Let's Talk About Sin

[loggervol]

Not trying to be douche here man but, miracle? You keep using this word - it does not mean what you think it means.

what do you call a miracle?

 

[Orangeslice13]

what do you call a miracle?

For him it'd be seeing a real live girl naked.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I'm sorry for that one Lord, and please be with the pygmies in central Africa

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

I'd consider it a miracle to last more than 30 seconds in the sack.

 

[Septic]

what do you call a miracle?

Anything supernatural I suppose. I've never witnessed or heard any credible reports of a miracle. But I suppose I'd know it if I saw it.

While witnessing the births of my children was both joyous and incredible - it certainly wasn't a miracle.

 

[Vol8188]

Ever read the book of Job?

Lol the one where God finds the best man he can, gambles with the devil, and then punishes Job for no apparent reason?

 

[FLVOL69]

what do you call a miracle?

Obama canceling a vacation/not blaming Bush for all his **** ups.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I'd consider it a miracle to last more than 30 seconds in the sack.

:birgits_giggle: For you, that would be with a gay Mooslim no doubt.

 

[Roustabout]

Brave. Good questions.

This is single biggest issue I have with Christian beliefs..

If God is believed to be omnipotent and omniscient, then that means that before He ever created mankind he knew EXACTLY what would happen.

Let me stop here. Yes, I would agree, God knows exactly what WOULD happen. But what DOES happen is a different issue. Aquinas addressed this in depth in dealing with potential and actual. This stuff can get pretty complex.
We really have no way to comprehend a transcendent, timeless, immaterial, intelligent force that defines 'being' itself. We can apprehend, but not comprehend. For example, what does 'BEFORE time mean?' We can say, God existed BEFORE time, but the word 'before' implies a period of time. Why didn't God do it this way?

He knew man would sin, he knew man would be wicked, he knew that mankind would pollute and pervert this earth, causing evil and tragedy. God knew before He ever created Lucifer that he would rebel against him and take 1/3 of Heaven's angels with him. God knew that Lucifer would tempt Eve in the garden and Eve would give into that temptation, starting this whole mess to begin with. So the question that I have is, why did He do it? Why create mankind to begin with, knowing what the end result would be? The Bible says that God created man because he desired fellowship.

First, regarding fellowship, theologians say that, not the Bible. So, although I agree in one sense that God does desire our fellowship, we need to be careful how we use the term. When I desire something, it is because of some lack or need I have. The Bible says that God lacks nothing. I would say God created because He is THE CREATOR. That may sound silly, but I think it is better than most explanations out there. People assume God is like them, a contingent being. And they assume that God was looking down through time, and then trying to decide, 'well maybe I'll do this, or maybe that." If this is true, then God is contingent, and our problems are much bigger than we thought.

So basically God served His own desires in spite of knowing just how horrible it would all turn out. To me that doesn't make any sense. It would have made more sense for God to step back and NEVER to have created mankind in the first place.

Horrible in relation to.....? Have you conceived all possible worlds and contingencies to know that this world is not in fact perfect in its role to fulfill all that God created it for?
You also say, God served His own desires, which again, imposes selfish, human thinking onto God.

You are a CREATED being saying God should have never CREATED in the first place? As hard as it may be to understand, this is a logical absurdity. This isn't "It's a Wonderful Life." All of our thinking today is infected with postmodern philosophies, which really serve to undermine existence itself. As if existence is just some arbitrary thing that could or couldn't be.

Remember that all these terms you use such as evil and horrible have no intrinsic value in an arbitrary, purposeless creation. In a material world, what objective basis does an atheist (not saying you are one) have to question whether someone is religious or not? They don't. If there is no objective truth and morals are relative, then all you have is fatalism, and a religious nut who blows up buildings is just following how nature has programmed him to be.

Here's another question I have. If God is considered "perfect" then why aren't his creations?

Again, this is a logical absurdity. God is NOT the creation. That is Pantheism. In classic theology, which I believe the Bible supports, God truly is separate from the creation. Unless He recreated Himself, which is also a logical absurdity, the creation cannot be perfect. And of course how could an uncreated being re-create itself? That is self-defeating. The new being would be....., created.

If sin is considered to have entered the world through Eve because she was tempted by Satan, what tempted Lucifer to betray God?

The Bible answers this. It says that Lucifer desired to be God.

If God created all the angels, Lucifer included, then God also put in them ability to be prideful and jealous. Why? Why would He do that and then proceed to cast them out for simply acting on the very tendencies that He put in them?

That is a good question as well. I think this has more to do with a failure of modern philosophy to understand evil. Evil is NOT a thing, and God did not create evil. Evil is a deprivation. When a thing is deprived of what it was designed for, then that is evil. The Bible says it this way. "If a man knows the good he OUGHT to do, and doesn’t do it, to him it is sin." Ought, should, etc. These are words that imply a way things are supposed to be. So, if someone breaks in your home and maliciously murders your family, you KNOW that this is NOT how it SHOULD be. Logic, morals, etc. These are metaphysical realities that scream objective truth to us. There really is a way we ought to think and ought to behave.

If God created angels or people without a will, then they wouldn't be angels or people. Again, a logical absurdity. You can't say, why didn't God created me without the ABILITY to sin. If He did, you wouldn't be you. You would be some sort of automaton. Well, actually 'you' wouldn't, because there wouldn't be a you. You wouldn't be able to love either, which is the ultimate good you were created for.

Also, some of the Christians who post here would do better to say nothing.

 

[Roustabout]

on personal opinion, the birth of my children was a miracle. the fact that they were healthy was a miracle.

if I was expecting to see something so incredible, that it changed my mind. i'm sure that it would never happen.

As a believer I agree with the atheist on this one.
Is the birth of a child incredible? Yes. Does it defy nature? No.
When beleivers make statements like this, they really have no idea what they are saying. If Jesus really did the miracles recorded in the Bible, then something supernatural did occur. If miracles were common, and child birth is, then they wouldn't be miracles.
So, why doesn't God do miracles today? is a common objection we here. Miracles confirm a message, or a messenger. They aren't random.

a miracle doesn't have to be a mind blowing experience to be a miracle.

Can you show me one miracle in the bible that wouldn't be mind blowing if you witnessed it first hand?

 

[Orange_Crush]

two very good posts from Roust.

And yes, miracles are by definition supernatural, recognizable, and for specific purpose. An additional support for why they don't seem to happen with frequency today: They happened with less frequency as Jesus' ministry drove to completion. They were asking Jesus for more miracles. He said that it is a wicked generation that asks for signs and miracles, thus the only sign they would get would be the sign of the resurrection.

It seems to me that the US, which was founded on the truth of scripture, having the historicity of the gospel accounts, and with a church on every corner teaching the Bible, could be a seen as a wicked generation for demanding more signs from God to authenticate Himself to them.

 

[rjd970]

two very good posts from Roust.

And yes, miracles are by definition supernatural, recognizable, and for specific purpose. An additional support for why they don't seem to happen with frequency today: They happened with less frequency as Jesus' ministry drove to completion. They were asking Jesus for more miracles. He said that it is a wicked generation that asks for signs and miracles, thus the only sign they would get would be the sign of the resurrection.

It seems to me that the US, which was founded on the truth of scripture, having the historicity of the gospel accounts, and with a church on every corner teaching the Bible, could be a seen as a wicked generation for demanding more signs from God to authenticate Himself to them.

IMO this explanation is born more out of convenience than a firm premise, whether you want to admit that or not. The faithful are the first to cry miracle when they supposedly see one, not the "wicked". When asked why it doesn't happen more often then this type of response would be the answer.

I can think of a number of occurrences that would be less miraculous than somebody being healed all of a sudden or being saved from a hurricane that would never happen and yet be better evidence of God's existence.

 

[Orange_Crush]

IMO this explanation is born more out of convenience than a firm premise, whether you want to admit that or not. The faithful are the first to cry miracle when they supposedly see one, not the "wicked". When asked why it doesn't happen more often then this type of response would be the answer.

I'm not sure what issue you are taking. Convenient or not, I referenced the Bible, which is where I seek my truth claims per Christianity. If I hastily wrote that into the Bible this morning, then it would be a convenience. Instead, it is an answer to the objection that was written 2000 years ago. It is what Christianity says of itself.

I can think of a number of occurrences that would be less miraculous than somebody being healed all of a sudden or being saved from a hurricane that would never happen and yet be better evidence of God's existence.

I'm sure you can. Can you elaborate on why that would disqualify the reference to Jesus' statements about signs, that were made roughly 2000 years ago?

I can think of LOTS of proofs for God that are not supernaturally miraculous. Romans 1 lists several of them, and then says because of this, no one is without excuse in disbelieving God. That doesn't invalidate a minimization of miraculous signs, as predicted by Jesus. It reinforces it.

 

[rjd970]

I'm not sure what issue you are taking. Convenient or not, I referenced the Bible, which is where I seek my truth claims per Christianity. If I hastily wrote that into the Bible this morning, then it would be a convenience. Instead, it is an answer to the objection that was written 2000 years ago. It is what Christianity says of itself.



I'm sure you can. Can you elaborate on why that would disqualify the reference to Jesus' statements about signs, that were made roughly 2000 years ago?

I can think of LOTS of proofs for God that are not supernaturally miraculous. Romans 1 lists several of them, and then says because of this, no one is without excuse in disbelieving God. That doesn't invalidate a minimization of miraculous signs, as predicted by Jesus. It reinforces it.

I'm not saying anything about disqualifying the beliefs. All I'm saying is when a "miracle" happens, the faithful are the first to cry out and preach that God did it (My aunt was inexplicably cured of cancer) . When the "miracle" doesn't work in their favor (my aunt suddenly and inexplicably dies of cancer), its God works in mysterious ways, his plan, etc etc.

When asked why the "miracle" isn't recreated, the above argument is stated.

You say it is the way it has been for 2000 years. I say it is all very convenient now that we live 2000 years later and know more about how the world works.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm not saying anything about disqualifying the beliefs. All I'm saying is when a "miracle" happens, the faithful are the first to cry out and preach that God did it (My aunt was inexplicably cured of cancer) . When the "miracle" doesn't work in their favor (my aunt suddenly and inexplicably dies of cancer), its God works in mysterious ways, his plan, etc etc.

When asked why the "miracle" isn't recreated, the above argument is stated.

You say it is the way it has been for 2000 years. I say it is all very convenient now that we live 2000 years later and know more about how the world works.

I can't speak for everyone. I am generally much more skeptical of miraculous claims for the sole reason that I stated from the Bible. I do believe that they happen, because Jesus left the Holy Spirit with the church. I am just stating that they will happen with much less frequency than they did during His 3 1/2 year ministry.

And, I am speaking specifically of miraculous 'signs', which are used by God to prove Himself. These, by definition are supernatural and easily recognizable. I do not begrudge supernatural actions that are not easily recognizable-- i.e. your aunt getting prayed for and her doctor confused. Was it a miracle? Who can say? Because if God did it, He did it for a different purpose than attention.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Brave. Good questions.

Let me stop here. Yes, I would agree, God knows exactly what WOULD happen. But what DOES happen is a different issue. Aquinas addressed this in depth in dealing with potential and actual. This stuff can get pretty complex.
We really have no way to comprehend a transcendent, timeless, immaterial, intelligent force that defines 'being' itself. We can apprehend, but not comprehend. For example, what does 'BEFORE time mean?' We can say, God existed BEFORE time, but the word 'before' implies a period of time. Why didn't God do it this way?

See, this is the wall that I always seem to hit when debating these topics. When I pose these questions, often times a Christian will say "our finite minds simply cannot comprehend who God truly is and the mysteries of his nature or his plan." So basically what I'm hearing is "I can't answer your question."

Also I don't quite understand when you make the distinction between "what WOULD happen and what DOES happen." Are you implying that God truly doesn't know the outcome of everything before it happens or are you saying something else? Sorry, that went a bit over my head, LOL!

First, regarding fellowship, theologians say that, not the Bible. So, although I agree in one sense that God does desire our fellowship, we need to be careful how we use the term. When I desire something, it is because of some lack or need I have. The Bible says that God lacks nothing.

OK I'll grant you that. You're right in that the Bible says nothing about God desiring or needing fellowship with us as the basis for our creation. However would you agree that according to the scriptures God DID create man to fulfill His eternal plan? If so, then that's great for the ones who subscribe to the Christian faith and believe in Jesus. The end result for them is wonderful! However for the billions who don't, for the ones who follow a different path whether it be through a different faith, science, atheism, etc, they are doomed (according to the scriptures)to be cast into the lake of fire to burn forever and ever and ever and ever and ever. I just can't see how His "plan" was ever worth carrying out when you weigh the consequences that so many will suffer. We're talking BILLIONS of souls here Roustabout! I'm sorry but I just don't see how the sins of one lifetime should = an eternal punishment of that severity. In this instance the punishment doesn't fit the crime (so far as my own finite mind can comprehend).

I would say God created because He is THE CREATOR. That may sound silly, but I think it is better than most explanations out there. People assume God is like them, a contingent being. And they assume that God was looking down through time, and then trying to decide, 'well maybe I'll do this, or maybe that." If this is true, then God is contingent, and our problems are much bigger than we thought.

So I guess I interpreted it wrong when God said "Let us make man in our own image."

You are a CREATED being saying God should have never CREATED in the first place? As hard as it may be to understand, this is a logical absurdity. This isn't "It's a Wonderful Life." All of our thinking today is infected with postmodern philosophies, which really serve to undermine existence itself. As if existence is just some arbitrary thing that could or couldn't be.

I don't think it's absurd at all. Not when you consider how awful the world is and the impending consequences for those who aren't believers. I absolutely believe that it would have been better if we were never created in the first place! In fact, didn't God say in Genesis 6:6 That "He was sorry for ever creating man and that He was grieved in his heart?" If a non-Christian was presented the options of either A.) Never existing in the first place or B.) Spending eternity burning in a lake of fire I think we both know what most would choose. It's VERY logical the way I see it.

Again, this is a logical absurdity. God is NOT the creation. That is Pantheism. In classic theology, which I believe the Bible supports, God truly is separate from the creation. Unless He recreated Himself, which is also a logical absurdity, the creation cannot be perfect. And of course how could an uncreated being re-create itself? That is self-defeating. The new being would be....., created.

Have you SEEN Kate Upton? J/K.

The Bible answers this. It says that Lucifer desired to be God.

I understand that he desired to be God. I don't understand where that kind of desire would come from. The angels were celestial beings, closer to God than almost anyone (other than His Son and The Holy Spirit of course). They stood in His presence, experienced his awesomeness, saw first hand his magnificence. Yet despite all that some still chose to rebel. Now if those beings were able to rebel against God, in spite of having first hand knowledge and understanding of who he is, how on Earth can God not expect the same from humans on Earth who haven't been granted such exposure to who He is? That's why I said I don't see how Lucifer could possibly have those desires without God creating him to have those tendencies in the first place. I understand the idea that God did not create angels and humans to be automatons. What I don't understand is why some should be doomed to eternal damnation for simply exercising their free will and choosing a path not related to God's plan, despite the fact they were created to have those tendencies in the first place. If God has a "plan" and part of that plan includes the eternal damnation of billions of souls, it doesn't seem like a very sound plan IMO.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Lol the one where God finds the best man he can, gambles with the devil, and then punishes Job for no apparent reason?

Personally I do not believe Job ever existed. I think it's simply a story devised to be an example for all mankind of someone having unwavering faith in the face of great adversity. That great rewards await those who endure in their belief in spite of suffering and persecution. However IMO the story is flawed because no matter how much God rewarded Job after the fact, that still wouldn't take away the great emotional pain he would continue to endure throughout the rest of his life from the agony and humiliation he suffered along with losing his first wife and family. Again like I said, IMO a just God would have never put him in that position in the first place.

 

[loggervol]

As a believer I agree with the atheist on this one.
Is the birth of a child incredible? Yes. Does it defy nature? No.
When beleivers make statements like this, they really have no idea what they are saying. If Jesus really did the miracles recorded in the Bible, then something supernatural did occur. If miracles were common, and child birth is, then they wouldn't be miracles.
So, why doesn't God do miracles today? is a common objection we here. Miracles confirm a message, or a messenger. They aren't random.


Can you show me one miracle in the bible that wouldn't be mind blowing if you witnessed it first hand?

I said, on personal opinion . I count the birth of my children and them being healthy a miracle.

I was also saying, my faith doesn't come by sight. blessed is those who have not seen, and believe.

Thomas is a good example. he had to see Jesus's wounds to believe. but, he is no less blessed than somebody that has not seen and believes.

 

[loggervol]

I can think of LOTS of proofs for God that are not supernaturally miraculous. Romans 1 lists several of them, and then says because of this, no one is without excuse in disbelieving God. That doesn't invalidate a minimization of miraculous signs, as predicted by Jesus. It reinforces it.

this is the point I was trying to make. what kind of miracle would it take to change someone's mind. and, if a miracle happened in front of non believer, would they believe or would they try to disprove it.

 

[Vol8188]

this is the point I was trying to make. what kind of miracle would it take to change someone's mind. and, if a miracle happened in front of non believer, would they believe or would they try to disprove it.

But how does one prove a miracle?

 

[Orange_Crush]

this is the point I was trying to make. what kind of miracle would it take to change someone's mind. and, if a miracle happened in front of non believer, would they believe or would they try to disprove it.

I can't really say, to be honest. I don't want to overgeneralize individual responses. Romans 1 seems to indicate that much about God is clear from the physical world and rational thought. But people "suppress the truth" because they want their freedom to live as they choose.

I'd say God isn't going to show them many miracles. he's shown all they need. They suppress that. There you go.

But how does one prove a miracle?

There's the question, now isn't it? Is someone's a prior belief in materialism so strong that they would deny what they observe?

I mean, it would be easy to recognize a guy that is verified as dead, by Roman authorities who are experts in death, verified laying in a tomb (dead) for three days, and the coming back to life, eating, showing his death scars... That would be pretty readily evident. It would take a pretty strong a priori belief to deny it.

 

[loggervol]

But how does one prove a miracle?

what would it take to change your heart?

 

[Vol8188]

There's the question, now isn't it? Is someone's a prior belief in materialism so strong that they would deny what they observe?

I mean, it would be easy to recognize a guy that is verified as dead, by Roman authorities who are experts in death, verified laying in a tomb (dead) for three days, and the coming back to life, eating, showing his death scars... That would be pretty readily evident. It would take a pretty strong a priori belief to deny it.

You saw that happen?

 

[Vol8188]

what would it take to change your heart?

It would have to be hardcore. Maybe I'll pray for the next guy who passes me doing 90 to die in a fiery crash. If a few miles down the road I see total destruction, I'll join your team.

 

[loggervol]

I can't really say, to be honest. I don't want to overgeneralize individual responses. Romans 1 seems to indicate that much about God is clear from the physical world and rational thought. But people "suppress the truth" because they want their freedom to live as they choose.

you are right.

we have been given free choice.