Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

You do not seem to understand the power of free will given to you...

What power? How does it work? Outline the logic. You have never said anything coherent and logical about this 'power',  you just keep repeating this meaningless mantra.

...that you are free to choose what you want to do.

This is somewhat ambiguous. Of course you are free to do what you want at any one time - that is totally compatible with determinism.

However, you cannot choose to change your basic personality and fundamental wants (the way in which you, personally, make choices). You can't be 'free' from being yourself - it wouldn't even make any sense, what would you be setting free?

You are what your nature and nurture have made you - even if you insist you have a 'spiritual' nature as well as a physical one.

You are not entirely pre determined by past events.

Baseless assertion, that if true, would just mean that there is a random element involved.

You still are running away from the logic. If you think it's wrong, say why, point out the flaw and stop endlessly repeating the same assertions and mantras over and over again. You said you'd based your view on logic, so why are you so afraid of directly addressing the logic I've presented?

[Stranger]

Sin is a matter of choice since no one forces a person to sin.

Again, living a 'perfect life' totally free from what your god character calls 'sin' (even Christians can't actually agree a full definition) is quite obviously not a realistic option for a normal, or even an extraordinary, person. If it were, there would be some who chose it.

This bizarre and sadistic god character of yours is making us with a nature that makes it impossible to live up to its standards and then condemning us for the way it made us and forcing us to seek forgiveness for its failures.

It's not only unjust, it's sick and depraved - and that's just now, there's also all the crimes against humanity this god character ordered in the OT.

It is, as I said, daft and self-contradictory nonsense - without a scrap of supporting evidence or hint of valid reasoning to suggest that it is anything more than an old superstition.

[SusanDoris]

'This page can't be displayed' for most of yesterday, so I have now caught up on six pages. Most interesting. I scrolled past most of vlad's posts of course and gritted my teeth while reading AB's, but enjoyed all the others.

Whether the page can or cannot be displayed is, of course, completely random, not determined - well, not as far as I can tell anyway!!

[torridon]

The choice we are offered is to accept Jesus as our saviour, to free us from sin and death.

Not much of a choice given that I cannot choose to find something plausible if in fact it strikes me as implausible.

It's the same with tastes and preferences and desires. If I find something hot, I cannot choose to find it cold.  I find I like the taste of marmite; do you think I decided to like it, for that is what your reasoning would suggest.  This simple observation, that we do not choose what to like, is fundamental to understanding the nature of mind.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This all sounds both imprecise and about as contrived as the plot of a particularly simplistic story written for children: we all sinners by default, so we all need saved and gee-whizz up pops a convenient saviour.

Sounds too like those of us unbaptised as Christians are being treated differently: would that be correct?

I'm afraid you have bowdlerised what is being said Gordon and have missed out the bit where we are sinners by commission.
To reiterate the Catholic doctrine is that we inherit the guilt of original sin, The orthodox is that we don't but inherit the tendency to sin yet all would confirm actual sin.
You brought up the question of christian doctrine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you never noticed that Christians tend to live in Christian countries, and muslims tend to live in muslim countries ?  Had you been born in Karachi you probably wouldn't have taken that path; did you have any control over where you were born ? Had you been born in an uncontacted Amazonian tribe you certainly wouldn't have taken that path; did you have any control over where you were born ? We are all products of our broader culture, and within that, products of our particular family and social environment and within that products of our unique personal genome over which we had no control but to be born with.

Have you questioned how a minority Jewish sect becomes a world religion.
Your own atheism betrays your own implication.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This all sounds both imprecise

For the sake of intellectual honesty I would recommend that you decide on what level of imprecision in any field you are prepared to accept and then apply it uniformly throughout those fields.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I scrolled past most of vlad's posts of course

Would that be in retaliation for me scrolling past yours?

[SusanDoris]

The choice we are offered is to accept Jesus as our saviour, to free us from sin and death.

So tell me how many people have not died. And don't come up with the daft idea that Jesus is still alive somewhere, that would be even sillier than usual.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So tell me how many people have not died. And don't come up with the daft idea that Jesus is still alive somewhere, that would be even sillier than usual.

Jesus is alive somewhere.

[SusanDoris]

Would that be in retaliation for me scrolling past yours?

Okay, I read that one!! And of course I have no idea which posts you scroll past!!

I did like quite a few of yours, though, on the pre-Brexit topics.

[torridon]

Have you questioned how a minority Jewish sect becomes a world religion.
Your own atheism betrays your own implication.

There are many influences on us; cultural, social, biological.  The particular mix of influences is different for everyone, hence each human becomes unique, being fashioned by his unique path through life.

Go out into a snowstorm and consider the falling flakes of snow.  Each snowflake is unique despite being formed as a result of the same tiny set of principles of natural law.  A billion snowflakes, each one takes a particular and unique path down from the clouds and that results in each one being slightly different to the others.  If that holds for such a simple thing as a snowflake, think how much more true it is for immensely complex beings like us, each taking a unique path over not just a few seconds, but over decades.

What we are, at any moment, is the consequence of that particular unique history of personal interaction with the wider environment.

[Gordon]

I'm afraid you have bowdlerised what is being said Gordon and have missed out the bit where we are sinners by commission.
To reiterate the Catholic doctrine is that we inherit the guilt of original sin, The orthodox is that we don't but inherit the tendency to sin yet all would confirm actual sin.
You brought up the question of christian doctrine.

I did - are you not surprised that this doctrine isn't uniform after all these years? I'd have thought that would be of great concern.

Then there is the question of what 'sin' is: how would you define it?

[Gordon]

For the sake of intellectual honesty I would recommend that you decide on what level of imprecision in any field you are prepared to accept and then apply it uniformly throughout those fields.

Not my story, Vlad, and we are talking about Christian doctrine here, so the level of (im)precision in said doctrine really isn't my responsibility: when the waffle is stripped away that what is left is the plot equivalent of 'Topsy and Tim go Shopping with Mummy' is an issue for you guys. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I did - are you not surprised that this doctrine isn't uniform after all these years? I'd have thought that would be of great concern.

Really, why?

[Gordon]

Really, why?

'All singing from the same hymn book' etc: that you guys aren't strikes me as odd.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not my story, Vlad, and we are talking about Christian doctrine here, so the level of (im)precision in said doctrine really isn't my responsibility: when the waffle is stripped away that what is left is the plot equivalent of 'Topsy and Tim go Shopping with Mummy' is an issue for you guys.

Firstly you dishonour the purpose of books such as topsy and Tim which is to promote, I would have thought, values we see as positive.

The agreed doctrine is sin and the need for God, Gordon. Evil is even acknowledged in the new atheism. Example ''Religion makes good people do bad things'' and ''good and bad memes''. The agreement then is that there is good and bad. Although the level of actual thinking about good and bad memes and the evil of religion in the new atheism has been imho negligible, making your request for precision laughable humbug.

Can you demonstrate ont his board then a deconstruction of doctrine to end up with the underlying Topsy and Tim?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'All singing from the same hymn book' etc: that you guys aren't strikes me as odd.

I don't know that there is a field where all sing from the same hymnsheet apart perhaps singing from the same hymn sheet.
There is no dispute on actual sin, the recapitulation of disobeying God, so i'm afraid Christianity en mass declares no loophole from the need to turn from God.

The points in question are inherited guilt for a past sin or tendency to sin with no guilt or maybe just actual sin. I do not see the elimination or repudiation of sin or the need to turn to God here.

Unfortunately trying to find an excuse to avoid the need to turn to God is I would say such a recapitulation.

[Gordon]

Firstly you dishonour the purpose of books such as topsy and Tim which is to promote, I would have thought, values we see as positive.

Some fiction can be very uplifting, or it could be just telling a simple story for consumption by a target audience.

The agreed doctrine is sin and the need for God, Gordon.

So are all Christians in agreement over what they think is sinful?

Evil is even acknowledged in the new atheism.

Acknowledging that bad stuff happens is unremarkable, Vlad, although when it comes to the actions of people, as opposed to say earthquakes, what is bad (or 'evil' if you prefer) may be a matter of subjective opinion.
 

Example ''Religion makes good people do bad things''

Which is a crass and obviously flawed example, and not a sentiment I subscribe to.

The agreement then is that there is good and bad.

Where opinions can vary.

Although the level of actual thinking about good and bad memes and the evil of religion in the new atheism has been imho negligible, making your request for precision laughable humbug.

Not humbug if you guys can't agree: which subset of Christian should I take seriously and which not?

Can you demonstrate ont his board then a deconstruction of doctrine to end up with the underlying Topsy and Tim?

Just take a look through any number of posts by Alan Burns, which contain a variety of sentiments suited to nursery-level insight.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 
Which is a crass and obviously flawed example, and not a sentiment I subscribe to.

So the guy who seems to think Christianity falls down with disagreement thinks that disagreement is perfectly acceptable in atheism.

Can you atheists not agree on what bad is then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

which subset of Christian should I take seriously and which not?

Since they all agree on sin and the need to turn to God there are no subsets in that respect.
Mere intellectual assent to any one of the views of original sin does not constitute salvation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Acknowledging that bad stuff happens is unremarkable, Vlad, although when it comes to the actions of people, as opposed to say earthquakes, what is bad (or 'evil' if you prefer) may be a matter of subjective opinion.
 

I think I've said that there is widespread acknowledgement of Good or bad.
Don't you think that the ''badness'' of earthquakes is also not a matter of subjective opinion?

So we are agreed that there is bad then.

Is it something then that we have an imprecise grasp of. With some people having a better grasp of than others or is it just whatever we say it is in which case we are all in the fairy tale business?

[Stranger]

Since they all agree on sin and the need to turn to God...

That is to say, that your god is a cruel sadist who condemns people for the ('sinful') nature that it gave them. Worse still, it then hides its message so that it has no credible evidence or reasoning to back it up and looks exactly like an old superstition - riddled with ambiguity, contradiction, and absurdity. So much so that even those who claim to have received the message can't actually agree amongst themselves and are divided into many sects, cults, and denominations, all with different versions of 'the truth'.

Do your really think that is a credible way in which a just, fair, loving, omnipotent, omniscient creator would behave?

It really is a very, very silly story.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is to say, that your god is a cruel sadist who condemns people for the ('sinful') nature that it gave them. Worse still, it then hides its message so that it has no credible evidence or reasoning to back it up and looks exactly like an old superstition - riddled with ambiguity, contradiction, and absurdity. So much so that even those who claim to have received the message can't actually agree amongst themselves and are divided into many sects, cults, and denominations, all with different versions of 'the truth'.

Do your really think that is a credible way in which a just, fair, loving, omnipotent, omniscient creator would behave?

It really is a very, very silly story.

In orthodox christianity there is no condemnation for what they call ancestral sin since the individual did not commit only a subsequent inherited tendency to sin, which not being sin itself is not condemned. The non condemned effect of the first sin on subsequent individuals is removed at Baptism.

In Catholicism and churches with an Augustinian view individuals are guilty of that Ancestral sin and share in the guilt of Adam's sin. Here that guilt of is removed at Baptism.

Post baptismal sin is the commission of the individual.

Those are I believe precise formulations for the apparent sinful nature although as with any formulation there can be debates on interpretation.

I have to say that the Augustinian formulation is a latter interpretation but there are those who argue that it is implicit in the bible.

No Christian church though deny that Jesus life and death was effective for sin, the reality of which is accepted and central throughout Christianity.

[Stranger]

In orthodox christianity there is no condemnation for what they call ancestral sin since the individual did not commit only a subsequent inherited tendency to sin, which not being sin itself is not condemned. The non condemned effect of the first sin on subsequent individuals is removed at Baptism.

Which is unjust because if you have been given a tendency to sin, that 100% of people fail to resist, then not sinning isn't a real choice, so being condemned for it and needing to seek forgiveness is not just and fair.

Back to making us sick and then demanding health.

In Catholicism and churches with an Augustinian view individuals are guilty of that Ancestral sin and share in the guilt of Adam's sin. Here that guilt of is removed at Baptism.

Being held guilty for sins you didn't commit is even more obviously unjust and unfair.

Post baptismal sin is the commission of the individual.

Baptism quite obviously doesn't remove the tendency to sin, so this is still unjust and unfair.

Those are I believe precise formulations for the apparent sinful nature although as with any formulation there can be debates on interpretation.

I have to say that the Augustinian formulation is a latter interpretation but there are those who argue that it is implicit in the bible.

Which brings us to another point which is that your god compounds its unjust, and unfair condemnation, with hiding its message (contemptible as it is) behind ambiguity, contradiction, and a total lack of actual evidence of its truth.

No Christian church though deny that Jesus life and death was effective for sin, the reality of which is accepted and central throughout Christianity.

So they all agree on the basic fact that we supposedly need forgiveness for being the way god made us.

As I said - it's a daft and silly story about a sadistic, unjust, and unfair god.