0
   

If we are already programmed, how can God judge us?

 
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 11:41 am
neologist wrote:

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.

Pretty straight forward if you ask me. Yeah, they were told not to eat the fruit else in that day they would die. But without knowledge of good and evil they did not know of good and bad choices. They got that knowledge once they ate of the tree knowledge. Idea

The flummoxed and convoluted exegesis is the one that tries to place the blame for your gods despicable behavior on Adam and Eve.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 11:50 am
I'd be more inclined to blame Satan first.

I suppose you would thank Satan for opening our eyes and curse God for this ugly planet and the awful tasting food we get each day, etc. . . .
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 11:52 am
ebrown_p wrote:
My thesis is that it is impossible to be human without having the ability to sin.
But we were created with that ability. It was the choice A & E made.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 11:57 am
neologist wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
My thesis is that it is impossible to be human without having the ability to sin.
But we were created with that ability. It was the choice A & E made.

That exegesis leaves completely out of the picture the importance gaining the knowledge of good and evil.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 12:23 pm
neologist wrote:
I'd be more inclined to blame Satan first.

I suppose you would thank Satan for opening our eyes and curse God for this ugly planet and the awful tasting food we get each day, etc. . . .


The serpent in the Garden of Eden was not Satan. This is clear because God took away the serpents feet (not Satan's). It is true that Satan is later called a "Great Serpent"... but this does not mean that the serpent in the Garden was Satan.

I suspect that God created the fruit... and the serpent as part of the plan to ensure that humans... with free will, would exist.

But....

The hear of our disagreement is whether human existence itself is good.

You describe your existence as "this ugly planet with the awful tasting food". I see it differently.

We humans live a strange and beautiful existence with struggles, victories. Life is full of problems, yet it is also full of kindness, heroism and compassion.

I thank God for the serpent. I would gladly eat the fruit all over again.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 08:19 am
mesquite wrote:
neologist wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
My thesis is that it is impossible to be human without having the ability to sin.
But we were created with that ability. It was the choice A & E made.

That exegesis leaves completely out of the picture the importance gaining the knowledge of good and evil.
Important; because . . .
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 08:30 am
ebrown_p wrote:
neologist wrote:
I'd be more inclined to blame Satan first.

I suppose you would thank Satan for opening our eyes and curse God for this ugly planet and the awful tasting food we get each day, etc. . . .


The serpent in the Garden of Eden was not Satan. This is clear because God took away the serpents feet (not Satan's). It is true that Satan is later called a "Great Serpent"... but this does not mean that the serpent in the Garden was Satan.

I suspect that God created the fruit... and the serpent as part of the plan to ensure that humans... with free will, would exist.

But....

The hear of our disagreement is whether human existence itself is good.

You describe your existence as "this ugly planet with the awful tasting food". I see it differently.

We humans live a strange and beautiful existence with struggles, victories. Life is full of problems, yet it is also full of kindness, heroism and compassion.

I thank God for the serpent. I would gladly eat the fruit all over again.
As far as the scriptures are concerned, the identity of Satan as the serpent is plain. (Revelation 12:9)

As far as living a life in a world free from war and crime and sickness and death. where I and my family could concentrate on the arts, travel, etc. I think I would prefer that to our current situation. Sorry if that doesn't' sound appealing to you.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 08:31 am
The knowledge of good and evil is a key difference that separates humans from either animals or a sophisticated computer program.

You can't have free will without this knowledge.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 08:38 am
Would you have the same opinion if you were paraplegic?

if your child had just been murdered?

etc.?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 08:41 am
As I said before the fact that Satan is described as "the Serpent" in Revelations doesn't mean that it was the same serpent in the Garden of Eden (in Genesis). There are serpents who live in the park outside my house... they aren't Satan either.

It is clear that the serpent in the Garden of Evil was not Satan when you read Genesis 3.

Quote:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.


Clearly the serpent is just one of the other wild terrestrial animals that God made when he created the Earth. This does not describe Satan-- a supernatural being who predates the Earth.

Quote:

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.


Notice that God punishes the animal. God does not say anything that would indicate that a supernatural being was involved.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 08:46 am
You didn't continue with verse 15. Why?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:22 pm
You are being silly Neo. If I had stopped at verse 15, you would have asked me why I didn't continue with verse 16.

Read the whole chapter... it is very clear that the serpent in this story refers to an animal who was part of the creation. It says as much in verse one and God addresses the animal as an animal in verses 15 and 16. There is nothing to indicate that the serpent here was an immortal supernatural being.
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 08:34 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
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?


Programs can't feel the pain of an eternity in fire.
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 08:37 pm
Re: If we are already programmed, how can God judge us?
fishin wrote:
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.


Unusual - I've never heard of this standard before, but it sure stinks of rationalization.

My whole point is that everything we do is based on our genetics! Read before commenting please!

So you're saying that William Bell won't go to Hell?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 09:39 pm
Quote:

Programs can't feel the pain of an eternity in fire.


Of course they can. Programs feel whatever they are programmed to feel.

If we are going to discuss this further, you are going to have to give me a good definition of "feeling pain".

But... programs can be given nerves that sense things that happen... just like humans have. And programs can be made to avoid certain sensations that are labeled pain... just like humans. Programs can even be made to frantically avoid their own deaths.

I think you will be hard pressed to give me a definition of pain that can't be programmed into a computer.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 10:46 am
ebrown_p, programs do whatever they are programmed to do. They may react to sensory information, but cannot "feel" anything because they have no way to generate the consciousness which is necessary to have the experience of pain.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 10:58 am
Terry,

The premise of this discussion is that humans do what they are programmed to do.

Do you want to define what you mean by "consciousness"? What would I need to do to make one of my creations (i.e. programs) "conscious"?
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 11:10 am
aperson wrote:
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?

Genes program instinctive behavior by determining how the brain is initially wired and what levels of hormones and other biochemicals are produced in response to particular stimuli. But the brain can learn to override instincts and make decisions based on other factors, because everything we experience makes a change in the way our neurons are connected. Connections can be strengthened and behavior becomes a habit when rewarded by social acceptance (wearing clothes when we are in public). Other circuits can inhibit behavior, such as learned fear of punishment.

We have no control over much of what happens to us, but at least some of us do have control over how we respond to it. Others have been programmed (by parents, teachers, peers and experiences) to believe that they have no control - and therefore they effectively don't. Animals can be trained to obey. So can people.

Abused women can be brainwashed into staying in a relationship, even overriding the instinct for self-preservation. But they can also be taught to change the way they think and take control of their lives. So who is really responsible for each decision in the chain: the abuser, the woman, the counselor, or the God whose Will is done by each person following His Plan?

Quote:
Some people physically cannot believe in God - many autistic people cannot comprehend the concept of God. Can you, or God, or anyone, judge them?
People may not be judged on their acts when the acts are beyond their control due to mental impairment (age, insanity, drugs, alcohol), unintentional (fatal auto accident due to unexpected patch of ice or fog) or justifiable (killing in self-defense or war).

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.


Judging people based on their acts is reasonable since we cannot know their minds, and they MUST be judged. The fear of judgment (jail, fines, social stigma, being fired or deprived of something we value, corporal punishment) is one of the best tools we have for modifying behavior in those individuals who were not properly socialized as children and for what ever reason failed to learn to restrain their natural instincts. One of the most ingenious inventions of Christianity was an omniscient God who sees acts we hide from others and judges thoughts as well as behavior.

If God is omniscient, he knows EXACTLY what choices we would make given any specific combination of brain wiring and circumstances. He knows what positive influences in our life would wire our brains to make good choices, and what temptations or traumas would incline us to evil. If he is omnipotent, he can control what happens to us and influence or even compel the choices we make in our lives. The threat of divine retribution is very real to a lot of people.

If we were all created equal by God, why is it that some people have no desire to lie, steal, murder, or cheat, but others have apparently irresistable compulsions to do evil (pedophile priests, moms who drown their kids, genocidal dictators)? The belief in an omniscient God is incompatible with free will, but then no one has ever proven that God is, must, or can be omnsicient.

I don't know if William Bell could have chosen not to kill when he did, but I DO know that if he had been raised in a different environment he might not have felt the desire to do so.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 11:27 am
Ebrown_p, I don't think that there is anything you can do to make programs conscious. Consciousness seems to require brain structures that I don't think can be duplicated by electronics, at least not yet. It's the difference between watching a real-time graph of you labor contractions and feeling the pain before vs after getting an anesthetic. For you men, imagine watching an EKG of your heart versus feeling your it thump in your chest.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 11:42 am
Re: If we are already programmed, how can God judge us?
aperson wrote:
fishin wrote:
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.


Unusual - I've never heard of this standard before, but it sure stinks of rationalization.


Why shouldn't there be rationalization? Isn't that what your entire premise is here? A rationalization? The fact that you've never heard of it doesn't make it invalid. It just means that you are ignorant.

Quote:


My whole point is that everything we do is based on our genetics! Read before commenting please!


I did read your drivel. And it's just that - drivel. Your entire "point" is built on a faulty premise. (And I'll also point out here that you didn't even get the name of the program you watched correctly - the name is "Beyond The Darklans" not "Criminal Minds" - and that the show's host and commentator - Nigel Latta, while a Clinical Psychologist, isn't an expert on genetics by any means.)

Everything we do is based on genetics? Absolute nonsense. Did gentics determine that I would chose to wear a blue shirt today? What genetic control is there that forced me to wear blue instead of green? Did gentics decide which shoes I'd wear today? Which TV programs I'd watch?

Sorry but genetics doesn't work at that level. Genetics might have had some influence on Bell being anti-social but that's about as far as gentics would take it. Genetics doesn't cause people to kill. Even the experts that claim that genetics affects crime will only state that genetics may make people more impulsive, antisocial, etc... Professor Adrian Raine, one of the leading proponents of a gentic link to crimiinality who has done over 100 studies on the issue found a causal link of no more than 50% attributable to genetics. Yet even he doesn't go so far as to say that genetics are responsible for crime themselves.

Quote:
So you're saying that William Bell won't go to Hell?

I said nothing of the sort. To begin with I don't buy into the concepts of heaven and hell. But beyond that this claim that his actions were programed by his genetics is one's person's opinion with no evidence to back any of the thesis. If there is a God only that god would be able to know for certain whether Bell was aware and in control of his actions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 02:53:47