Originally posted by Adam_PoE
God did not create man from nothing, but from existent matter. God has fallible human qualities. God created man in His own image. God is subject to right and wrong.
Your a little off there... god created man, man sinned, bringing his faults upon himself.
(do i even have to say it? this is if the bible where true (which i believe it is) if you want to negate the truth of my statement by arguing the canon of the bible, go somewhere else.)
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Ok, don't bring in your "your god, my god stuff" my god is the one depicted by the bible, nothing more, nothing less. As for the children of god, the ones who are obedient and innocent are the ones god will chose to defend over those who are sinful.
Excuse me? Like to prove to us your God is real? What bout people that follow the God of the Quran, Hindu scriptures etc. If you want to run your mouth and talk down to us how about some proof?
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Your a little off there... god created man, man sinned, bringing his faults upon himself.
(do i even have to say it? this is if the bible where true (which i believe it is) if you want to negate the truth of my statement by arguing the canon of the bible, go somewhere else.)
God created man with a sinful nature, and with the foreknowledge that man would sin. Therefore, God is responsible.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11What exactly was the sin humans performed...oh, and what bible version do you go by?
Your a little off there... god created man, man sinned, bringing his faults upon himself.
(do i even have to say it? this is if the bible where true (which i believe it is) if you want to negate the truth of my statement by arguing the canon of the bible, go somewhere else.)
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
God didn't create man with sinful nature and foreknowledge is meaningless until it comes to pass. Technically they still had to make the choice to sin.
Within the mythology of Christianity, did God know that Eve would eat the fruit from the tree when he put that one tree they weren't allowed to eat from?
And, it seems to escape me, what was the name of the tree again and what did the fruit do to someone that ate it, it must have slipped my mind.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Within the mythology of Christianity, did God know that Eve would eat the fruit from the tree when he put that one tree they weren't allowed to eat from?
Not sure. And as I said it doesn't matter. They still had to make the choice, God knowing that they would eventually make it doesn't change anything.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And, it seems to escape me, what was the name of the tree again and what did the fruit do to someone that ate it, it must have slipped my mind.
The "Tree that God The Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, Explicitly and Personally Informed Them That They Were Not Supposed to Eat From".
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not sure. And as I said it doesn't matter. They still had to make the choice, God knowing that they would eventually make it doesn't change anything.
Yes, it does, that's just being blind. It's not a choice if you can't actually make it, if it is predetermined.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The "Tree that God The Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, Explicitly and Personally Informed Them That They Were Not Supposed to Eat From".
No, no, I think it was another name actually...something like "THE MOTHER****ING TREE OF MOTHER****ING KNOWLEDE OF GOOD AND EVIL"...you know, the tree, without having eaten its fruit YOU DON'T HAVE ****ING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ****ING GOOD AND EVIL.
Yeah, not only did that ******* put the tree there to have them fail, as he knew they would, he also didn't even give them the ****ing knowledge that what he says is "good" and should be obeyed...he created people with no moral compass and told them not to do something ... now, to me that's just being a dick or horrible writing, but don't Christians sometimes wonder about how someone that doesn't have knowledge of good and evil CAN EVEN ****ING SIN?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, it does, that's just being blind. It's not a choice if you can't actually make it, if it is predetermined.
It isn't predetermined. He just knows it's going to happen. They could have just done something else but they didn't. Foreknowledge =/= Predestination, but it does give you a pretty good idea of what's likely to happen. The choice is still made.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, no, I think it was another name actually...something like "THE MOTHER****ING TREE OF MOTHER****ING KNOWLEDE OF GOOD AND EVIL"...you know, the tree, without having eaten its fruit YOU DON'T HAVE ****ING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ****ING GOOD AND EVIL.
Samuel L. Jackson = God? mmm
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, not only did that ******* put the tree there to have them fail, as he knew they would, he also didn't even give them the ****ing knowledge that what he says is "good" and should be obeyed...he created people with no moral compass and told them not to do something ... now, to me that's just being a dick or horrible writing
He told them that he was their creator (which is true) and that they should obey him (good advice). They didn't need a moral compass to avoid eating from the tree.
Originally posted by Bardock42
but don't Christians sometimes wonder about how someone that doesn't have knowledge of good and evil CAN EVEN ****ING SIN?
They can't. Hence not giving them knowledge of good and evil. They made a really obvious mistake and subsequently became sinners.
Nah, I am not being fully serious anyways, it's just a bit funny to think that the tree would give them the ability to tell right from wrong, but they get told what not to do before they even know that it is right to obey their creator and wrong to eat from the tree.
As for the choice thing, you can't select something if it is already decided what you'll do...someone 100% knowing what's going to happen means there is no choice involved. That's just how that word "choice" works.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, I am not being fully serious anyways, it's just a bit funny to think that the tree would give them the ability to tell right from wrong, but they get told what not to do before they even know that it is right to obey their creator and wrong to eat from the tree.
Hack writers? srug
Originally posted by Bardock42
As for the choice thing, you can't select something if it is already decided what you'll do...someone 100% knowing what's going to happen means there is no choice involved. That's just how that word "choice" works.
It's impossible to know 100% what will happen until it happens. You can be certain of what the result will be but until it happens you don't really know, so technically choice can still exist.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hack writers? srug
Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's impossible to know 100% what will happen until it happens. You can be certain of what the result will be but until it happens you don't really know, so technically choice can still exist.
Yeah, I absolutely agree talking outside the context of some Christian Mythology. But within it, many people believe that their God is "all-knowing", meaning he knows 100% what will happen, which technically means that choice can not exist as we define it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I absolutely agree talking outside the context of some Christian Mythology. But within it, many people believe that their God is "all-knowing", meaning he knows 100% what will happen, which technically means that choice can not exist as we define it.
Actually that solution comes from Paradise Lost, of all places. But yes, if we assume that God is actually flawlessly all-knowing then it's likely a dick move or just his way of introducing "good" and "evil" to the world.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you pro-suffering and injustice then? In fact just recognizing the idea of suffering and injustice requires you to have some belief in objective morality, ie there are just and unjust actions. Truly subjective morality has no opinion on suffering and injustice because they don't exist.
This quote traces back to a comment about subjective/objective morality. I don't really know either one would make one pro-suffering, so I'll admit to having gotten lost somewhere in the quotation juggling.
Also, subjective morality isn't quite how you define it. Right and wrong don't exist, nor good and bad, there is just what is. Suffering and happiness can still be very real in how humans react to morally-neutral events, though, regardless of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of action (or lack of either one). If a person suffers, they suffer, regardless of the good or bad of it, the right or wrong of actions that led up to it. It makes the suffering no less real, nor the opposite with happiness.
So one can make it a goal to eliminate suffering and promote happiness without believing in a right or wrong, because the two sets of beliefs aren't one in the same. It's an important distinction, because it outlines how a subjectivist can work for happiness in the world without needing to subscribe to an objectivist camp, nor needing to be dishonest with themselves.
Originally posted by Digi
Also, subjective morality isn't quite how you define it. Right and wrong don't exist, nor good and bad, there is just what is. Suffering and happiness can still be very real in how humans react to morally-neutral events, though, regardless of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of action (or lack of either one). If a person suffers, they suffer, regardless of the good or bad of it, the right or wrong of actions that led up to it. It makes the suffering no less real, nor the opposite with happiness.
how can you judge the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an act without reference to its outcome on people?
This "coincidental" suffering and happiness would be, at least I would think, the most important variables in the judgment of morality.