i aologise if this tread annoys some of u indirectly.
-
That's exactly my point SIS, that those who reject the Christian notion of the seriousness of sin would find everything about the Christian perception of it unfair. There is no point arguing about the rest of the issues when already we diverge on the starting points.
Wat do u objectively felt about the system? U r punished equally for frowning and killing. Wat is there to stop people from killing then ? Tat is in a way belittling the consequences of serious offence and encouraging people to do serious offenceAnd of course one this is not to say that Christians tend to separate the issues of sin and atonement further. The punishment of sin in its various forms is a stopgap measure and justice but it (in our perception of the issue anyway) does not solve the ultimate question of corruption that is actually the main issue at hand. I suspect the question of we sinning is not so much as important as we can eventually [I]cannot[/I] sin again.
As to why God chooses to close one eye to Christians, I do not think He does. It is stated quite clearly that Christians like all other people would have to account for their sins in the end. The difference it seems, is that the Christians believe that they have something to tide over this judgment while the rest do not. I do not believe any Christian finds salvation by virtue or merit.
I think there is a contradiction from the second and third paragraph... on the second para it sounds as though sinning shouldn't be punish since it do not affect the final objective of corruption. On the third u say tat god still punish people anyway for the sins they commit. So which is which ? Furthermore, if I am not wrong christians believe salvation by faith and not works. Wat u have suggested is salvation is still by works. R u sure wat u stated is right ?But it comes to mind that if there were two men, one with a debt of 10 dollars, and the other with a debt of a hundred. In any case both are unable to pay off this dept but they are offered a new scheme that writes off their debts without them having to pay it off. The man with a hundred dollars agrees to go under this scheme and the one with ten decides to try making it the old fashioned way. Is this scheme unfair to the guy with ten dollars in debt? I dunno, but I am not sure it's a fair argument.
I think the above example, which does not consider other religions in, is not a fair analogy. Christianity is not the only religion tat claimed they r the right way. Tis is my form of analogy about the current debate.
Consider a normal man A walking down a road when he is suddenly approached by a person B who claims A got a terrible diesease. The diesease (which is supposed to make A felt like he was in hell) is claimed to be due to the sins A had done in his life and the only way to survive is to eat a magic stone B is trying to sell (The stone cost 10% of all A's possession) Just when A is trying to decide if he should buy the stone or not, another 9 people suddenly approach and say tat the stone they individually r selling r the right stone cure for his "illness" while the rest of the stones contains a grave poison tat can kill u instantly. When u ask for any form of evidence for their claims, none of them did and they say u need to have faith in them tat he is right. So if u r A, wat will u do ? Will u anyhow buy a stone back and eat so tat u have a 10% of surviving the "terrible" illness ?It is a system that is exclusive and narrow, but the last I checked it is not a system of [I]elitism[/I]. Anybody can qualify for it, not the best of the best (thankfully). I'm not sure how the argument of it being unfair because people with more merit might does not get in as opposed to lousy humans who are Christians work, because it is the Christian perception that no human merit would ever suffice.
Nobody really complains tat it is a system for elitism.
The point of comtempt is no clues and evidences r present before u r forced to make a choice of grave consequences. Another point of comtempt is the fact tat christian claims hell is for sinners when it really is for non-believers. The whole idea of sinning doesn't matter, the amount of effort u made doesn't matter, the good deeds he did doesnt' matter and the only thing tat matters is your religion ? And they claim it is due to sin ? -
I'm not sure about other systems, but I cannot think of any other particular philosophical school of though that has such an unbroken record of failure in determining morality as humanismÂ… at least humanism in it's purest of forms.
U still have not answer the question of an alternative system, which is not a form of humanistic system, whereby we know wat is right or wrong and wat is sinful or not. If we forsake humanistic perception, then there is no actions tat is considered sinful and u can do anything in tis world and nothing is wrong.
The problem is that humanism says that we humans should determine what is right and wrong for ourselves, but the cardinal issue is that this concept of right and wrong would have to apply to all men in order for it to be objective.
And here is where we get our pickle, in the humanistic view we get our concepts of good and evil from our own perceptions of reality, but it turns out that different people end up getting very different perceptions of what is right and wrong. I'm not saying this is an issue unique to humanism (it appears in monotheism and other school of thoughts as well), but the difference is that the basic premise of humanistic perception saws off the very own plank it is sitting on while other systems could at least blame it on a muddled perception of a transhuman standard.
The thing is that one humanist might think it is right and good for us to eliminate the weaker members of our society or prevent them from breeding because ultimately it is for the better good of our species. Another humanist would react in horror and say that such an idea is a great evil. So as expected we get an argument.
But the interesting this is this: while they may argue who is right and who is wrong among themselvesÂ… they have in one fell stroke eliminated their very own grounds for humanistic perception of morality. Essentially by the very act of wanting to argue that his particular perception is [I]better[/I] then the other, he is saying that somehow the other guy's humanistic perception is invalid.
But on what grounds? Considering that humanistic perception of morality claims is that particular humans should decide in their own eyes what is right and wrong, but the real issue is [I]whose[/I] view ought to be the law, and why should everyone else follow it. By the very act of arguing that one's view of morality ought to be imposed and apply to the other they have already unknowingly admitted that us people should not be the sole decider of what is wrong and right, they are in fact, sneaking in a system that says that some higher morality, beyond and not created by man applies to everybody and that everybody ought to observe it.
Humanist A thinks it's alright to cull our weakest for this is the greatest good, he thinks this standard ought to apply to all men. Humanist B thinks that the greatest good is to show compassion for our weakest. Considering both men come from a school of thought that says that the sole judge and creator of morality is the human perception, one starts to wonder how they can even start to claim that ones own particular perception is stronger then the otherÂ… unless of course, there was something to perceive in the first place.
Of course Humanistic morality tends to ignore this little fact, but it is a fact on which they try to make many of their arguments stick. But this fact in essence destroys any logical basis for the Humanistic perception morality.
There are more manly and logical alternatives to humanistic perception that do not involve monotheism, atheistic dualism, polytheism, naturalism and the like. But lets not fool ourselves with the notion that man can decide what is wrong and right for himself and think that is consistent with the laws of logic. It falls quite quickly under scrutiny, and it seems that people hold to it not because it is actually logically valid, but because it seems 'fashionable' and 'brave'.
The logically fallacy of humanistic perception falls on it trying to assert that it creates something with its perception (ie. Morality), but other schools of though (not solely monotheism) say that there is Something to be perceived, and the important this is that this Thing is perceived properly. Be it atheistic or not. But that's too much material to cover in one post. In any case humanistic perception cannot claim to be the benchmark (it's cardinal flaw), for other schools can somewhat hold logical validity by saying that they appeal to the benchmark, but at not it.
In any case SIS, I do not think you are much of a humanistic perceptive person. At least your behaviour and ascertains would be inconsistent with that philosophy. I'm not sure what you would call your particular brand of thought though. -
I believe you are mixing up the ability of human perception of morality and the system of humanistic perception for the basis for morality. The difference is not very subtle.
One is like saying that we can see because we have eyes, but the act of seeing does not just involve eyes. In situations where the eyes cannot see the thing required, other means are employed (microscopes, thermal cameras, radio telescopes). The whole point of seeing in that school of though is to perceive reality.
The humanistic method for the perception of reality however, is tantamount to implying that whatever our eyes see is all that there is to it. That reality is all that we can see and we should base our decisions on that.
In such a naive world germs cannot exist because they have never been seen by the naked eye, and hence the pathogenic theory of certain diseases must be dismissed out of hand. Radiation burns cannot exist because radiation cannot be seen, but the burns can and hence all ones activities are focused on treating the burn but not moving out of the radioactive hot zone.
Why am I drawing up these (rather verbose) examples? Because this is exactly the kind of view of morality of that the humanistic perceptive philosophy is suggesting. All that we can decide for ourselves is all that matters- and has ever mattered. A single look at the issue realizes that the whole thing is rather hollow.
You said that if we forsake humanistic perception then the morality of all actions become irrelevant, as stated above I believe the opposite to be true: Entirely embracing humanistic perception is the very act that destroys our moralityÂ… and in fact is the antihumanist aspects of many different schools of philosophy on morality that has retained our concept of objective morality. In this Christianity is not unique.
What it seems to me is that human perception is not [I]the[/I] way of judging morality, but simply [I]a[/I] way. This comes from the notion that the human perception is not infallible, and needs to be augmented. With what is the issue that I shall address in the next paragraph.
Now you said that I have not offered an alternative system of perceiving morality, which is not really true because I have assumed two things. Firstly is that you know that I am a theist and at that a Christian, and secondly that you might have this understanding that Christians would (as expected) tout the Christian view of morality as the solutive system to right and wrong. In this I must tell you I do not diverge at all from these two expectations, and being a theist and a Christian at that, the Christian view is what I propose (and to an extent has debated).
I'm sure you are quite familiar with the Christian view of it, and summarily have rejected it as well. The reason I have refrained from touting Christian morality too much is because I realize that we both start with very different premises and presuppositions to begin with and that debating either ways would be a and time consuming fruitless process.
What I have done instead is to demonstrate that many differing schools of thought share the same presuppositions on morality to Christianity, even those who are fervently opposed towards it. This presupposition I have attempted to point out and argue for is the common belief that some objective, ultimate truth and morality hangs above and applies to all men.
This is the presupposition that humanistic morality by virtue of its nature rejects, and why I think it is not (in my books at least) a valid system of determining morality. In any case it was my intention not to prove Christian morality (yet), but the prove that even people of most other beliefs would reject humanistic perception once they see it for what it really is.
There is another problem, I also do not have extensive experience with atheistic objective morality as much as it is a point of great interest for me. I am aware that Richard Dawkins, an eminent naturalist and 'Bright' has argued extensively for the existence of atheistic objective morality (trashing humanistic perception as well) as a model for humanity.
It seems to be rather similar to the philosophy that I pick up from your posts here. Perhaps you could enlighten me on this (if you have similar thinkings) and I might see how I have to consider and answer them. Better still if you have read his book, the few sentences I browsed in Kino seemed very similar to what you write. -
In terms of Christianity (or other faiths) not being able to produce evidence... well (I am not sure about other faiths) but I think this is hardly true at all (for my own part anyway). In any case there is a large amount of material that I have read and considered that convinces me that the whole thing is not quite a 'magic' stone set up.
The problem is this, I am not sure if you have more then a pedestrian grasp of Christian apologetics, but I would advise you to check out certain material on the topics on both (or all) sides. I am not referring to the kind of material that debates on the nitpicking details like if the earth was created in 6 days or if Dinosaurs existed with men, but rather the philosophical considerations of many thinkers, Christians, theists and atheists all alike.
It would help any discussion here. In any case if one should reject Christianity, one ought to reject it on the basis that its arguments for it are inadequate, and not that no arguments had been given in its favour which is certainly not true.
In any case I fervently disagree with the philosophy of inaction in the face of many exclusive beliefs, and if uncertainty of all truth was A's predicament and inaction his route of actionÂ… then it could be argued he had nothing to lose in the first place. If he was sure of nothing, then he could not even be sure that the 10 percent of possessions had any value to begin with. -
Why am I drawing up these (rather verbose) examples? Because this is exactly the kind of view of morality of that the humanistic perceptive philosophy is suggesting. All that we can decide for ourselves is all that matters- and has ever mattered. A single look at the issue realizes that the whole thing is rather hollow.
The whole thing is not shallow if u r clear with wat the objective is, and regularly change and modify itself to suit with the times and knowledge. In terms of law, the objective is to protect the life and property of innocent people and maintain law and order. When new knowledge comes about such as invention of computer and commercial crimes, the law is modified and updated respectively to still maintain law, order and protect properties and lives (In singapore they set up a department of commercial crime etc). As such, fixing problems whenever we see it achieve the objective and it worked.
However in your case, u point to something which cannot be seen, verified and force people to ignore the challenges tat they have or face first. An example is that u point to a fact tat the objective of god not to give magnitude to sins is perhaps to make men eventually incapable of sinning. However nobody, no one and nothing can show tis notion to be correct. U r stating a solution to a problem which not only the "eyes cannot see", but u cannot prove it to be true (unlike germs etc), and frankly it is nothing but an assumption, and u seek people to not solve the immediate probem they face (killing people which is certainly more harmful than frowning) but to instead tackle an imaginary problem. Is tis way more deeper and meaningful ? Hardly.
And given the notion tat christian can sn as much as they want yet can still go to heaven. Where does the moraility comes from ?
If u wanna know about atheist morality, it is easy for u to search for your answer through the internet. If u ask for my personal views, I can say tat atheist like all men have sympathy, respect fairness to all people as well as desire to live an orderly life in order to achieve happiness. When we want to do a good act, we did it not because we want some reward, for our salavation or fear of divine retribution, but rather because we sincerely want to help the people. We follow rules and regulation simply because we do not want to cause harm and distress to others.In terms of Christianity (or other faiths) not being able to produce evidence... well (I am not sure about other faiths) but I think this is hardly true at all (for my own part anyway). In any case there is a large amount of material that I have read and considered that convinces me that the whole thing is not quite a 'magic' stone set up.
Wat r the materials tat actually convinces u tat everything in the bible is true ?The problem is this, I am not sure if you have more then a pedestrian grasp of Christian apologetics, but I would advise you to check out certain material on the topics on both (or all) sides. I am not referring to the kind of material that debates on the nitpicking details like if the earth was created in 6 days or if Dinosaurs existed with men, but rather the philosophical considerations of many thinkers, Christians, theists and atheists all alike
If u believe in a religion, u have to believe every part to be true and tat includes earth is buld in 6 days and dinosaurs does not exists with men. If u ignore every sign tat contradicted with the bible, then wat philosophy r u using tat allow u to pick and choose watever u wana believe ? Aristotle use philosophy and try to give meaning to gravity and energy, all to disasterous effect.It would help any discussion here. In any case if one should reject Christianity, one ought to reject it on the basis that its arguments for it are inadequate, and not that no arguments had been given in its favour which is certainly not true. |
Frankly wat sort of arguments do u mean from the passage ? Please give some examples.In any case I fervently disagree with the philosophy of inaction in the face of many exclusive beliefs, and if uncertainty of all truth was A's predicament and inaction his route of actionÂ… then it could be argued he had nothing to lose in the first place. If he was sure of nothing, then he could not even be sure that the 10 percent of possessions had any value to begin with.
However in the case of the analogy, there is a high possibility that if he did not believe any of the 10 stone sellers and go on his way, he can go away without spending a cent yet does not get any illness. The whole diesease hing can very well be a hoax. He never had a diesease in the first place and the best course of action is simply to walk away without believing in any of them.
With the stone seller analogy in mind, it come to the question of christainity whereby god threathen to send people to eternal damnation because one had made a wrong guess. Is tis even philosophically sound to be from a being tat is supposed to be benevolent yet omnipotent ? -
Well, to answer your question on what works I have read and found useful in answering many questions about Christianity. I have gone through the works of C.S. Lewis, Chesterton and Peter Hicks among other thinkers for the Philosophical aspects and some of Josh Mcdowell and Geisler and Brooks for practical apologetics. Of course there is a lot of material to simply summarize but I'll try to relate my thoughts and experience of them as and when they appear.
Now to your points of humanistic perception being an evolutionary problem solving and bettering system for humanity, as you stated the objectivity of this humanistic perception is to "protect the life and property of innocent people and maintain law and order". The whole crux of the issue, and the cardinal problem of such a school of thought rests on statements like this.
As far as I know this particular philosophy, nobody who is into believing in the humanistic perceptions of morality is obliged to under the objectives you stated. Another humanist perceptive could very well state his own set of objectives that are quite opposite from yours. Another person could say that his humanistic perception tells him that the best objective would be to "let the strongest survive and the weak to be material for their growth" (and sadly there are these kind of people).
The problem is this: Under the rules of humanistic perception neither view is superior to the others, for the simple reason it is quite impossible for humanistic perception to say that this or that particular view is superior to the other. The other party could easily say "that's what you think, but this is still what I think." And that would be the end of the matter, and there would be nothing really to argue about.
In the end I do not see any resolution to this other then through force, as in the people with the most resources and abilities to exact their own perception and authority of morality upon others. The minority view may be correct but the laws of philosophical naturalism ends up ensuring that the 'strongest' view survives, even if it may be morally flawed. But I digress from my main argument.
My main argument is this, the very statement of objectives derived apparently from humanistic perceptionÂ… for these objectives to hold true they cannot be justified by humanistic perception. The "protect the life and property of innocent people and maintain law and order" objective is only valid if it applies too all people [I]irregardless[/I] of their particular humanistic perception as an absolute truth.
But from where does one start to draw up this value as something worth holding at all? If it is nothing but the product of human ideas then another man with different ideas is not under any obligation to live up to it. In fact he may live under a wholly different set of laws that directly contradict the protection of life and property of the innocent because in his eyes that's the right thing to do.
No matter how I try to look at the issue, it seems to me that trying to draw up absolute objectives that I think people ought to do ends up having us appealing to all men that there is this ultimate right and good that we are all under in the end. Whatever this Thing is, it is not the product of the human perception, but an Entity being perceived by the imperfect human perception. Some [I]Dao[/I] set of absolute values.
On unfairness, the whole disagreement with the Christian idea of right and wrong, and hence all the associated arguments about the injustice of having the excuse to sin over and over again and yet make it through as opposed to the unbelieving saint comes from a disagreement over the basic notions of sin and wrong in the first place.
If one can never agree on the basic notions, there is no need to raise the other issues because under your differing school of thought it would seem unfair. But yet under mine it is an unfortunate, but somewhat not unexpected effect of having such a notion of sin.
But for the sake of everybody, I have to spell it out again. The basic disagreement is that Christians believe that sin in any form is absolute and that that nobody can practically escape with their lives from it unless they accept the grace-payment. The other school of though goes with the fact that minor sins could be atoned for or punished and relatively okay people would make it through while some who screwed up big time ought to get what's coming.
Obviously for somebody from the latter school, immediately the Christian idea seems ridiculous as it seems to be a license to sin. This effect however, to the Christian is not inconsistent with their own understanding of the situation, as much as it is a sad thing.
But I suspect the latter school of though, along with the license-to-sin Christians both suffers from one flawÂ… and that is they have under estimated the nature of sin. I must maintain the fact (by virtue of my reasoning) that while a minor sin indicates less corruption then a major sin, both in terms of the issue of corruption are pretty much viewed the same and ultimately dealt in the same way by God.
The two are hardly contradictory, and only appear so when one harbors thoughts that one could actually pay for even the smallest sin. But of course, this is a position I cannot convince you of without the discussion of many different topics.
As you said, the person could choose to reject the magic stones entirely and believe he is alright, that is a valid path to take. But the real question I believeÂ… is if this path ultimately holds out in the end. Which I believe it does not.
In any case it beats inaction.
And I do not believe for a moment the mutually contradictory nature of differing faiths cancel each other out. I also do not see how rationalistic atheism should be excluded from the plethora of possible magic stones being offered to the question of life. It seems to me atheism is very much a 'religion' as Christianity. -
As to if the threatening of eternal damnation is consistent with an all Good-God. I believe it is for certain compelling reasons. In fact I find myself compelled to suspect His genuine Goodness (on logical grounds), if He never threatened it.
-
If I am not wrong, the problem u have stated for humanistic perception is tat not everybody believes in the same objective. An example some people is into "maintaining law and order" versus some who r into the "weak become food for the strong". My personal opinion is, there r always some deviants and some freaks in this world and to implement a set of policy only after everyone agrees is either impossible or inefficient. One need to know tat the more popular a set of philosophy is, the more resources it is going to get and the more stable it is to last through the times.
HoweverNo matter how I try to look at the issue, it seems to me that trying to draw up absolute objectives that I think people ought to do ends up having us appealing to all men that there is this ultimate right and good that we are all under in the end. Whatever this Thing is, it is not the product of the human perception, but an Entity being perceived by the imperfect human perception. Some [I]Dao[/I] set of absolute values.
I do not agree with your conclusion. Why do u believe tat there is an ultimate right and good tat we r all under ? The things u have only shown is tat not every people subscibe to the same set of thinking but it is not equivalent to saying tat there must be a divine set of right and wrong somewhere. Why should some divine unhuman perception exists simple because men do not agree with one another ? It is the same as saying John (who believes tat everyone should take a turn to clean the room) and Jack (who believes he is stronger and thus can bully John into cleaning) do not agree with one another on who to clean the room so tat is a sign tat there must be unhuman god around with his perspective. These 2 r totally different topics r totally mutually exclusive and have no correlation with one another. Furthermore, the philosophy tat is non-human doesn't means it will be universally accepted as well. U look at god with 1/3 of his angels with Satan rebel and u know god is not doing a good job either.But for the sake of everybody, I have to spell it out again. The basic disagreement is that Christians believe that sin in any form is absolute and that that nobody can practically escape with their lives from it unless they accept the grace-payment. The other school of though goes with the fact that minor sins could be atoned for or punished and relatively okay people would make it through while some who screwed up big time ought to get what's coming.
For the former school of thought, there is obviously a big loophole. It is the classical model of double standard. And the whole notion of sinning is throw off because they made no impact to the outcome which can be shown below
1) All men sin. When they r borned they r labeled to have sinned. Tis is forced on men
2) Sinners go to hell
3) from 1 and 2, all men should go to hell
4) Christian do not go to hell because they accept the "grace payment"
5) If u r not a christian u r a non-believer
6) from 3, 4, 5, Non believer go to hell
7) Conclusion from 6 supercede 2 since it take in more information of scripture events
In the end, the original notion of sinner go to hell is wrong. Whether u sin or not is never a criteria at all. The only important criteria is whether u r a believer or non-believer. The actions of a suppose good and omnipotent god is no different from the fanatical crusaders who kill only non-christians. The above set of deductions can be illustrated with an example of a Christian serial murderer going to heaven while a buddhist monk tat serve throughout his life go to hell.But I suspect the latter school of though, along with the license-to-sin Christians both suffers from one flawÂ… and that is they have under estimated the nature of sin. I must maintain the fact (by virtue of my reasoning) that while a minor sin indicates less corruption then a major sin, both in terms of the issue of corruption are pretty much viewed the same and ultimately dealt in the same way by God.
Tat come to a contradiction. Major sins which probably indicate much greater corruption goes away scot free while minor sins such as frowning which indicate less corruption suffer in hell. If god want to stem the problem of
corruption, first, he should surely fix the greater corruption rather than the lesser corruption.
Secondly, he fix the rules such a way tat it actually encourage corruption to manifest by allowing people to give up on the impossible task of stopping sinning and let them sin as much as they want. Why implement a policy tat encourage sinning and corruption if his objective is to do the opposite ?
Thirdly, given god omnipotency, he could just make human "free of corruption" with a flick of his fingers. Obviously at tis stage someone will mention about free will (which I maintain tat no sin doesn't means no free will since a lot of decisions r neutral such as how to play a game, when to go to toilet or which language to learn) but however note tat the final objective of wat men should be like according to SingaporeTyrannosaur is very much a "robot" as some would speak. Why go through the whole game of punishment and sinning etc ? Logically and philosophically, it doesn't make sense -
As you said, the person could choose to reject the magic stones entirely and believe he is alright, that is a valid path to take. But the real question I believeÂ… is if this path ultimately holds out in the end. Which I believe it does not.
However u need to realise tat the threat the path ends or in tis case, u get the unknown diesease mainly comes from the "stoneseller". At the point of time when the 10 stone seller approach u, u should already try to verify if wat they say hold water and not just naively believe everything they say. In life there r always people lying and people who r cheated. Wat I advocate is to critically examine the evidence before believing it blindly. IMO, A is probably laughing his way home rather than parting with his possessions for nothing. In tis case, it is not inaction. It is determining whether the claim is authentic and rejecting them because it is clearly a hoax.
In any case it beats inaction.And I do not believe for a moment the mutually contradictory nature of differing faiths cancel each other out. I also do not see how rationalistic atheism should be excluded from the plethora of possible magic stones being offered to the question of life. It seems to me atheism is very much a 'religion' as Christianity.
Atheist is not a religion Religion is the belief of something divine and supernatural which is clearly unverifiable. Atheist is the absense of theist and is not a religion. In the case of the stoneseller, it is the same as dismissing the claims of the other religion and live life as it is, clearly a trait of atheist.As to if the threatening of eternal damnation is consistent with an all Good-God. I believe it is for certain compelling reasons. In fact I find myself compelled to suspect His genuine Goodness (on logical grounds), if He never threatened it.
Com'on, being a being with omnipotent powers, wat could compel u ? Furthermore if he is genuine good, he could either show to the world he exist or give every man a chance for salvation instead of practising double standard -
very good discussion frm both sides...i did learnt sumthing
-
If I am not wrong, the problem u have stated for humanistic perception is tat not everybody believes in the same objective. An example some people is into "maintaining law and order" versus some who r into the "weak become food for the strong". My personal opinion is, there r always some deviants and some freaks in this world and to implement a set of policy only after everyone agrees is either impossible or inefficient. One need to know tat the more popular a set of philosophy is, the more resources it is going to get and the more stable it is to last through the times.
I don't believe the problem is that consensus is impossible to get, but rather if the prevailing or popular policy is the right one at all. The last I checked of history, many stable and popular policies were not necessarily good ones, but simply the ones that had the most strength. In short, stability and prosperity could be a very poor judge of what might constitute deviancy and freakishness.
For example, if you opposed the Spartan practice of leaving babies out to die outside the city, you would be considered a deviant and a freak whose personal humanistic perception held no weight because it was going against a practice considered essential for the stability and prosperity of the Spartans. Opposition to the slave trade and mistreatment of African Americans started as a minority movement as well, a movement that could never have held validity if their pioneers believed that the general consensus of humanistic perception was to be the final judge of morality.
Practically, they believed that whatever was the popular humanistic perception at that time never mattered, that there was always an immutable set of truth and good values from time immemorial of which a small part they have discovered. They believed that no matter what the rest of men may say about their views being invalid or wrong never mattered was because that had been the truth.
In essence, such a way of thought is the antithesis of humanistic perception, and was the way that all attempted revolutions in morality startedÂ… ironically even humanistic perception itself, which started out to confront the fact that what they perceived to be man's general reliance on faith-based morality was wrong. Of course it was lost on them that if their views were to be valid, it means that the belief in faith is a humanistic perception of morality as well. It was only a matter of time before it had to confront itself.
The question is not if there are freaks and deviants in this world, but if the freaks and deviants are [I]right[/I] or wrong and always have been right or wrong. That is a question that humanistic perception cannot answer because by virtue it says that all there is to truth is human perception. The 'freak' who wants anarchy isnÂ’t any more wrong then the person who believes in preserving order, just of differing opinions on what is desirable.
In a sense if I were to accept humanistic perception to its logical conclusion, I would not have to worry about, or indeed even have any grounds to worry about what others might think of what I think of wrong and right. If I am a person who is of a moderate disposition then I imagine I might get along quite well with the rest of the world, but if I am a crazed serial killer then it's really just tough luck for the rest of the gang. But the rightness and wrongness of my actions only matters to myself and the individuals who are affected by my actions, but I beliefs don't have to overlap because humanistic perception has declared all our perceptions equally (contradictorily) valid.Tat come to a contradiction. Major sins which probably indicate much greater corruption goes away scot free while minor sins such as frowning which indicate less corruption suffer in hell. If god want to stem the problem of
I believe that comes from a misunderstanding of lesser and greater corruption the way I tried to communicate it. My line of thought (in line with Christian tradition) ends up having me see that God isn't just interested in the big and ugly sins, but the whole package in general.
corruption, first, he should surely fix the greater corruption rather than the lesser corruption.
In many respects we may be like the kind of people who go to the dentist wanting to stop the pain of a toothache, but the dentists sees that the problem is more then just the pain, and that in order to [I]really[/I] solve the problem more drastic measures have to be taken (such as having the whole tooth out). We of course, might only be interested in killing the pain.
The Christian tradition maintains (quite consistently) that this is actually the state of humanity, we don't really see the entire problem of sin and hence focus on the most obvious parts of it (the pain). But God being able to see the whole problem might end up with a necessary solution that seems excessive and brutal to us.
And as to why minor sins are serious, it is my personal experience that minor sins have every much a potential to blossom into serious sins later. Probably the reason why Christians often have a harsh view and practice even the slightest concessions to corruption (a practice of which I am admittedly poor at). Greed may start out subtle and small but eventually leads to companies wrecking the lives of millions with their thoughtless actions. The minor sin of lust festers and ends up years later making a person a breaker of many families and hearts.
In fact it seems to me that there is really no difference between the minor sins and the major ones, just that the minor ones are the infant stages of the larger corruption. The perception that we can view them with a slighter eye in my opinionÂ… is a dangerous notion. -
Secondly, he fix the rules such a way tat it actually encourage corruption to manifest by allowing people to give up on the impossible task of stopping sinning and let them sin as much as they want. Why implement a policy tat encourage sinning and corruption if his objective is to do the opposite ?
Firstly I'm not sure if the rules are there for His good or our good. But I believe they are there for ours. I strive to draw secular arguments (for the sake of finding common ground) but find myself digging from a Christian perspective yet again.
I find the whole thing is actually quite simple, in one part such a system is necessary because there is no other viable alternative that can ensure both the salvation of human souls and their will, and the second part also because such a system is based heavily on trust and love.
I don't think this system was set up to give people the liberty to sin, rather it was set up to give people any hope of being able to love God. I suspect only people who love sin more then Him are tempted to view it as a license to sin. I think God values our ability to choose Him or not so strongly that He did not set up a system that gives us no choice to abuse, but one where that option is open.
But I think you are a little mistaken about that go to heaven despite sinning a lot part, because in my personal experience and practice with such a thingÂ… I realize it's not really the case in a sort of a way.
Anybody who read the basic Christianity manual before setting out on the walk might discover repeated warnings (almost too many to count) on the real seriousness of sin. I suspect those who view grace fail to see this seriousness but it does not mean the situation is not any less serious. The truth in Christian tradition is that ever sin ends up being a barrier between us and Him, and that such wanton practice of immorality is a rather dangerous practice.
Eventually I am not convinced that a Christian can sin repeatedly out of his own happy volition and end up still retaining his Christianity. This is not because God takes our salvation away but because we willingly drop it with our own hands in our actions. Grace was never a system for sin to coexist with salvation, and my own experiments with sin seem to confirm that.
While many happily wanton Christians may claim to love Him on paper, it may very well be that they are quite practical nonbelievers who know neither God and which God shall neither know on that final day. After all they had rejected Him a long time ago as their hearts willingly pushed Him out with ever act of their license to sin.
So will there be justice be served for them in the end? Probably. I just feel one needs to correct this misconception that the Christian faith is like getting some kind of pass stamped and to which we no longer need to do anything about (or indeed may do anything we want). It's quite another thing and really a huge battle of wills.
On the flipside, I realize grace serves as a hope for those who seemed to have gone wrong hopelessly in any system, but are sincere and desperate to make it right again.Thirdly, given god omnipotency, he could just make human "free of corruption" with a flick of his fingers. Obviously at tis stage someone will mention about free will (which I maintain tat no sin doesn't means no free will since a lot of decisions r neutral such as how to play a game, when to go to toilet or which language to learn) but however note tat the final objective of wat men should be like according to SingaporeTyrannosaur is very much a "robot" as some would speak. Why go through the whole game of punishment and sinning etc ? Logically and philosophically, it doesn't make sense
Well one could simply answer that the ability to have free will means the ability to have choices (obviously), but choices (and hence free will) are only valid if they have permanency and some kind of a conclusion of affairs.
Indeed the final objective of God for man is perfection, but obviously for those who make the multitude of choices to [I]choose[/I] it. The whole game of punishment and sinner is very much of the process of choosing, where often (in my personal experience) one had to choose between the two alternatives of sin and salvation. Who wouldn't want salvation?
But yet another intractable part of our current nature wants sin and death, and in fact wants to choose it. Obviously either choice will involve a certain cost, and both will have permanent effects. But isn't that is the whole point of making a non neutral point in the first place? That one has to give up the other? The whole game (and it really isn't a game) of punishment and sinning is the cost that either side has to pay for making this choice. The person who choose to sin pays the cost of punishment, and the person who chooses to live pays the cost of fighting his contrary volition.
So if I make the choice to want to be saved, obviously I must also choose in the end to rid the part of my volition that wants to sin permanently. Would such an eventual man resemble a robot? I do not think so for one thing he certainly choose that path, and that his volition was not violated, but willingly made to that nature. -
As to what compels God, I'm afraid I can only point you in the direction of the first principle in the study of philosophy. But I must tell you that a detailed study of this question is impossible because it is beyond the limits of human logic. If there is an answer, I'm afraid I cannot give it to you in terms we can understand.
And as to why does He not simply show Himself to all people. Firstly I believe He does communicate to all people in various ways, but that people have often chosen to ignore Him. As to why He does not reveal Himself directly, this seems to me because to do so would be to strip us of any ability to choose Him or ourselves at all, we would be forced to comply.
In any case, it seems to me a logical impossibly even for God to currently reveal Himself irrevocably and still maintain our will to choose, and my own experience of researching the bible seems to confirm this. No matter how powerful God is, when He reached out to individuals He seemed to take great care to maintain their ability to choose. At all times they always had an alternative or a chance to turn away. Adam and Eve had the fruit, Abraham had his origin land and son, Solomon had his wisdom and riches, the Israelites had the 'comforts' of Egypt and a golden calf.
In all of these cases He could have removed the alternative to Him at an instant, but yet He let people choose to many consequences that would break everyone's (including His) heart.
So could He reveal Himself entirely without removing our wills instead of playing mind games and giving us alternatives? I am not sure but it seems to me if such a solution exists it exists beyond the ability of human reasoning to discover it, and if you want such an answer I certainly cannot give it.Atheist is not a religion Religion is the belief of something divine and supernatural which is clearly unverifiable. Atheist is the absense of theist and is not a religion. In the case of the stoneseller, it is the same as dismissing the claims of the other religion and live life as it is, clearly a trait of atheist.
Ney, I was not saying that atheism is a religion in the way we understand religion, but that atheism is like religion in many respects. Firstly like religion, it starts from its own presuppositions and builds up from that, becoming an exclusive belief set that judges all others on its own principles. In that it is not unique at all, and in many respects also a 'magic stone' of sorts of coping with the question of life.
The question is which magic stone works... I do not believe for a moment that any logical reason exists for wanting to simply seperate atheism from other faith based beliefs simply by virtue of its naturalism. The statement that athiesm is not a magic stone can only hold true is it is made to be that if magic stones are defined by supernaturalistic thinkings.
But I when I used the term magic stone, I was thinking something entirely differently. I was trying to refer to the different worldviews (magic stones including athiesm) that people hold to cope with the world. What I am trying to say here is that in this case only one stone works and the real question is finding that stone. -
I don't believe the problem is that consensus is impossible to get, but rather if the prevailing or popular policy is the right one at all. The last I checked of history, many stable and popular policies were not necessarily good ones, but simply the ones that had the most strength. In short, stability and prosperity could be a very poor judge of what might constitute deviancy and freakishness.
I find the replies getting longer and longer with each reply. To cut the long story short, I will write in point form instead of full paragraph
For example, if you opposed the Spartan practice of leaving babies out to die outside the city, you would be considered a deviant and a freak whose personal humanistic perception held no weight because it was going against a practice considered essential for the stability and prosperity of the Spartans. Opposition to the slave trade and mistreatment of African Americans started as a minority movement as well, a movement that could never have held validity if their pioneers believed that the general consensus of humanistic perception was to be the final judge of morality.
Practically, they believed that whatever was the popular humanistic perception at that time never mattered, that there was always an immutable set of truth and good values from time immemorial of which a small part they have discovered. They believed that no matter what the rest of men may say about their views being invalid or wrong never mattered was because that had been the truth.
In essence, such a way of thought is the antithesis of humanistic perception, and was the way that all attempted revolutions in morality startedÂ… ironically even humanistic perception itself, which started out to confront the fact that what they perceived to be man's general reliance on faith-based morality was wrong. Of course it was lost on them that if their views were to be valid, it means that the belief in faith is a humanistic perception of morality as well. It was only a matter of time before it had to confront itself.
The question is not if there are freaks and deviants in this world, but if the freaks and deviants are [I]right[/I] or wrong and always have been right or wrong. That is a question that humanistic perception cannot answer because by virtue it says that all there is to truth is human perception. The 'freak' who wants anarchy isnÂ’t any more wrong then the person who believes in preserving order, just of differing opinions on what is desirable.
In a sense if I were to accept humanistic perception to its logical conclusion, I would not have to worry about, or indeed even have any grounds to worry about what others might think of what I think of wrong and right. If I am a person who is of a moderate disposition then I imagine I might get along quite well with the rest of the world, but if I am a crazed serial killer then it's really just tough luck for the rest of the gang. But the rightness and wrongness of my actions only matters to myself and the individuals who are affected by my actions, but I beliefs don't have to overlap because humanistic perception has declared all our perceptions equally (contradictorily) valid.
1) The examples u give of spartans and slavery has shown itself to be unstable and the policies had dissappeared over time. Such is a example of how the humanistic system had improved and it follow wat i said on the stability of the better system. When commnuism started, it too create a big hoo haa but after time, it relies back on the more stable capitalism. Looking at history, the rule of tyranny always run short. No one can say if the deviant is right instead of the masses. However the chances tat the decision made by the masses r right, that the masses will benefit most from it, r definitely much higher than wat any single deviant or freak proposes and masses rejected. In the case of a serial killer, the law which is supported by the masses, will come into effect and if the killer is apprehended, they will be punished. It longer is just between the killer and the victim
2) Without using humanistic perception, wat else can u rely on ? I have found that the important points about non-humanistic approach which u have suggested have gone unanswered. IMO tat is the important part on the discussion on humanistic system etc and it is the initial question asked. If we do no use humanistic perception, in the absence of any other form of perception, how should we know wat is sinful or not ?I believe that comes from a misunderstanding of lesser and greater corruption the way I tried to communicate it. My line of thought (in line with Christian tradition) ends up having me see that God isn't just interested in the big and ugly sins, but the whole package in general.
In the case of the dentist, if it is found tat u have other dental problems, u still have to place priority on fixing the most urgent problem first. U do not go and fix the least important problem such as polishing the teeth first before pulling the aching tooth.
In many respects we may be like the kind of people who go to the dentist wanting to stop the pain of a toothache, but the dentists sees that the problem is more then just the pain, and that in order to [I]really[/I] solve the problem more drastic measures have to be taken (such as having the whole tooth out). We of course, might only be interested in killing the pain.The Christian tradition maintains (quite consistently) that this is actually the state of humanity, we don't really see the entire problem of sin and hence focus on the most obvious parts of it (the pain). But God being able to see the whole problem might end up with a necessary solution that seems excessive and brutal to us.
However for your example, surely efforts r made to stem the problem of stealing which hurt other people first before attempting to fix the problem of greed. There r many greedy people who still live a life tat does not involve stealing and fixing tis problem may cause him to have no moltivation for work. In the case of lust, effort should be made to curb rape and molest instead of abolishing lust. Lustful people doesn't means they will commit any offence in their life. In fact stemming all lust from men may lead to sexual inactivity and no interest in girls which lead to other social problems. There is a great difference between major and minor corruption. U r assuming tat every minor offence, such as frowning will lead to serious offence such as killing. I frown time to time, and so does the rest of the population. R we all killers ? I am greedy at times and may bet on 4D, so does the rest of the population. Does tat make me destinied to be a home wrecker ? There r a lot of people who lust and see porn. However tat doesn't means they all will rape or be unfaithful. Furthermore, a bit of lust, greed and wrath is necessary to have normal sexual appetite, moltivation for work and protecting oneself from being taken advantage of respectively.
And as to why minor sins are serious, it is my personal experience that minor sins have every much a potential to blossom into serious sins later. Probably the reason why Christians often have a harsh view and practice even the slightest concessions to corruption (a practice of which I am admittedly poor at). Greed may start out subtle and small but eventually leads to companies wrecking the lives of millions with their thoughtless actions. The minor sin of lust festers and ends up years later making a person a breaker of many families and hearts.
In fact it seems to me that there is really no difference between the minor sins and the major ones, just that the minor ones are the infant stages of the larger corruption. The perception that we can view them with a slighter eye in my opinionÂ… is a dangerous notion. -
I find the whole thing is actually quite simple, in one part such a system is necessary because there is no other viable alternative that can ensure both the salvation of human souls and their will, and the second part also because such a system is based heavily on trust and love.
I beg to differ on your first part. There is an alternative, which is wat he is supposed to have given to christian. He can simply treat all people as christian instead of just, well, christian.I don't think this system was set up to give people the liberty to sin, rather it was set up to give people any hope of being able to love God. I suspect only people who love sin more then Him are tempted to view it as a license to sin. I think God values our ability to choose Him or not so strongly that He did not set up a system that gives us no choice to abuse, but one where that option is open.
If it is all just about love etc, why does he pull in the picture of sin, punishment, hell etc ? One cannot order to love, it must be free will. Implementing a infinitely cruel punishment is not how u make others love u.But I think you are a little mistaken about that go to heaven despite sinning a lot part, because in my personal experience and practice with such a thingÂ… I realize it's not really the case in a sort of a way.
The real seriousness of sin is gone when jesus claim tat he take away all the sin with him. Many believe tat faith, and not work is sufficient for salvation. Furthermore the trivaility of sin simply make everybody give it out without trying. Frowning is a sin ? Think of your wife instead of god is a sin ? When u r borned u have sinned ? And all the sins, according to u, is of utmost severity. U frown 10 times in a day and in terms of sinning u have really killed 10 people in a day. If u kill 10 people in a day and control yourself not to frown for 20 times, u have committed less sins and god view u more favourably. It simply doesn't make sense to stop sinning anymore because it is silly. It has made serious sin seems juvenile.
Anybody who read the basic Christianity manual before setting out on the walk might discover repeated warnings (almost too many to count) on the real seriousness of sin. I suspect those who view grace fail to see this seriousness but it does not mean the situation is not any less serious. The truth in Christian tradition is that ever sin ends up being a barrier between us and Him, and that such wanton practice of immorality is a rather dangerous practice.Eventually I am not convinced that a Christian can sin repeatedly out of his own happy volition and end up still retaining his Christianity. This is not because God takes our salvation away but because we willingly drop it with our own hands in our actions. Grace was never a system for sin to coexist with salvation, and my own experiments with sin seem to confirm that.
Tat is very hard to say. Christianity comes in all shape and sizes, some speak tongue, some can't masturbate and some become terrorist or crusaders. I don't think u have the right to say who retains his christainity and who isn't. But anyway I am still interested to know wat sort of experiments u have conducted to be able to say for certainty tat sin cannot coexist with salvation. Surely u have not died multiple times before right ? Tat seems to be the only way u know if u have salvation or not...So will there be justice be served for them in the end? Probably. I just feel one needs to correct this misconception that the Christian faith is like getting some kind of pass stamped and to which we no longer need to do anything about (or indeed may do anything we want). It's quite another thing and really a huge battle of wills.
I believe tis is not the consensus of all the christians. There r christians tat claimed faith is everything. Furthermore, it still do not diminished the fact tat non-believers still go to hell.Well one could simply answer that the ability to have free will means the ability to have choices (obviously), but choices (and hence free will) are only valid if they have permanency and some kind of a conclusion of affairs.
Wat is your definition of free will ? Why does it become valid only if they have permanency or conclusion ? Can't it just means ability to have choices ? Actually I still do not find an answer why doesn't god just flick a finger and make men turn out to be the calibre he wish given his omnipotency. He do not need to choose since he can simple just make every men the type of people he desire. Remenber u claimed tat god want men to be corruption free. He can just turn men corruption free. Otherwise wat is the point of punishing sin ?It is all still a game.Indeed the final objective of God for man is perfection, but obviously for those who make the multitude of choices to [I]choose[/I] it. The whole game of punishment and sinner is very much of the process of choosing, where often (in my personal experience) one had to choose between the two alternatives of sin and salvation. Who wouldn't want salvation?
However the idea of sinning has become so ridiculous tat trivial actions such as sub consciencely frowning become as deadly as killing. When u r borned, u r deemed to have sinned. When u r working and did not think of god, u have sinned. They r all deadly as killing or raping a person. U don't have a choice to make as they r sub conscience and logically impossible actions to follow.So if I make the choice to want to be saved, obviously I must also choose in the end to rid the part of my volition that wants to sin permanently. Would such an eventual man resemble a robot? I do not think so for one thing he certainly choose that path, and that his volition was not violated, but willingly made to that nature.
As an omnipotent god, he can simply made men the type tat volition was not violated, but willingly made to that nature. copied from your final objective of men) No matter wat difference u stated, given the power of omnipotent, he can make men the type of person he desire. Why doesn't he just do it but instead make a whole big setup for tis game ? -
Let's face this...pple are made to be different...Originally posted by stupidissmart:As an omnipotent god, he can simply made men the type tat volition was not violated, but willingly made to that nature. copied from your final objective of men) No matter wat difference u stated, given the power of omnipotent, he can make men the type of person he desire. Why doesn't he just do it but instead make a whole big setup for tis game ?
like u...made to irritate Christians....
like Christians...made to make u hate Christianity...
All of us have different roles....so everything is planned from the start.... -
And as to why does He not simply show Himself to all people. Firstly I believe He does communicate to all people in various ways, but that people have often chosen to ignore Him. As to why He does not reveal Himself directly, this seems to me because to do so would be to strip us of any ability to choose Him or ourselves at all, we would be forced to comply.
He did reveal himself before. It is not as though he is doing something exceptionally different. And wat is wrong with simply informing us to comply ? Why the game of choosing ?In any case, it seems to me a logical impossibly even for God to currently reveal Himself irrevocably and still maintain our will to choose, and my own experience of researching the bible seems to confirm this. No matter how powerful God is, when He reached out to individuals He seemed to take great care to maintain their ability to choose. At all times they always had an alternative or a chance to turn away. Adam and Eve had the fruit, Abraham had his origin land and son, Solomon had his wisdom and riches, the Israelites had the 'comforts' of Egypt and a golden calf.
However in all the instances u given, he did appear and manifest in front of the people and they can make informed choices. Adam and eve knew god from day 1, god communicate with abraham and solomon, moses and god keep showing israelites god is present. And yet they still can make choices according to u. Why won't he show himself so we can make informed choices.Ney, I was not saying that atheism is a religion in the way we understand religion, but that atheism is like religion in many respects. Firstly like religion, it starts from its own presuppositions and builds up from that, becoming an exclusive belief set that judges all others on its own principles. In that it is not unique at all, and in many respects also a 'magic stone' of sorts of coping with the question of life.
Neh, there is a great difference between atheist and religious people. Atheist need evidence to convince him to believe. Religious people do not. If there is any presupposition, they r made of logic, evidence and science. They r not made based on blind faith and obedience. If there r overwhelming evidence tat says a religion is right, they will be the first one to convert first because they acted rationally.The question is which magic stone works... I do not believe for a moment that any logical reason exists for wanting to simply seperate atheism from other faith based beliefs simply by virtue of its naturalism. The statement that athiesm is not a magic stone can only hold true is it is made to be that if magic stones are defined by supernaturalistic thinkings.
The idea of "magic stones" is already supernaturalistic thinking.But I when I used the term magic stone, I was thinking something entirely differently. I was trying to refer to the different worldviews (magic stones including athiesm) that people hold to cope with the world. What I am trying to say here is that in this case only one stone works and the real question is finding that stone.
If u want to introduce atheist as a type of magic stone, then there must be conditions such tat tis person offer the most evidence and did not make unverified assumptions or come out with totally amazing stories tat is totally different from the real world. Tis is the part where atheist r different -
stupidissmart please try to comment with a more neutral tone, it can be quite offensive to the many christians that are reading the posts. i think it is only with proper etiquette and courtesy that such discussions can proceed effectively in forums. If you were to discuss it in a more rational and matured tone instead of rebuking it as 'illogical' and all, many christians would be more inclined to sit and properly analyse your point of view- one which i do not immediately wish to diss as invalid, but as a point worth discussing on.
In that way, more people would be able to benefit out this posts, and whether they take anything with them at the end of the day- good or bad, the very least replies would be conducive to be intellectually stimulating.
Singaporetyrranasaur has done an excellent job in that, and has pointed out both sides, i do hope you'd be able to do as such, and please do continue to comment with regards to the topic. -
Theological question: Why cannot leh?Originally posted by laurence82:But human nature/Singaporean kiasu culture should never be an excuse to falter.
obiterdicta -
Coz, then the question would be, are you trying?Originally posted by ObiterDicta:Theological question: Why cannot leh?
obiterdicta -
I believe there are various books that have addressed this particular point of yours:Originally posted by stupidissmart:Thirdly, given god omnipotency, he could just make human "free of corruption" with a flick of his fingers. Obviously at tis stage someone will mention about free will (which I maintain tat no sin doesn't means no free will since a lot of decisions r neutral such as how to play a game, when to go to toilet or which language to learn) but however note tat the final objective of wat men should be like according to SingaporeTyrannosaur is very much a "robot" as some would speak. Why go through the whole game of punishment and sinning etc ? Logically and philosophically, it doesn't make sense
1. The Problem of Pain - C. S. Lewis
2. Making Sense of Suffering - Peter Kreeft.
3. Theology and Sanity - Frank Sheed -
Right. One can honestly try and still fail, and that can honestly and realistically be attributed to human nature. The key, at least as far as Christians are concerned, is to keep trying via repentance.Originally posted by laurence82:Coz, then the question would be, are you trying?
So there's no contradiction with using the reason of human frailty in this sense.
regards,
obiterdicta -
Keyword is 'honestly'Originally posted by ObiterDicta:Right. One can honestly try and still fail, and that can honestly and realistically be attributed to human nature. The key, at least as far as Christians are concerned, is to keep trying via repentance.
So there's no contradiction with using the reason of human frailty in this sense.
regards,
obiterdicta -
Here's my simple-minded answer:Originally posted by stupidissmart:As an omnipotent god, he can simply made men the type tat volition was not violated, but willingly made to that nature. copied from your final objective of men) No matter wat difference u stated, given the power of omnipotent, he can make men the type of person he desire. Why doesn't he just do it but instead make a whole big setup for tis game ?
Because He is God. He is the uncaused First Cause. Creatures asking such questions would be meaningless, and would analogously be like Hamlet asking Shakepeare why his character was written out to be thus.
Anyway, I'm not sufficiently equipped for this debate. However, I'd like to say that your postings are very good reads and I'd welcome them warmly any time.
obiterdicta -
Right, and that's a somewhat 'subjective' test in many regards.Originally posted by laurence82:Keyword is 'honestly'