Some Hell/Death/Sin questions

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:

I know 3 Christian females who..........

I don't think you're going to have to answer for them.

I don't think they're going to have to answer for anything either.

Can you demonstrate that moral absolutes do not exist?

The position 'No behavior violates a moral absolute' is inherently contradictory since it states in the form of a moral absolute that moral absolutes do not exist.

I don't know how you got this post from my post...I was merely stating that I don't believe in god so I don't think they're going to have to answer for anything either.

I have no interest in starting a moral absolutes debate.

The purpose of me asking these questions is to get a better understanding of how Christians think (or what the bible says) in regards to continuous and deliberate sin, despite knowing it's wrong.

I understand that if you make a mistake one time you can be forgiven, but I was curious about how your god would feel if it wasn't a one time mistake, but more of an 'everytime' mistake that you never correct.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
You have misconstrued the concept of sin against the Holy Spirit. Basically, it involves continuing to sin in spite of knowing it is wrong. How else could you ask for forgiveness?
How else could you ask for forgiveness, well it's simple: Pascal's Wager on your deathbed.

I suppose it would be worth a try. . .

0 Replies

My God won't judge people being themselves with regular human emotions and feelings as sinners.
The God of the Bible on the other hand will.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:

I know 3 Christian females who..........

I don't think you're going to have to answer for them.

I don't think they're going to have to answer for anything either.

Can you demonstrate that moral absolutes do not exist?

The position 'No behavior violates a moral absolute' is inherently contradictory since it states in the form of a moral absolute that moral absolutes do not exist.

I don't know how you got this post from my post...I was merely stating that I don't believe in god so I don't think they're going to have to answer for anything either.

My point was that since moral absolutes exist, each of us is answerable to God for his/her own actions, not those of another.

What is the source of moral absolutes, if it is not God?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

My point was that since moral absolutes exist, each of us is answerable to God for his/her own actions, not those of another.

What is the source of moral absolutes, if it is not God?

Thats the "Get outa Jail" clause in religion, the fact is you are answerable to yourself not god, stop using religion to hide behind and face the reality of life.

0 Replies

I believe each of us are responsible for our own actions and in a sense answerable to ourselves. If one commits an act knowing the consequences in that sense we are answerable to ourselves. However, I believe we are all answerable to God for everything.

0 Replies

Quote:

My point was that since moral absolutes exist, each of us is answerable to God for his/her own actions, not those of another.

What is the source of moral absolutes, if it is not God?

Real life - how do you determine what the morals of God are?

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
My point was that since moral absolutes exist, each of us is answerable to God for his/her own actions, not those of another.

What is the source of moral absolutes, if it is not God?

Real life - how do you determine what the morals of God are?

Read the bible.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

vikorr wrote:
Quote:
My point was that since moral absolutes exist, each of us is answerable to God for his/her own actions, not those of another.

What is the source of moral absolutes, if it is not God?

Real life - how do you determine what the morals of God are?

Read the bible.

Excellent idea. Just might not bode too well for those of the "God is Love" group.

0 Replies

Getting morals from the bible is no more reliable than getting your news from Fox in my opinion.

I guess me response would be, can YOU prove that moral absolutes DO exist? We can't really prove either since its an abstract concept. Some take the bible as the source of their truth, I do not. I use my personal interaction with God, my interaction with the spirits, and good old fashioned common sense to tell me that without a doubt, moral absolutes do not exist

... but that's not proof. That's my faith in the universe.

0 Replies

curtis73 wrote:

I guess me response would be, can YOU prove that moral absolutes DO exist?

Would you agree that the position 'No behavior violates a moral absolute' is inherently contradictory since it states in the form of a moral absolute that moral absolutes do not exist?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

curtis73 wrote:
I guess me response would be, can YOU prove that moral absolutes DO exist?

Would you agree that the position 'No behavior violates a moral absolute' is inherently contradictory since it states in the form of a moral absolute that moral absolutes do not exist?

For someone who believes in moral absolutes, that is a contradictory statement. Since I do not, that is simply a nonsense statement. But, either way, just because you've stated a paradox doesn't mean that it proves or disproves anything. From my standpoint, that statement has no bearing on anything.

Dolphins don't kill other dolphins, and if they do, we don't say they're immoral, we view it as if the murderous dolphin was mentally ill, deviant, or otherwise alternatively motivated. We study it, poke it, prod it, question it, but neither we nor other dolphins put it in jail or sentence it to death. We don't even put it on trial.

A truly evolved human society works in the same way. Sin and morality are religious and societal constructs, not absolute truth. In an evolved human society, there is no poverty, theft, and murder because there is no motivation for it. Therefore if it were to happen, it would be considered a deviant illness that needs curing, not jail time. The idea of morality is a construct that was born of fear. We don't want to lose our possessions, so we make it immoral to steal. We fear that our love for our friends and spouses isn't strong enough to make it, so we make adultery immoral. We are afraid of retribution of our "transgressions" so we make lies immoral. In an evolved society there is no place for any of that; no motivation for any of that, because there is no fear to sponsor it.

We place way too much emphasis on the fear of sin and transgression that we made it "illegal" to do darn near anything that would cause personal loss. We keep fearing loss.

Human society is like 2-year olds; they just learned the concept of possession and they kick and scream and cry when they are "wronged."

0 Replies

Pauligirl wrote:

neologist wrote:
vikorr wrote:
Quote:
My point was that since moral absolutes exist, each of us is answerable to God for his/her own actions, not those of another.

What is the source of moral absolutes, if it is not God?

Real life - how do you determine what the morals of God are?

Read the bible.

Excellent idea. Just might not bode too well for those of the "God is Love" group.

Unless you really read the bible.

0 Replies

Quote:

Read the bible.

Neologist,

My point was that the bible contains examples where there aren't moral absolutes.

Thou shalt not kill - yet the bible is full of the Hebrews killing

Marriage should be monogamus, and thou shalt not commit adultery - yet Solomon had hundreds of wives and hundreds of concubines

Love thy neighbour - yet Elisha/Elijah (don't recall which) cursed children for calling him an old baldy, the Israelites invaded/murdered their neighbours etc etc

The old testament tells the Israelites not to eat animals with cloven hooves, yet Romans 14:2 says "For one believeth that he may eat all things : another, who is weak, eateth herbs" (only have a KJV hanging around still)...

...14:5 One man esteemeth one day about another : another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

...14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself : but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

It seems rather clear to me that the bible itself doesn't much agree with moral absolutes. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. And what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander.

0 Replies

If humans created God and God's rules than it's understandable that the rules will change over time. A striking example is the Mormon Church. Not to long ago, under pressure of the Federal governemnt, God changed his mind and decided black people weren't so bad after all.

Quote:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).

http://www.carm.org/lds/quote_by.htm

Quote:

In June of 1978, the LDS-owned Deseret News newspaper printed an announcement by the LDS First Presidency stating that God, by revelation, would now allow all worthy male members in the LDS Church to receive the priesthood as well as "blessings of the temple." (Deseret News, 6/9/78, 1A). This "revelation," known as Official Declaration 2, can be found in printed form at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants.

http://www.mrm.org/topics/miscellaneous/black-skin-and-seed-cain

At one time God told Jews to kill their disobedient children.

Then he changed his mind.

He told them not to eat pigs.

It's still unknown if God changed his mind. Jews and Muslims say no and Christians say yes.

The nice thing about God and religion is we can make it whatever we want. Over 9,000 Christian denominations worldwide prove that.

We make God and mold it into our image.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Read the bible.

Neologist,

My point was that the bible contains examples where there aren't moral absolutes.

Thou shalt not kill - yet the bible is full of the Hebrews killing

Marriage should be monogamus, and thou shalt not commit adultery - yet Solomon had hundreds of wives and hundreds of concubines

Love thy neighbour - yet Elisha/Elijah (don't recall which) cursed children for calling him an old baldy, the Israelites invaded/murdered their neighbours etc etc

The old testament tells the Israelites not to eat animals with cloven hooves, yet Romans 14:2 says "For one believeth that he may eat all things : another, who is weak, eateth herbs" (only have a KJV hanging around still)...

...14:5 One man esteemeth one day about another : another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

...14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself : but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

It seems rather clear to me that the bible itself doesn't much agree with moral absolutes. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. And what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander.

The commandment was against murder, not killing.

The Jewish law was no longer an obligation after being fulfilled by Jesus.

All those who died without knowing the true God will have a chance to live again. (See John 5:28, 29)

0 Replies

Quote:

The commandment was against murder, not killing.

The Jewish law was no longer an obligation after being fulfilled by Jesus.

All those who died without knowing the true God will have a chance to live again. (See John 5:28, 29)

Isn't that just your interpretation, or the interpretation of scholars and monks? The sentence in the bible reads, "thou shalt not kill." But HUMANS decided that "kill" must mean "wrongfully murder." Otherwise we couldn't have our death penalty and our legal system would fall apart

When Jesus came and changed everything, isn't that yet another example of how God just changed his mind according the christian church? How about the Flood and Noah? He just wiped the slate clean because he made a mistake? How about Adam and Eve. How could god be so perfect that his first humans were such screw-ups?

And that last statement is one of the weirdest ones. Christianity preaches that you get once chance, no reincarnation. Either know jesus or rot in hell, period. But this citation from John suggests that if you are an atheist or worship the "wrong" god, you get another chance to come back.

This verse is also something that is very common in Hindu writings. The point of achieving Moksha (release from the circle of rebirth) is that each time around you get closer to god by self-realization. Once you've learned (that is to say remembered) that you are a divine part of god, there is nothing more earthly for you to learn and your soul stops incarnating.

I think its more likely that OUR views of god have changed. To admit a fundamentalist approach to the bible simply suggests that you think god started out a spiteful child who made many mistakes in Genesis, and then ended up the wise, intuitive, loving, and strict god of Revelations. If god is the all, everything, and the big cheese, how could he be so fickle? I think its more likely that is not GOD that has changed, its our opinion.

I personally think that organized religion has about 10% of it right at best. The rest is just caustic misinterpretation. Its not your fault really... its the extensive editing done to the original writings. There are little tidbits of unadulterated wisdom like that verse quoted from John, but they don't discuss that in sermon. They don't lend any weight to the fact that it could suggest that reincarnation is a fact. Yet another example of how religion picks and chooses what is important to THEM. If you're going to follow a book as your gospel truth, you can't pick and choose what you believe from it.

0 Replies

A Google search of Exodus 20:13 should clarify the murder/kill question.

Jesus' place in the equation was foretold in Genesis chapter 3.

Nominal christians in general have little understanding of the term 'mercy'.

If God did, in fact, inspire the original writings, he would certainly be capable of guarding their copy and translation.

The failure of Adam and Eve was the result of free will, a term not well received in the S&R forum.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

If God did, in fact, inspire the original writings, he would certainly be capable of guarding their copy and translation.

The failure of Adam and Eve was the result of free will, a term not well received in the S&R forum.

I agree... but I think these two things could be in conflict. Couldn't man use their god-given free will to alter the writings however they wish? Would god choose which free wills to constrict?

0 Replies

curtis73 wrote:

neologist wrote:

If God did, in fact, inspire the original writings, he would certainly be capable of guarding their copy and translation.

The failure of Adam and Eve was the result of free will, a term not well received in the S&R forum.

I agree... but I think these two things could be in conflict. Couldn't man use their god-given free will to alter the writings however they wish? Would god choose which free wills to constrict?

You would be correct if God had it in his mind to abandon us. I personally think there is evidence to the contrary.

The clergy serve their own ends simply by obfuscating the word. But the word is still there.

0 Replies

Some Hell/Death/Sin questions

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know