Question about Original Sin (Christian only plz)?
14 May 2013, 9:15 pm
TheValk wrote:
Please elaborate on the bolded part as I dislike arguing with what I only assume others imply. I would say that without a belief in a free will a belief in God (at least the Biblical one) is not a possibility. However, I fail to see the cause for your determinism. We're guided solely by necessity and impulses, our responses can be predicted assuming perfect understanding of all those complex behavioural variables? Do you ever make any choices, or at least do you see yourself doing so?
Yes, I make choices in the sense that my brain still has to decide which path to take or what object to select. But there's only one inevitable outcome that I'll always end up choosing at any given time and point. I just don't know what I'll choose until it happens.
In psychology, you have to assume there's no such thing as free will as free will suggests one could not make any predictions about human behavior and, therefore, one could not potentially treat unwanted human behavior due to the unpredictability of it. Yet we see more and more now that certain behaviors can, and have been controlled, and that personalities are often a product of genes and personal experiences (especially childhood and traumatic experiences).
But even from a philosophical point of view, the idea of free will is absurd because your action is either random or it's caused by a factor (or a combination of factors) prior to it. If it's caused (even by something supernatural), it's not free will; it's an effect. If it's random, it's still not free will because randomness doesn't make calculated choices like free will is supposed to do.
Quote:
You propose that God ought to fire off a thunderbolt each and every time somebody decides to murder a child out of the blue, possibly as part of a list of other things that would require such interference - perhaps also defenceless animals, women; anything else you'd like to add to the list? You might have a bit of an extreme vision as to what would demand such interference, bu the Christian God is believed to have left specific guidance on what He finds reprehensible. So a heavenly strike for a brief feeling of lust one fails to control, letting their guard down? I don't think many of us would make it out alive, not even speaking of any salvation (which is even more problematic).
Actually, I'm not proposing anything. If God exists, then nothing I propose is going to change what he is. What I'm arguing is that a caring God wouldn't have allowed anybody to be a murderer or cause harm to others. I'm not basing this off pure emotions by the way. There is a lot of logic behind what I'm arguing. If you are God and you care for the beings you create, you would not want them to needlessly suffer especially that you have all the power and authority to not let suffering happen. There just isn't a point to it.
Now God can exist and be a sadist instead, but that's not the image that Christians argue for.
Quote:
You say you will want the torturer of the child punished, and I have to say I'll join you there and shout "off with his head"; after all, there are no human emotions I find myself lacking. But a Christian view 'cares' about the murderers as well; they need to realise what went wrong and they should have the chance to repent.
I never said he should be punished by being executed. My argument in this thread isn't simply to condemn murderers and torturers but to point out that God isn't doing anything to stop them. Although I do personally agree they should be locked up for life if they're always going to be a constant danger to others and never be able to change for the better.
Quote:
Some Buddhists do, I should think. Back to the topic though, the full Christian description of God's love entails quite a bit more than the love of the parent toward the child that's shared among different animal species.
Yes, some people do. But a lot of us don't give a damn when insects are crushed. I know I don't.
But that's the point. You keep saying God loves us and cares for us, but I don't see how we're anything but insects to him (if he does exist).
Quote:
But I get your idea, you want observable interference, no, a striking miracle. I suppose I don't anymore.
When you care for someone, there has to be some action to be observed that demonstrates you care for someone (especially if you are in control and aren't being limited by fear and other weaknesses). Otherwise, I may as well argue that Hitler cared for the Germans or that an abusive father cares for the children he continually verbally abuses and neglects. But let's not kid ourselves.
Quote:
Haven't been in another universe so I have no point of comparison.
You don't need to be in another universe to understand the logic behind what I'm saying. If you're in a universe where God won't make you experience any negative feelings, you're not going to feel them anyway (no matter what you think about it now in this universe).
It's like the concept of complete death (or annihilation). While alive, you might dread the idea of being annihilated, but when (or if) it does happen, you would have already been gone to give much concern.
Quote:
You have a personal dream, a personal vision of how this high skyscraper should be built and how it should be governed. Much like all dreams, people find themselves disillusioned and their views undergo substantial transformations. Who knows what would happen with that more ideal universe you speak of, given more time?
We're stuck in this universe and so it's best we make the best out of it. But it doesn't mean I have to accept the existence of a loving and caring God. The idea of such a God is absurd in this reality we're in.
Quote:
I wouldn't say suffering is a virtue or anything that could be judged from that perspective; it's given to you and you can either run away from it or bear it, you could make sense from it (multiple possible) or find it entirely pointless (also with varying implications).
That's besides the point. The reason why many of us have accepted suffering is because there's nothing much to do to stop it. It doesn't make suffering become a pleasant experience, though.
Quote:
A progressive humanist, you find? Surely an advanced person like that could've left us with more instruction on tolerance as we're not learning much from instructions on love.
My opinion (based on the views of some scholars) is he was an apocalypticist who urged his disciples to be ready for the supposedly immediate coming of the kingdom of God. He preached love and tolerance to them in preparation for that kingdom.
Whether that makes him special or not, he was still a human being (just like Buddha, Confucius, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, etc.)
