was not to have our sins forgiven, It was to show us a way of having our sins,holes, and weaknesses absolved. To become a pure form of ourselves. Without the pollution of the human nature.The purpose of Jesus's life was to provide the atonement. Not to create a foundation for a church(A corrupt and evil one at that)
To be baptised and believe is not enough to be "saved" you must desire the spiritual, not the carnaL in nature. To work on becoming a better being.You must choose the path, Not just pretend you follow the road.

"we create our own heaven and hell"

[Anarchist]

[

"There can be no God,For if there were, He would never allow such suffering" - Velvet Acid Christ

You make a great arguement, I also love how the devil is blamed for it all even though god is the one who allows it.Not to mention the Luciferian Arguement(the reason Lucifer was cast from heaven-Suffering is wrong!)
I hear many bullshit theories, Only one that even sounds reasonable is a Test of our experiences on Earth. Test our mettle,teach us to understand, so we can better aid those with the problems we expeirenced in life. Ofcourse i believe in Exaltation,many gods, and the fact that women are more important then men(unlike what the bible says)

If this is not why god allows it, then when i die. I will aid the devil in dethroning him. Even if its a fools errand.For then he is unfit to rule.

Did you know the Icon of Christ is responsible for more death and destruction then anything in the history of the world? Savage Pagans? sounds like the work of a evil god to me...

[MR. Nate]

Again, why? For what reason? Why a man on a cross? why didn;t god just turn every rabbit into a cake? Or make a lapdancer take up knitting?

So, by your argument, tickling a frog is just a valid of punishment for a rapist, as say, prison time. We're talking the punishment for sin. It's not arbitrary.
Actually, if God doesn't exist, I haven't got a single reason reason to believe in anything abstract, including love, ethics, morality, philosophy, beauty, art, whatever. It's irrelevent, because it's simply time and chance.

God allows evil on a large scale BECAUSE he is benevolent. To end evil would be to end free will, which means that no one else could come to him. So some suffer so that they can continue to have the choice to choose or reject God. You criticize God for all the evil in the world when humanity brought it on themselves, and you have no idea to what extent God is PREVENTING evil.
If you feel like God is not worthy of your commitment because you have made wrong choices, you may want to consider who IS worthy of your time and effort. Yourself? You, the one that made the wrong choices? That seems inconsistent.

The purpose of his life was not to have our sins forgiven, It was to show us a way of having our sins,holes, and weaknesses absolved. To become a pure form of ourselves. Without the pollution of the human nature.The purpose of Jesus's life was to provide the atonement. Not to create a foundation for a church(A corrupt and evil one at that)
To be baptised and believe is not enough to be "saved" you must desire the spiritual, not the carnaL in nature. To work on becoming a better being.You must choose the path, Not just pretend you follow the road.

This sounds vaugly hindu, with a more independant twist. Ever tried to do something really hard all by yourself? Try it with friends, the work is easier, and the company is better. The church in it's purest form, is a bunch of people trying to glorify God in their lives, who make it easier on each other with mutual support.

[Backglass]

Actually, if God doesn't exist, I haven't got a single reason reason to believe in anything abstract, including love, ethics, morality, philosophy, beauty, art, whatever. It's irrelevent, because it's simply time and chance.

I find it sad that, should you later in life decide your god doesnt exist, you will somehow not have the ability to enjoy art, love or things abstract. I love the abstract...and have no gods.

God allows evil on a large scale BECAUSE he is benevolent.

What a twisted view you have. I guess we could say that Saddam Hussein or Hitler committed genocide because they loved their people, huh.

To end evil would be to end free will, which means that no one else cou[d come to him. So some suffer so that they can continue to have the choice to choose or reject God. You criticize God for all the evil in the world when humanity brought it on themselves, and you have no idea to what extent God is PREVENTING evil.

You can tell yourself that babble until your blue in the face, but to me it's just plain idiotic. It's yarns to explain stories to explain folklore to explain unfortunate events that happen in our lives.

Ever tried to do something really hard all by yourself? Try it with friends, the work is easier, and the company is better.

No doubt. Friends are a wonderful thing. Friends who don't try to get you to join their cult are the best!

The church in it's purest form, is a bunch of people trying to glorify God in their lives, who make it easier on each other with mutual support.

I have no doubt that it makes it easier to swallow the blue pill when everyone else is cheering you on. I am sure you all live very happy, deluded lives.

[vtmarik]

God created good, and man created evil through free will.
Sin is man's fault, not God's.
Have I encapsulated the concept correctly?

Who gave us free will? God.
Who created man? God.

If you trace anything it all goes back to God as the root.

Didn't the Bible say something about how bad fruit can only come from a bad tree?

[thelewis]

edited as im sure my comment might be judged as religion bashing

[vtmarik]

edited as im sure my comment might be judged as religion bashing

Keep it, can't be any more religion bashing than what Backglass is doing.

[jay_a2j]

Keep it, can't be any more religion bashing than what Backglass is doing.

Amen!

[vtmarik]

Jay, it's nice to see that you implicitly agree with my "God created everything so it's God's fault" argument.