Reply
Wed 30 Jan, 2008 05:11 pm
One of the things that put's me off Christianity, in particular heaven and hell and the judging of sins, is that how can God judge us, when we were always programmed to be who we are by our genes.
Last night I watched a "Criminal Minds" doco on the New Zealand psychopathic multiple murderer William Bell. At the beginning of this decade, William Bell killed several people in cold blood, one with a gun, the rest with a police baton. A detailed analysis of his life showed that he was highly intelligent, but showed no remorse for his crimes. In other words, he physically had no conscience.
At the end of the show, the presenter (an expert on the topic) said, "Would William Bell have killed if he hadn't been bought up in such a hostile environment? I think the answer is yes: his upbringing only took a broken thing and made it sharper."
He was always bound to kill. It was programmed into his genes.
How can God send him to Hell?
At first this sounds like a thoughtless question, but think about it - William Bell's genes made him a criminal. He had no overall choice in the matter. He had no conscience to tell apart good from bad. Surely it is unfair to program someone to be a killer and then punish him for it?
We are all programmed by our genes. Some people are programmed to be good loving people. Others are programmed to be psychopathic. We don't decide how we are programmed, and although you may say we can change ourselves, well, do you think William Bell could physically change himself?
Some people physically cannot believe in God - many autistic people cannot comprehend the concept of God. Can you, or God, or anyone, judge them?
Judge people based on their acts is senseless, unfair and ridiculous.
"Oh, but people make their own decisions, can't they? It's really down to them to choose between Good and Evil, right?"
Wrong. Acts are based on decisions. Decisions are based on genes.
Some of you may have noticed that this means that there is no free will. No, there is no free will, as I have said numerous times before.
And we should still send people to jail, of course. I'm not suggesting anarchy, because prison protects the rest of us, as well as (maybe) making people change their ways.
So there you go.
Comments?
You used the word "programmed" which is interesting. I happen to be a programmer.
Sometimes I make a program that is very good. It does what it is supposed to, and is elegant as well. There are some designs that I am quite pleased with.
At other times, I have an idea that turns into a design that has no right to exist. This could be because I didn't think of a problem with my solution before I started writing the program. Or I could have just had an off day.
When I write a bad program, I either just abandon it, or I delete it completely. These programs don't have any right to complain (and I have no responsibility to listen to their complaints).
The fact that I am a good programmer doesn't mean that I will think all of my works are worth it.
aperson wrote: If we are already programmed, how can God judge us?
Answer:
When Adam and Eve were created, they had only one moral choice: whether or not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
Now this explanation will no doubt bring much caterwauling and sophomoric sputtering - - But.
Adam and Eve
chose to follow their own course of action and make moral decisions on their own.
Didn't work out too well, as it turns out.
neologist wrote:aperson wrote: If we are already programmed, how can God judge us?
Answer:
When Adam and Eve were created, they had only one moral choice: whether or not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
Now this explanation will no doubt bring much caterwauling and sophomoric sputtering - - But.
Adam and Eve
chose to follow their own course of action and make moral decisions on their own.
Didn't work out too well, as it turns out.
Neologist,
I disagree with your assessment that it didn't work out too well.
Before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they were not human. They had no temptation, no moral weakness... but they were also unable to show heroism or passion.
And what is love... when love is not a choice. It is our very capability to hate that makes love so powerful.
Without the gift of the serpent, there would be no humanity. Sin is the only thing that differentiates human beings from the programs I write (which are unable to disobey but also unable to love me).
I think humanity is a very good thing.
ebrown_p wrote: neologist wrote:aperson wrote: If we are already programmed, how can God judge us?
Answer:
When Adam and Eve were created, they had only one moral choice: whether or not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
Now this explanation will no doubt bring much caterwauling and sophomoric sputtering - - But.
Adam and Eve
chose to follow their own course of action and make moral decisions on their own.
Didn't work out too well, as it turns out.
Neologist,
I disagree with your assessment that it didn't work out too well.
Before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they were not human. They had no temptation, no moral weakness... but they were also unable to show heroism or passion.
Really, were you there?
ebrown_p wrote:
And what is love... when love is not a choice. It is our very capability to hate that makes love so powerful.
Where did they not have a choice?
ebrown_p wrote:
Without the gift of the serpent, there would be no humanity. Sin is the only thing that differentiates human beings from the programs I write (which are unable to disobey but also unable to love me).
I think humanity is a very good thing.
Gift of the serpent?
Just trying to follow you here, neologist...
So, William bell killed because Eve ate an apple from the tree of knowledge?
William Bell was not genetically programmed to kill. He could have chosen otherwise. Its not entirely "nature" there is "nurture" involved too. That has been proven many times with "good" and "bad" identical twins. They are 100% genetically equal, but they make different choices and lead different paths.
I personally don't believe that god judges at all. It would not be an omnipotent being if it required of itself to punish those who didn't kiss its butt. Judgement is purely a human action.
Neologist,
The idea of the story of Adam and Eve that you refer to is that if they hadn't eaten the apple... then I would not have the possibility to sin.
My point is that without the possibility of sin, I would not be human.
I assume you agree that me not loving my wife would be a sin. I am only pointing out that if I did not have the ability (i.e. choice) of loving my wife or not, the fact that I do love my wife would be meaningless.
Yes... free will is a great gift. And if the serpent had not given us the ability to sin, we would have no free will.
In the Genesis story God created the bodies of man and woman... but before they ate the fruite Adam and Eve were not human.
It was the gift of the serpent that made us human.
ebrown_p wrote:Neologist,
The idea of the story of Adam and Eve that you refer to is that if they hadn't eaten the apple... then I would not have the possibility to sin.
My point is that without the possibility of sin, I would not be human.
I assume you agree that me not loving my wife would be a sin. I am only pointing out that if I did not have the ability (i.e. choice) of loving my wife or not, the fact that I do love my wife would be meaningless.
Yes... free will is a great gift. And if the serpent had not given us the ability to sin, we would have no free will.
In the Genesis story God created the bodies of man and woman... but before they ate the fruite Adam and Eve were not human.
It was the gift of the serpent that made us human.
Adam and Eve
chose sin of their own free will. You have placed yourself in the position of condoning thousands of years of human misery. Is that really your point?
Neo,
Would you really prefer a world where "humans" were incapable of sin?
It is our weakness and our temptations that make the human experience worth living.
Without them, there would be no heroism, no struggle, no overcoming. All of the glorious times in human history would be unnecessary, all of the great acts of compassion would be rote, all of the self-sacrificing would be pointless, all of the incredible acts of kindness empty and commonplace.
Think of the people who love you... doesn't the fact that you need to make yourself emotionally vulnerable, to trust even though you risk pain mean something? If love becomes just another reflexive act, does it have any more meaning than breathing or blinking.
Yes misery is part of the human experience, but so is selfless kindness, courage in the face of trials and a love that chooses to put the interests of another over your own interests .
Would you really want to give that up?
Re: If we are already programmed, how can God judge us?
aperson wrote:One of the things that put's me off Christianity, in particular heaven and hell and the judging of sins, is that how can God judge us, when we were always programmed to be who we are by our genes.
Last night I watched a "Criminal Minds" doco on the New Zealand psychopathic multiple murderer William Bell. At the beginning of this decade, William Bell killed several people in cold blood, one with a gun, the rest with a police baton. A detailed analysis of his life showed that he was highly intelligent, but showed no remorse for his crimes. In other words, he physically had no conscience.
At the end of the show, the presenter (an expert on the topic) said, "Would William Bell have killed if he hadn't been bought up in such a hostile environment? I think the answer is yes: his upbringing only took a broken thing and made it sharper."
He was always bound to kill. It was programmed into his genes.
How can God send him to Hell?
At first this sounds like a thoughtless question, but think about it - William Bell's genes made him a criminal. He had no overall choice in the matter. He had no conscience to tell apart good from bad. Surely it is unfair to program someone to be a killer and then punish him for it?
We are all programmed by our genes. Some people are programmed to be good loving people. Others are programmed to be psychopathic. We don't decide how we are programmed, and although you may say we can change ourselves, well, do you think William Bell could physically change himself?
Some people physically cannot believe in God - many autistic people cannot comprehend the concept of God. Can you, or God, or anyone, judge them?
Judge people based on their acts is senseless, unfair and ridiculous.
"Oh, but people make their own decisions, can't they? It's really down to them to choose between Good and Evil, right?"
Wrong. Acts are based on decisions. Decisions are based on genes.
Some of you may have noticed that this means that there is no free will. No, there is no free will, as I have said numerous times before.
And we should still send people to jail, of course. I'm not suggesting anarchy, because prison protects the rest of us, as well as (maybe) making people change their ways.
So there you go.
Comments?
So, just because someone on TV says 'Man has no freewill' , you swallow it hook , line and sinker?
Your post is just a list of assumptions you parrot, with nothing to back them.
Quote:we were always programmed to be who we are by our genes.
he physically had no conscience
He was always bound to kill. It was programmed into his genes.
He had no overall choice in the matter
No, there is no free will
Why did you write this?
Did you have no choice in the matter?
ebrown_p wrote:Neo,
Would you really prefer a world where "humans" were incapable of sin?
. . .
Adam and Eve were capable of only
one sin until they chose to set standards for themselves.
So, my answer to your question is a qualified no.
Quote:Neo,
Would you really prefer a world where "humans" were incapable of sin?
It is our weakness and our temptations that make the human experience worth living.
Without them, there would be no heroism, no struggle, no overcoming. All of the glorious times in human history would be unnecessary, all of the great acts of compassion would be rote, all of the self-sacrificing would be pointless, all of the incredible acts of kindness empty and commonplace.
Think of the people who love you... doesn't the fact that you need to make yourself emotionally vulnerable, to trust even though you risk pain mean something? If love becomes just another reflexive act, does it have any more meaning than breathing or blinking.
Yes misery is part of the human experience, but so is selfless kindness, courage in the face of trials and a love that chooses to put the interests of another over your own interests .
Would you really want to give that up?
My point is this...
Your proposal is to wipe out all of human history since the fall of man. And, you want to take away the very things that make us human.
What would be left is a being that was incapable of doing anything other than what its creator wants.
I would not want to be such a being; an obedient drone with no ability to be either villain or hero, nor would I consider it human.
e_brown,
I'm not sure whether your post is suppose to have any relevence to the topic. It doesn't. No hard feelings eh?
Neologist,
1) I go with Squinney. Confusion.
2) But Adam and Eve were always destined to eat the fruit. Acts are derived from decisions. Decisions are derived from genes.
3) You believe in a literal Bible? [Inserting earplugs]
curtis,
Thank you for driving me to thoughts of suicide. So you're saying that people don't choose their nature, but do choose their nurture?
real life,
Thank you for calling me a parrot. It is much appreciated. The guy got me thinking. Once again, you don't read my post. And let's not get into free will. Just one thing: Acts = Decisons. Decisions = Nature (and Nurture, if you want to be picky.) If future, I would like it if you actually read the post before commenting.
Quote:
I'm not sure whether your post is suppose to have any relevence to the topic. It doesn't. No hard feelings eh?
God made you say that, but apparently God hasn't planned for me to have hard feelings.
But...
My first post answered your initial question directly.
You initial post was asking it it is "fair" for a creator to harshly judge his creation.
I answered as a creator.
I have no problem with judging my own creations... or even of condemning them, when they don't live up to my standards.
I don't care if this is "fair" or not-- why should God?
Re: If we are already programmed, how can God judge us?
aperson wrote:One of the things that put's me off Christianity, in particular heaven and hell and the judging of sins, is that how can God judge us, when we were always programmed to be who we are by our genes.
The concept of sinning, in most all Christian faiths, requires that the person be capable of recognizing and acting against sinning but chooses not too. For that reason, the mentally impaired and infants aren't held to the same standard a "normal" adult would be held to.
If someone acted based entirely on a genetic trait, Christian theology holds that it wouldn't be considered a sin so your entire rant here goes down the drain.
ebrown_p wrote: What would be left is a being that was incapable of doing anything other than what its creator wants.. . .
You are missing the point in a large way. There will always be the choice of whether or not to accept God's sovereignty.
Check sig line.
neologist wrote:ebrown_p wrote: What would be left is a being that was incapable of doing anything other than what its creator wants.. . .
You are missing the point in a large way. There will always be the choice of whether or not to accept God's sovereignty.
Check sig line.
That clearly isn't true. The choice of whether or not to accept God's sovereignty is a uniquely human trait.
Trees (although they are alive) obviously don't have the choice of whether to accept God's sovereignty. Trees always do God's will. It seems obvious to me that dogs don't have this ability either. Isn't the ability to sin one of the primary things that separates humans from the animals?
We got the ability to choose whether to obey God or not when Adam and Eve ate the fruit.... and it was at this exact moment that we became human.
ebrown_p wrote:neologist wrote:ebrown_p wrote: What would be left is a being that was incapable of doing anything other than what its creator wants.. . .
You are missing the point in a large way. There will always be the choice of whether or not to accept God's sovereignty.
Check sig line.
That clearly isn't true. The choice of whether or not to accept God's sovereignty is a uniquely human trait.
Trees (although they are alive) obviously don't have the choice of whether to accept God's sovereignty. Trees always do God's will. It seems obvious to me that dogs don't have this ability either. Isn't the ability to sin one of the primary things that separates humans from the animals?
We got the ability to choose whether to obey God or not when Adam and Eve ate the fruit.... and it was at this exact moment that we became human.
HMM!
They were told not to eat the fruit.
So, you are saying they did not
choose to eat the fruit. It was only after they ate the fruit, doubtlessly due to some confluence of astral forces, that they were able to choose.
Quite a flummoxed and convoluted exegesis, I must say.
My thesis is that it is impossible to be human without having the ability to sin.
The premise of this discussion is that had Adam and Eve not eaten the fruit, that it would be impossible for us to choose to sin. Without this ability, we would have neither the pain nor the glory that define human existence.
I am arguing that humanity-- with all of its flaws and its struggles and its tragedies and its heroism-- is a good thing.
If Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit we would not have any of these experiences.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace