Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Again, our condition whether a tendency to sin or a partaking in that sin is not given to us by God but is a result of ancestral sin. You have been told that tendency to sin or original sin are removed by Christ. The doctrine of churches with infant baptism is that this occurs at baptism.

it cannot be argued that an infant is conscious of it's need from baptism.

Tendency to sin is not sin itself. Given that original sin and tendency to sin is dealt with in Christ there is still the question of what the catholic church would call actual sin. Sins which are committed.
In catholicism certain theologians would say that original sin not dealt with baptism leads to loss of the beatific vision.

That your picture that condemnation is solely on account of tendency to sin(for which there is no condemnation anyway) or original sin is not demonstrated biblically is that the Jewish heroes of faith, Abraham, Isaac etc had no baptism and yet the way to God is open to them.

Actual Sin is a choice I'm afraid. Since it is of commission.

The churches would disagree with you that Original sin or tendency to sin is imputed into us by God but are transmitted humanly through a fallen humanity.

The way to God is open through Jesus to all suggesting the overturn of the effect of the original ancestral sin and therefore final condemnation is by rejecting him since salvation is in him. The choice to reject is ours. Some do , some don't.

What would be fairer since to not condemn sin is neither Just or fair and rejection of forgiveness or God means inevitably not benefitting from God or his forgiveness?

The ancestors have made us sick, we then have made ourselves sick and God answers that sickness.

[Gordon]

I think I've said that there is widespread acknowledgement of Good or bad.

There are lots of opinions on just about every topic you can think of - so what.

Don't you think that the ''badness'' of earthquakes is also not a matter of subjective opinion?

Could be: but I've yet to here opinions that consider earthquakes to be a good thing, have you?

So we are agreed that there is bad then.

There is certainly stuff I regard as being invariably bad, mainly because of negative effects on people (like earthquakes or discrimination).

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?

You mean the opinions of some carry more weight that the opinions of others?

[Gordon]

Again, our condition whether a tendency to sin or a partaking in that sin is not given to us by God but is a result of ancestral sin. You have been told that tendency to sin or original sin are removed by Christ. The doctrine of churches with infant baptism is that this occurs at baptism.

it cannot be argued that an infant is conscious of it's need from baptism.

Tendency to sin is not sin itself. Given that original sin and tendency to sin is dealt with in Christ there is still the question of what the catholic church would call actual sin. Sins which are committed.
In catholicism certain theologians would say that original sin not dealt with baptism leads to loss of the beatific vision.

That your picture that condemnation is solely on account of tendency to sin(for which there is no condemnation anyway) or original sin is not demonstrated biblically is that the Jewish heroes of faith, Abraham, Isaac etc had no baptism and yet the way to God is open to them.

Actual Sin is a choice I'm afraid. Since it is of commission.

The churches would disagree with you that Original sin or tendency to sin is imputed into us by God but are transmitted humanly through a fallen humanity.

The way to God is open through Jesus to all suggesting the overturn of the effect of the original ancestral sin and therefore final condemnation is by rejecting him since salvation is in him. The choice to reject is ours. Some do , some don't.

What would be fairer since to not condemn sin is neither Just or fair and rejection of forgiveness or God means inevitably not benefitting from God or his forgiveness?

The ancestors have made us sick, we then have made ourselves sick and God answers that sickness.

So you don't think this 'ancestral sin' is just an ancient myth then?

[Stranger]

Again, our condition whether a tendency to sin or a partaking in that sin is not given to us by God but is a result of ancestral sin.

• Who decided that the results of 'ancestral sin' should be inflicted on later generations?

• Given that it is, it is still unjust and unfair to hold us responsible.

You have been told that tendency to sin or original sin are removed by Christ. The doctrine of churches with infant baptism is that this occurs at baptism.

• There should not be a need to remove it because its imposition was basically unjust and unfair.

• It obviously isn't removed by baptism/Christ, otherwise we would see a marked difference in the tendency to sin from those who have been baptised and at at least some of them would never sin again. No such difference is observed.

• Asking us to believe this silly, contradictory, absurd story of a sadistic and unjest god, in order to have somethig removed that was unfairly imposed on us in the first place, is doubly unjust.

Everything else is meaningless in the face of this. There is no genuine, realistic choice to not sin available, otherwise some people would have made it and not need Christ and forgiveness. Judging us for our nature is unjust and unfair. Full stop, end of story.

It's actually all bollocks anyway because free will is meaningless from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator, who has total control over all of our nature and nurture. It would simply not possible to do anything that such a being didn't deliberately cause to happen. An omnipotent, omniscient creator, is also omni-responsible. Every single thought and action would be such a god's direct responsibility.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you don't think this 'ancestral sin' is just an ancient myth then?

We can say with Billy Joel ''we didn't start the fire'' but we can certainly not claim that we aren't stoking it.

So yes, the world we live in is evidence to it and of course there is the question of Actual sin.

The myth conveys all the important elements primal communion with God, introduction of si, loss of communion and a change in the world at least in man's perspective of it.

[Stranger]

So yes, the world we live in is evidence to it and of course there is the question of Actual sin.

Nonsense - the world we live in can be explained by there simply being no god at all - and that explanation doesn't come with all the silly contradictions inherent in the Christian superstition.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

• Who decided that the results of 'ancestral sin' should be inflicted on later generations?

God who created a universe governed by laws. Are you proposing a lawless, chaotic immoral creation would be more just?

Aren't you just trying to push a have cake and eat it type of theology? In other words communion with God while not communicating with God?

Also your theology seems to come to a full stop with God having by whatever route creating man with free will as a trap in order to condemn him. This isn't the full account.

[Gordon]

We can say with Billy Joel ''we didn't start the fire'' but we can certainly not claim that we aren't stoking it.

So yes, the world we live in is evidence to it and of course there is the question of Actual sin.

The myth conveys all the important elements primal communion with God, introduction of si, loss of communion and a change in the world at least in man's perspective of it.

So you agree 'ancestral sin' is myth: based on the perspective of people who lived in antiquity?

Seems to me your 'actual sin' is no more than those aspects of human behaviour that some disapprove of: just people being people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nonsense - the world we live in can be explained by there simply being no god at all -

Go ahead then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you agree 'ancestral sin' is myth:

Alas Gordon I probably don't share all your definitions of myth.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

just people being people.

Would that include Pol Pot being a bit of a lad?

[Gordon]

God who created a universe governed by laws. Are you proposing a lawless, chaotic immoral creation would be more just?

Surely you jest, Vlad: seems to me some of what goes on is 'lawless' and 'chaotic': your God seems incompetent.

Aren't you just trying to push a have cake and eat it type of theology? In other words communion with God while not communicating with God?

Which is begging the question.

Also your theology seems to come to a full stop with God having by whatever route creating man with free will as a trap in order to condemn him. This isn't the full account.

You mean you have other excuses for God?

[Gordon]

Would that include Pol Pot being a bit of a lad?

He was undoubtedly a bad man: your point is?

Pity your God didn't do something about Pol Pot, it being 'omni' and all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Surely you jest, Vlad: seems to me some of what goes on is 'lawless' and 'chaotic': your God seems incompetent.

Which is begging the question.

You mean you have other excuses for God?

I thought it was perfectly obvious you cant have your cake and eat it.
Excuses for God? What about your excuses for man?

Me; what about human evil Gordon?
Gordon; Blah Blah Earthquakes Blah.

[Stranger]

God who created a universe governed by laws. Are you proposing a lawless, chaotic immoral creation would be more just?

If the rules were designed, then the alternative to unfair and unjust rules, is fair and just ones, not chaos.

Aren't you just trying to push a have cake and eat it type of theology? In other words communion with God while not communicating with God?

I don't have a theology, I'm commenting on how utterly silly, unjust and unfair the Christian story is.

Also your theology seems to come to a full stop with God having by whatever route creating man with free will as a trap in order to condemn him. This isn't the full account.

If you take the story seriously, then it obviously is a sadistic trap: giving us an irresistible (evidence: nobody resists it) urge to sin, then condemning us for not resisting it, then expecting us believe a daft story and ask for forgiveness in order to avoid condemnation.

However, (again) there can be no such thing as free will from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator - so the whole absurd edifice collapses from the start.

Nonsense - the world we live in can be explained by there simply being no god at all - and that explanation doesn't come with all the silly contradictions inherent in the Christian superstition.

Go ahead then.

What's to explain? We evolved to be clever social animals, we invented various moral codes over our history in order to organize our societies (cultural evolution). There would be little point in inventing a moral code that everybody followed anyway, so they are idealizations.

[Gordon]

I thought it was perfectly obvious you cant have your cake and eat it.
Excuses for God? What about your excuses for man?

I thought the issue here was God: it being insistent, so some Christians tell us, that all humans were born with this 'ancestral sin'.

Me; what about human evil Gordon?
Gordon; Blah Blah Earthquakes Blah.

It was you, Vlad, who raised the subject of earthquakes (in #26281).

[floo]

I thought it was perfectly obvious you cant have your cake and eat it.
Excuses for God? What about your excuses for man?

Me; what about human evil Gordon?
Gordon; Blah Blah Earthquakes Blah.

The Biblical god is supposed to have created everything, if that is true the buck stops with it. It isn't humans who should be paying the price for all that is bad in this world, but god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the rules were designed, then the alternative to unfair and unjust rules, is fair and just ones, not chaos.

I don't have a theology, I'm commenting on how utterly silly, unjust and unfair the Christian story is.

If you take the story seriously, then it obviously is a sadistic trap: giving us an irresistible (evidence: nobody resists it) urge to sin, then condemning us for not resisting it, then expecting us believe a daft story and ask for forgiveness in order to avoid condemnation.

However, (again) there can be no such thing as free will from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator - so the whole absurd edifice collapses from the start.
Go ahead then.


What's to explain? We evolved to be clever social animals, we invented various moral codes over our history in order to organize our societies (cultural evolution). There would be little point in inventing a moral code that everybody followed anyway, so they are idealizations.

If you are going to suggest more just and fair rules or universal order at least have the decency to explain why those which are unsatisfactory in these respects are so.

You have given your own theological formulations. A telling one was your statement that baptism does not remove sin. Perhaps you should consider the ramifications of what you have said for a pleaded atheism.

The first people were in communion with God and chose to break it there was no implanted inclination just a world in which they had the freedom to do it. Breaking the communion meant, the cake and eat it laws which overarch the universe meant that they could not have the communion.

Sin therefore is therefore not necessarily dependent on inclination and salvation through God is offered.

Your description of morality is confused because it talks of many moral codes and none. This seems consistent with turning away from God yet wanting to maintain his approval.
The trying out of moral codes throughout history because of failure is completely consistent with having fired God and avoiding rehiring him.

We are not in the position of God so his position is irrelevent to us. The future does not exist as far as we are concerned.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought the issue here was God: it being insistent, so some Christians tell us, that all humans were born with this 'ancestral sin'.

Not the first people since it was them that concocted it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Biblical god is supposed to have created everything, if that is true the buck stops with stops with it. It isn't humans who should be paying the price for all that is bad in this world, but god.

So if I take a nail and bang it in my foot...a hole shouldn't appear in my foot but God's?

[floo]

So if I take a nail and bang it in my foot...a hole shouldn't appear in my foot but God's?

If it is responsible for creating human nature, it should be the one to repent.

[Gordon]

Not the first people since it was them that concocted it.

So the story goes, Vlad: don't tell me you think the Adam and Eve tale isn't myth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Is anyone else picking up on Vlad's greasy elision of "this is what Christianity says" into, "so what excuse is there for not accepting these facts?" as if he'd actually put in the had yards from assertion to truth when in fact there's just a big ol' hole where the connecting argument should be?

What excuse has he I wonder for not accepting Onur, the lunar goddess of the aborigines, or for wilfully turning his back on Huitaca, the Amazonian goddess of wanton behaviour? He's such a Zeus dodger that guy! 

     

[Stranger]

If you are going to suggest more just and fair rules or universal order at least have the decency to explain why those which are unsatisfactory in these respects are so.

I have done and you've ignored it - yet again.

You don't even seem to be pretending to address what I've actually said, so I really can't see the point. One last time...

You have given your own theological formulations. A telling one was your statement that baptism does not remove sin.

No, I haven't, I've criticised the silly Christian superstition's story. What I said was that baptism (obviously) doesn't remove the tendency to sin. Whether it removes past sin is part of the silly story and would leave no evidence one way or the other.

Perhaps you should consider the ramifications of what you have said for a pleaded atheism.

Gibberish.

The first people were in communion with God and chose to break it there was no implanted inclination just a world in which they had the freedom to do it. Breaking the communion meant, the cake and eat it laws which overarch the universe meant that they could not have the communion.

If there were consequences visited on subsequent generations, then that is manifestly unfair and unjust.

Sin therefore is therefore not necessarily dependent on inclination and salvation through God is offered.

Gibberish.

Your description of morality is confused because it talks of many moral codes and none. This seems consistent with turning away from God yet wanting to maintain his approval.
The trying out of moral codes throughout history because of failure is completely consistent with having fired God and avoiding rehiring him.

And perfectly consistent with no god at all.

We are not in the position of God so his position is irrelevent to us. The future does not exist as far as we are concerned.

So what?

And (again) it all falls down anyway because free will is nonsense to an omnipotent, omniscient creator - such a god would be responsible for literally everything

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have done and you've ignored it - yet again.

You don't even seem to be pretending to address what I've actually said, so I really can't see the point. One last time...

No, I haven't, I've criticised the silly Christian superstition's story. What I said was that baptism (obviously) doesn't remove the tendency to sin. Whether it removes past sin is part of the silly story and would leave no evidence one way or the other.

Gibberish.

If there were consequences visited on subsequent generations, then that is manifestly unfair and unjust.

Gibberish.

And perfectly consistent with no god at all.

So what?

And (again) it all falls down anyway because free will is nonsense to an omnipotent, omniscient creator - such a god would be responsible for literally everything

Again a post to deflect from Actual sin.

Sin is not dependant on a tendency to it as the first sinners demonstrated. All that is needed it seems is an opportunity and the choice to do it.

You did not address my questions on institutional behaviour. Are individuals responsible?
 
Concerning the Godless morality. Isn't there the evidence of its futility and dishonesty of it's premise? Can its constant shifting and usurpations really be put down to evolution? Isn't there only really behaviour?