27 Sep 12
I have often argued that I am not to blame for something built in to me by my creator or imposed on me because of something one of my ancestors did. I was thinking about this and I realized this might explain part of the attraction of Christianity. A Christian can deny responsibility for his actions by labelling his misbehaviour as part of his 'sin nature' for which Adam or Satan are ultimately responsible. Not only this but they do not even have to try to improve themselves, instead they call on God to do all the work for them and pray 'Please God, make me a better man for your sake'. And if there is no change in their behaviour they can essentially blame God for not doing anything about it.
27 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe ultimate blame lies with each of us, because we have been provided the way by Christ to escape the law of sin and death and live by the law of love.
I have often argued that I am not to blame for something built in to me by my creator or imposed on me because of something one of my ancestors did. I was thinking about this and I realized this might explain part of the attraction of Christianity. A Christian can deny responsibility for his actions by labelling his misbehaviour as part of his 'sin nature ...[text shortened]... no change in their behaviour they can essentially blame God for not doing anything about it.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
27 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe same question lies with a non smoker who contracts lung cancer. You deal with it. And RJ is correct, a solution is available.....
I have often argued that I am not to blame for something built in to me by my creator or imposed on me because of something one of my ancestors did. I was thinking about this and I realized this might explain part of the attraction of Christianity. A Christian can deny responsibility for his actions by labelling his misbehaviour as part of his 'sin nature ...[text shortened]... no change in their behaviour they can essentially blame God for not doing anything about it.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
28 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by checkbaiterThat's an interesting analogy. To the degree it fits, clinical trials of the proposed solution are appropriate. In the meantime, anecdotal evidence of the efficacy and side effects of the proposed solution can be considered to aid in risk-benefit analysis and study design. Who do you suppose is qualified to be on the IRB?
The same question lies with a non smoker who contracts lung cancer. You deal with it. And RJ is correct, a solution is available.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by JS357That is not the point, I could have used a lot of different analogies. The old saying don't cry over spilled milk, may fit. Once we have the ailment, who is to blame is irrelevant.
That's an interesting analogy. To the degree it fits, clinical trials of the proposed solution are appropriate. In the meantime, anecdotal evidence of the efficacy and side effects of the proposed solution can be considered to aid in risk-benefit analysis and study design. Who do you suppose is qualified to be on the IRB?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board
The point is, what to do with it.
Further more, God does not do all the work...
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you essentially do not take any blame for 'the law of sin and death' but only for not avoiding it?
The ultimate blame lies with each of us, because we have been provided the way by Christ to escape the law of sin and death and live by the law of love.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by checkbaiterSo am I correct that you do not feel responsible for contracting this 'lung cancer' known as original sin? What about when you sin yourself? Can you blame your 'sin nature' and thus shirk some of the responsibility?
The same question lies with a non smoker who contracts lung cancer. You deal with it. And RJ is correct, a solution is available.....
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by checkbaiterIt is very relevant because it affects whether or not you take responsibility and how you go about correcting the behaviour or not. My claim here is that Christians generally show less guilt/remorse/personal responsibility for bad behaviour and thus are less likely to correct that behaviour and also find comfort in a theology that lets them shift the blame.
Once we have the ailment, who is to blame is irrelevant.
Similarly, forgiveness of sins seems to be the biggest selling point of Christianity, but as I say it is noticeable that even after being forgiven and having their sins 'washed away' Christians rarely actually admit responsibility for those sins and prefer to blame Satan or their 'sin nature'.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by checkbaiterIf you want to retreat from the idea that your proposed solution meets the standards by which we test proposed treatments for maladies like lung cancer, that's OK by me. Your analogy fails, that's all. Maybe you could use a lot of different analogies, and maybe they all fail. Analogies are never a good argument anyway. They only appeal to the already convinced.
That is not the point, I could have used a lot of different analogies. The old saying don't cry over spilled milk, may fit. Once we have the ailment, who is to blame is irrelevant.
The point is, what to do with it.
Further more, God does not do all the work...
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually I see it quite the opposite. Believers recognize when they have done something bad, and feel very guilty over it. The believer, knowing that his/her bad behavior has not gone unnoticed by God, is driven to repent and correct the behavior.
My claim here is that Christians generally show less guilt/remorse/personal responsibility for bad behaviour and thus are less likely to correct that behaviour and also find comfort in a theology that lets them shift the blame.
Going all the way to the core of it, I do hold God responsible for all things, good or bad. How could God not be ultimately responsible when He created all of it from scratch in the first place? However that doesn't in any way whatsoever absolve the creation from responsibility when it does something bad, especially when it knows better in the first place.
It's not as if responsibility for evil acts must either be God's responsibility or the evildoer's responsibility. God created us with the ability to commit sin. What we do with that ability and the choices we make, are our responsibility.
It's kind of ironic. It seems as though most unbelievers think the only way God could have been fair is for Him to have created us with the inability to sin. But really, what sense does that make? He might as well have just built a bunch of robots, programmed to love Him unconditionally, with no choice to do anything else. That certainly wouldn't be satisfactory to God, or any of us. But again, when you boil down much of the arguments presented against God, this is what the unbelievers seem to be in favor of. They basically argue that since God gave us the ability not to love Him, and the ability to sin, then He has no right to punish us for acting on that ability.
Seems to me that what God was after, was to create special beings that have the choice to love Him or hate Him, and then in the end, provide a permanent place alongside Him for all those who love Him, and reject the rest. Wheat, chaff, and all that.
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by sumydidSeems to me that God, being omniscient, could have created only people who would come to love Him, and not create the rest. Wheat, and only that.
Seems to me that what God was after, was to create special beings that have the choice to love Him or hate Him, and then in the end, provide a permanent place alongside Him for all those who love Him, and reject the rest. Wheat, chaff, and all that.
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitExactly! But we have to remember, the idea is, all this is for God's glory and pleasure. God chose to do it the way He is doing it.
Seems to me that God, being omniscient, could have created only people who would come to love Him, and not create the rest. Wheat, and only that.
Like I said before, God could have just created a bunch of robots that automatically, and without choice, love Him unconditionally. Seems to me that the bible has taken great pains to explain to us that God (for His own divine pleasure) appreciates much more, for someone to favor Him over all the other choices.
Imagine you are a great king and you fall in love with a peasant girl. Sure, you could (and many kings did I'm sure) exercise your power and force her against her will to serve you, marry you, and all that. But--if you are a decent human being at all--your satisfaction would turn hollow and empty as you discover that she's not with you because she loves you, she's with you because you gave her no choice.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by sumydid"Like I said before, God could have just created a bunch of robots that automatically, and without choice, love Him unconditionally."
Exactly! But we have to remember, the idea is, all this is for God's glory and pleasure. God chose to do it the way He is doing it.
Like I said before, God could have just created a bunch of robots that automatically, and without choice, love Him unconditionally. Seems to me that the bible has taken great pains to explain to us that God (for His own di ...[text shortened]... hat she's not with you because she loves you, she's with you because you gave her no choice.
It follows that you believe that God could not have created beings who, not automatically, but with choice, love Him unconditionally. This was impossible for Him. Right?
28 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357I don't know where you got that idea. No, it doesn't follow. I certainly never said, or even hinted at such a thing. In fact, my very statement that you quoted refutes your suggestion. I started it off with "God could have...."
"Like I said before, God could have just created a bunch of robots that automatically, and without choice, love Him unconditionally."
It follows that you believe that God could not have created beings who, not automatically, but with choice, love Him unconditionally. This was impossible for Him. Right?
28 Sep 12
An omniscient god created us all and endowed us with the ability to be evil
(why?), continues to allow evil deeds (either complacent or maybe not so
omnipotent) and then has the gall to say the way to redemption is through his
son?!?!
THE STORY MAKES NO SENSE
The characters in this fairy tale have no motivation!