Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Adam Nagy

Did God Create Evil?

Recommended Posts

It seems like you think morality is determined by divine subjectivity; ...

 

He would not act beyond it, not because He is constrained by it but because He is righteous.

 

You obviously read it. You cut it and pasted it. Yet did not understand it? Or are you trying to put words in my mouth? Surely not.

God does not act beyond the code He established. He does so by choice. God does not willy nilly change His mind and alter the code for His convenience. There is no subjective morality. One of the great blessings of the Bible is that we can rely on God to be the same as He has always been. We have no worry of whether there is a need for a virgin sacrifice today or if God will be angry tomorrow over something that He has never shown concern of before. We are clearly informed of what God expects and should never be surprised.

 

Disagree? Give evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the statement Ike, but I'm wondering if you've considered the implications?

 

If good and evil are perspective based, then sin is simply evil from God's perspective.

 

I'm not sure what implications this has exactly, but I think it's an interesting line of thought to go down. It seems philosophik has already started considering some things.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

40772[/snapback]

It is made clear that sin causes death.

 

So if the law of eternity is this also, then sin can only cause eternal damnation. To understand how eternity works in Heaven, one needs to look at what is required of us to live there. Then a set of laws can be determined from that, and more conclusions could possibly be made as well.

 

So if sin causes what is deemed as spiritual death (eternity in the lake of fire). Then being sinless is a law required to get to Heaven. Because we have a sin nature and may not like it, it does not change that law. Just like we don't like what CO2 gasses do in making green house conditions. But how do you change a law of physics? Just like how do you change the law of having to be sinless to enter Heaven? You don't. You either accept the condition that allows you to be there, or you don't. Our opinions don't change the effects of CO2 emissions no more than our opinions are going to change how we enter into Heaven.

 

Even the Bible speaks of people who will try to find other ways to enter Heaven. You know what He calls such a person or group? Thiefs. Why? They are trying to steal what Christ paid for with His life. Because if there were another way, then Christ suffered and died for nothing.

 

So that naturalists may understand things better. If a being came here to live in this universe, and he had "no" supernatural powers, or special knowledge. Would he not have to abide by the laws that govern our universe even though his universe may have been different? Just as if we want to live in the universe (Heaven) were God is, we would have to abide by those laws because that is the way it is.

 

Example: If that being from another universe came here, and tried to do something that worked in his universe like boil water with his finger but could not do it here. What would you have to explain to him? You would have to explain to him that because the barometric pressure is 14.3 psi at sea level, it raises the boiling point of water to over 200 degrees F. Even though in a vacuum water will boil at room temperature. So his finger would have to be over 200 degrees F to do this.

 

So when God explains what we must do to enter into Heaven, He is giving information to those who do not know, nor understand, how the laws in Heaven work. Just like we would have to explain that to anyone who came here from another universe with different laws.

 

For if that being had to have boiling water to survive, but would not abide by our laws to do it. He would die. As so God tells us we will die a spiritual death if we don't do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the statement Ike, but I'm wondering if you've considered the implications?

 

If good and evil are perspective based, then sin is simply evil from God's perspective.

 

I'm not sure what implications this has exactly, but I think it's an interesting line of thought to go down. It seems philosophik has already started considering some things.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

40772[/snapback]

I think you are close. Evil is sin but sin is necessarilly evil. If God indicates that I should become a Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer but I go to seminary and become a missionary instead then I have sinned, though I am not, and did no, evil.

The trick of sin is that we must realize we will sin, else we will be miserable trying to become perfected, which we cannot.

I am going to take a stab at a quick delineation between sin and evil, and probably get it wrong. So jump in here anybody . . .

Sin - Not complying with God

Evil - Acting against God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi philosophik,

 

The question that arises from this intellectual rigmarole is what does the evidnece show us? Does God play whimsically with His own freedom or is He a God who makes promises and keeps them?

40765[/snapback]

What's up Adam. I guess what I'm trying to put forward is that no meaningful conclusions can be made concerning what the evidence suggests until the fundamental principle of how god determines morality is established. There are only two ways for god to determine what is moral, either he has the ability to subjectively decide what is moral at will at any moment; with nothing influencing what direction he will take concerning the moral status of any action or motive, other than himself. Or, he has always been aware of an eternally present objective moral code of conduct that even he can't change or modify. Until we establish how the biblical god determines morality, then the evidence is inconclusive. This is because both models produce fundamentally different implications from interpreting the exact same evidence. If there is any other possibility on how the biblical god determines what morality is, I'm interested in knowing.

 

Why do you think the revelation of Jesus Christ is so important to the believer? It demonstrates to the Christian that we have a God who is a promise keeper. He is just and true.

40765[/snapback]

But who, or what determines the notion that keeping promises is true and just? Is it a divinely subjective decree, or is it an objective value that god observes and has always been aware of?

 

Science demonstrates that God does not play dice but all things consist in Him and by Him and are bound by His very Word. While you're question may seem profound in fantasy land. In reality, all observations show an order that can only come from a source that makes promises and keeps them and does not violate His own nature.

40765[/snapback]

 

While I disagree with you on what science demonstrates, I'll have to agree with you when you say my question seems profound in 'fantasy land'. That is, if by fantasy land you mean 'a place that one wants to be real'. After all, by that definition this universe is your gods 'fantasy land'. So I'll take that as a compliment. :D

 

As far as violating his own nature is concerned, that can not be addressed until we determine what the nature of his morality is--coming to an understanding on the method god employs to establish what is moral. I have presented two models, the only two possibilities I'm aware of? Which one do you think is the case? If you know of another possibility I would love to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He would not act beyond it, not because He is constrained by it but because He is righteous.

 

You obviously read it.  You cut it and pasted it.  Yet did not understand it?  Or are you trying to put words in my mouth?  Surely not. 

40787[/snapback]

I'm not asking why he follows a moral code, I'm asking what the nature of his moral code is. Does he subjectively decide what right and wrong will be, or has he always been aware of an existing objective moral code of conduct. Judging from what you said about god being the 'author of the code', it becomes apparent that you believe he subjectively created it. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm conveying what I understood you as basically saying.

 

God does not act beyond the code He established.  He does so by choice.  God does not willy nilly change His mind and alter the code for His convenience.  There is no subjective morality.

40787[/snapback]

No subjective morality? Are you saying god does not have a subjective experience? Because if he does have a subjective experience, and he established the moral code, then how is that code not subjective morality?

 

If god did indeed establish the code as you have suggested, then there is nothing stopping him from changing it's rules but himself. And if he does change them for whatever reason, it would be perfectly within his power to do so. Rendering the old code void and meaningless by virtue of his absolute authority on determining morality. Making it impossible for him to go against his good nature, not because he can't or won't perform certain actions, but because whatever he decides to do is inherently good despite if we may think a perfectly good god would do otherwise. This of course, if god determines morality with the ability to author a moral code of conduct at will.

 

One of the great blessings of the Bible is that we can rely on God to be the same as He has always been.  We have no worry of whether there is a need for a virgin sacrifice today or if God will be angry tomorrow over something that He has never shown concern of before.  We are clearly informed of what God expects and should never be surprised. 

 

Disagree?  Give evidence.

40787[/snapback]

So are you saying that if god personally told you to do something that goes against your conception of what a perfectly good god would ask, you would tell him 'no, you can't ask that of me because it goes against what I think your nature is'?

 

What you know about god's nature is only what he tells you, and I don't think you have the capacity to know if god would indeed tell different people different things especially if he did not want you to be aware of it. These are the ramifications of believing in a deity who has the absolute authority to author a moral code as he sees fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as violating his own nature is concerned, that can not be addressed until we determine what the nature of his morality is--coming to an understanding on the method god employs to establish what is moral. I have presented two models, the only two possibilities I'm aware of? Which one do you think is the case? If you know of another possibility I would love to hear it.

40795[/snapback]

 

For now let us conclude that morality is concerned with human physical and mental welfare - with our happiness. It's a simple statement that does not need God to tell us that it is true.

http://www.godwouldbeanatheist.com/6moral/601define.htm

 

Hope you don't mind me giving an opinion. Cuz I'm gonna anyway ;)

I pulled the quote above from the site I pasted. Thought you'd prefer to hear it from a kindred "spirit".

They have defined morality, acceptably I think for our discussion. They probably did not intend to, but they have also identified any notion of morality we need for your question. We have a moral code. Wether it is from God or from our own desire, it exists. Morality found within the Bible is quite similar. I know of no difference. Though I might have used joy, instead of happiness. Joy is a state of mind. Happiness is an emotion, and can be fleeting.

 

As for God and morality. If he is God then He gave us any moral awareness that we have. Only from having an awareness of morality could He complete that task. It does not follow that He must have the same moral code, only that He is aware of it. If God is equal to the claims of the Bible then He is the creator of all, inlusive of any moral code conceivable. So, subjective then. Because He could choose not to follow the code He created. That though is out of the character of God, if the Bible is accurate. Why? Because God promised to always be the same as He has always been. If He changes, He is not the God of the Bible, the Bible is false, and all bets are off.

 

I'll go off on a tangent (okay way off) but it may help you see my reasoning, as far as God always being the same. I know there will never be a flood which covers the entire world. I know this because God did flood the world and then promised never to do so again (if the Bible is accurate). The point is, He made a promise, even created the rainbow so we could see it in the sky and remember his promise.

 

I am not attempting to prove that God kept His promise or use the flood and rainbow as proof that he does keep His word. I only hope to show you that He, in the Bible has made commitments, and appears to keep them.

 

Does that get you anywhere near an answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again I say it is wrong to say evil and sin is the same thing, partaking of evil or partaking of the knowledge of evil is sin.

The first few verses of Genesis describes what evil is, "the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." That IS what evil is, chaos, nothingness, void, emptiness, darkness, no light.

God always existed but the creation did not always exist.

 

In the garden of abundance there were 2 trees the tree of knowledge [participationary or experiential knowledge] of good and evil and the tree of life.

 

The choice for mankind has always been to choose life not to choose death, man did that all by himself [Well I say, but not without the devil's deceit] he chose to go beyond and outside of creation, beyond God and thereby chose chaos over God's created order, emptiness [poverty] over God's created abundance and darkness over light. Not to put too fine a point on it he chose death over life.

 

The choice by God's great grace is STILL for man to choose life and not death.

"[Jesus has] come that ye might have life and that ye might have it more abundantly"

People who moan and bewail the health wealth gospel don't know where they are coming from, but that is a big topic and few people engaged in the argument seem to get down to all the implications-I am not condoning all that happens on American christian tv but I like alot of it.

 

Think kingdom, there in Eden-lost, re-promised to Abraham, foretold in the law and prophets, announced by Jesus, proclaimed by the apostles, believed in by the church [at least by some of the church ;) ] and will be revealed when Jesus comes. It's all kingdom and Jesus is the King and it all only works when He is. Seek ye first the kingdome of God and all these things will be added unto YOU, OOH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For now let us conclude that morality is concerned with human physical and mental welfare - with our happiness. It's a simple statement that does not need God to tell us that it is true.

http://www.godwouldbeanatheist.com/6moral/601define.htm

 

  Hope you don't mind me giving an opinion.  Cuz I'm gonna anyway ;)

I pulled the quote above from the site I pasted.  Thought you'd prefer to hear it from a kindred "spirit".

40804[/snapback]

Although I generally agree with the definition of morality you have quoted above, the definition is out of context and is not applicable to the subject of this particular discussion. If we were discussing the nature of morality from a humanist perspective, then I would accept that definition as it would be relevant in determining how moral codes are established. However, we are discussing the nature of god's morality, which is not required to be consistent with the definition you have provided.

 

  They have defined morality, acceptably I think for our discussion.  They probably did not intend to, but they have also identified any notion of morality we need for your question.  We have a moral code.  Wether it is from God or from our own desire, it exists.  Morality found within the Bible is quite similar.  I know of no difference.  Though I might have used joy, instead of happiness.  Joy is a state of mind.  Happiness is an emotion, and can be fleeting.

40804[/snapback]

Once again, for the purpose of this discussion I'm supposing that god did in fact decree a moral code of conduct to us. What the specifics of his code actually are, at this point, is irrelevant. The purpose of the discussion at hand, is to arrive at a conclusion on how it is that god determines what is moral; or in other words, what is the reason that specific actions and motives are righteous in god's eyes, while others are evil. Did he subjectively decide it as such at one point during his existence? Or, has he always been aware of the presence of an eternal moral code of conduct, one that exists independent from his volition?

 

  As for God and morality.  If he is God then He gave us any moral awareness that we have.  Only from having an awareness of morality could He complete that task.  It does not follow that He must have the same moral code, only that He is aware of it.  If God is equal to the claims of the Bible then He is the creator of all, inlusive of any moral code conceivable.  So, subjective then.  Because He could choose not to follow the code He created.  That though is out of the character of God, if the Bible is accurate.  Why?  Because God promised to always be the same as He has always been.  If He changes, He is not the God of the Bible, the Bible is false, and all bets are off.

40804[/snapback]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Allow me to paraphrase what you have said above, and correct me if I'm wrong. God has subjectively determined what will be moral, and although he has the ability to change his mind, he never will because he has promised that he would always be the same. Is this accurate?

 

  I'll go off on a tangent (okay way off) but it may help you see my reasoning, as far as God always being the same.  I know there will never be a flood which covers the entire world.  I know this because God did flood the world and then promised never to do so again (if the Bible is accurate).  The point is, He made a promise, even created the rainbow so we could see it in the sky and remember his promise. 

 

  I am not attempting to prove that God kept His promise or use the flood and rainbow as proof that he does keep His word.  I only hope to show you that He, in the Bible has made commitments, and appears to keep them. 

 

  Does that get you anywhere near an answer?

40804[/snapback]

The foundation of your line of reasoning is that god is always the same; but you then provide an example of him changing his attitude towards an action. If he is always the same, then why at one point was the action of him flooding the earth an acceptable punishment, only to be banned once he realized how unmerciful such an act was? Not only is this sequence of events not consistent with your unchanging god, but flooding the earth does not seem like something an omniscient being would do in the first place. Especially if he knew he would only promise to never do it again because of the way it would make him feel.

 

Let me ask you this: If your god personally told you that he was going to rescind his promise, and has decided to flood the whole earth again because of the wickedness, would you question the legitimacy of his divinity because he broke his promise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If God indicates that I should become a Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer but I go to seminary and become a missionary instead then I have sinned, though I am not, and did no, evil.

40794[/snapback]

Good example larry ;) I like that one.

 

To disobey God would be a sin, however it is not necessarily an evil act. Which is a concept I find interesting. It is possible to be disobedient to God but still be a perfectly good person. What do you think larry? When the time comes for judgment should people be judged on whether they lead sinful or evil lives?

 

Obviously there's going to be a lot of overlap here; in fact most of it probably overlaps, but there's definitely gaps and I think that's where things start to get interesting :D

 

I am going to take a stab at a quick delineation between sin and evil, and probably get it wrong.  So jump in here anybody . . .

  Sin - Not complying with God

  Evil - Acting against God

40794[/snapback]

Well I agree with the sin = not complying with God part, but I'm not sold on the evil one. In the old testament God ordered the killing of countless people, including their woman and children so the land could be delivered to His chosen people. In this extremely rare case I'd say that acting for God was evil. Again it comes down to perspective, and God's isn't the only perspective.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to take a stab at a quick delineation between sin and evil, and probably get it wrong.  So jump in here anybody . . .

  Sin - Not complying with God

  Evil - Acting against God

40794[/snapback]

Let me have a go at this, utilizing both models concerning the nature of god's morality that I have presented.

 

Morality based on divine subjectivity

Sin-describes actions god frowns upon

Evil-describes motives god frowns upon

 

Morality based on objective standards

Sin-are actions that are inherently bad independant of god's will

Evil-are motives that are inherently bad independant of god's will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good example larry :o I like that one.

 

Thanks. Though my faith is biblical/literal, I find it most useful to not quote the Bible in discussions in which I intend to sway the opposition. They oppose the Bible, though not necessarliy the concepts, phylosophies, etc. I also don't mind pointing out that God does not call everybody to missions.

 

To disobey God would be a sin, however it is not necessarily an evil act. Which is a concept I find interesting. It is possible to be disobedient to God but still be a perfectly good person. What do you think larry?

I think you understand my interprtation/opinion exactly. It is a source of some sadness for a Christian, knowing ("believing" from your view) that many wonderful people of great services to humanity will not reside in Heaven.

 

When the time comes for judgment should people be judged on whether they lead sinful or evil lives?

They will be judged for niether, as regards entry to Heaven. Residency in Heaven is granted for having faith that Jesus willfully gave up his sinless life for all the sins of each and every person.

 

Well I agree with the sin = not complying with God part, but I'm not sold on the evil one. In the old testament God ordered the killing of countless people, including their woman and children so the land could be delivered to His chosen people. In this extremely rare case I'd say that acting for God was evil. Again it comes down to perspective, and God's isn't the only perspective.

I understand your position.

IF God is real, then only His perspective matters.

In the presented case you are correct of the action but not the motive. From God's perspective He was removing entire poeples, nations (regardless of size) that were, in various ways, set in their opposition to the chosen of God, Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I think we are on to something... Evil is what God states is evil... things that go against His will. It kinda makes sense. God knows what God knows, and the full extent of what things are, and if he declares something as evil, then it must be evil because He is God, and He is supposed to have perfect logic and reasoning.

 

God did say that His creation was good. It was only after people went against His will that God deemed it as evil... much like Satan... who also went against God's will.

 

IF God is real, then it does make sense. Of course I believe anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I think we are on to something...  Evil is what God states is evil... things that go against His will.  It kinda makes sense.  God knows what God knows, and the full extent of what things are, and if he declares something as evil, then it must be evil because He is God, and He is supposed to have perfect logic and reasoning.

 

God did say that His creation was good.  It was only after people went against His will that God deemed it as evil... much like Satan... who also went against God's will.

 

IF God is real, then it does make sense. Of course I believe anyways.

41150[/snapback]

Excellent point scott. Who else but God could provide the definitive definition of evil. If God exists he is by definition above all other things. From what higher source could any person possibly gain a higher understanding of evil.

 

If humans possess genuine free will and God says X but we say no Z then we created evil. Should we blame God for giving us free will? Or should we use our free will to choose him and avoid evil?

 

Or maybe we should deny the very existence of God so that we can decide our own personal definition of evil and never be held accountable against a higher power. Of course, humans denying something never affected its existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what both of you are saying but here is another wrench that has been mentioned in this thread and it has to do with whether good and evil are absolute or subjective. If God decides what is right and wrong, then He 'could' have decided the opposite of what we know as right and wrong therefore making all things relative.

 

A talk that I enjoyed recently has some interesting insights about how moral law works and the differing nature of the outcome of how law is applied:

 

http://bethinking.org/download/player/jayb...ski-playingdumb

 

One example that I found fascinating is the relationship of natural law and it's consequences and implications. Their are gray areas but not necessarily because of subjectivity but understanding law and its application have differences. The example worked like this:

 

Before fast moving vehicles there was no need to dictate which side of the road one must travel on. However, with the advent of speed it became obvious that there was a need for making regulations through law. Now the circumstance does not mandate which side of the road you can drive on, right or left, but it does mandate that you must choose and enforce it. So the subjective part is real but the need to devise a system, for safety's sake, is not subjective.

 

While this example is not perfect it can relate to our relationship with God. Circumstances can reveal aspects of following the law which are subjective but that does not make the good subjective.

 

There is an interesting implication that is associated with Jesus being asked "Which is the greatest law?" Why didn't Jesus just say; all the laws are equally great... follow them all. There is an interesting thing that falls out of law that always bears on situations requiring a knowledge of hierarchy. Why?

 

Laws can and will conflict with each other unless they are qualified with an order of hierarchy as Jesus established in telling us which is the greatest law. For example; The Sabbath Law says not to work on Saturday (to the Jews) but the law also states how to be a good steward of your belongings. Well any slightly perceptive Jew would know immediately that laws could conflict with each other. What if a sheep was lost or hurt and in immediate need of attention on a Sabbath day? Which law overrides the other? Do you tend to the sheep and 'violate' the Sabbath or do you allow the sheep to perish by following the Sabbath but 'violating' the laws associated with being a good steward?

 

These 'gray areas' are used regularly to throw unnecessary confusion on to a situation. Besides, these 'gray areas' only cause confusion when the hierarchy is not respected.

 

So when someone claims to be a good person based on their lack of violence or a lack of criminal activity but they don't love God or their neighbor then all their efforts to be 'good' are in vain, because they aren't following God's will and nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alcatraz

...So when someone claims to be a good person based on their lack of violence or criminal activity but they don't love God or their neighbor then all their efforts to be 'good' are in vein because they aren't following God's will and nature.

41306[/snapback]

I was following you, and actually enjoying your reasoning up and until the part of the quote I've left intact.

 

You're definition of 'good' is based on your beliefs.

 

I'm sorry, but that is a wee bit insulting in my opinion, because then that means that no matter what good someone like myself does, I am 'evil', because I'm not a Christian.

 

I think I will stick with the secular, sociological parameters of deciding what is good and what is evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was following you, and actually enjoying your reasoning up and until the part of the quote I've left intact.

 

You're definition of 'good' is based on your beliefs.

 

I'm sorry, but that is a wee bit insulting in my opinion, because then that means that no matter what good someone like myself does, I am 'evil', because I'm not a Christian.

 

I think I will stick with the secular, sociological parameters of deciding what is good and what is evil.

41307[/snapback]

No, you are, by my reasoning, not evil. You are a sinner. We all are. Sin is not following God's choice for you. Evil is opposition to God. A little too basic, leaving both definitions open to great critisism.

I hope it allows you and I to discuss this though.

I have a great dissatisfaction with faith groups placing high value on "works". "Works" are the actions a Christian takes which will be credited toward the afterlife. Many, most, all, faith groups place some value on the works. They have nothing to do with where we spend our eternal life.

This diverts attention from the doctrine that all whom rely on ONLY the sacrifice of Jesus will gain entry to Heaven. There is no other requirement.

Then why do works? I can't explain what the value of works (good deeds) is. I need a working concept of Heaven have none. An example I use is that it may be as simple as your address; more good works equals a closer location to the throne. Rather simple and probably inaccurate.

Any help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alcatraz

Discussing sin with me would be a bit pointless as I don't subscribe to the notion of sin.

 

There is good and there is evil, and there are actions and deeds which fall in the middle.

 

Man makes his choices.

 

Then why do works?

Because I know right from wrong, and feel strongly about that, which is probably the reason I do the job I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussing sin with me would be a bit pointless as I don't subscribe to the notion of sin.

 

...

 

Because I know right from wrong....

41332[/snapback]

My irony detector is registering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're definition of 'good' is based on your beliefs.

41307[/snapback]

And my beliefs are based on that which is true.

 

I'm sorry, but that is a wee bit insulting in my opinion, because then that means that no matter what good someone like myself does, I am 'evil', because I'm not a Christian.

41307[/snapback]

Guess what? No matter what good I do, it is ultimately evil as well, that is; without the atonement of Christ. The only difference between you and me is a recognition that I need God's atoning sacrifice, whereas you don't. I would hate for you to find out the hard way. Therefore I share the good news of Jesus regardless of how many may misunderstand, get offended or get upset. I always pray for the forth type of encounter. An encounter with those who receive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alcatraz

My irony detector is registering...

41334[/snapback]

Nothing ironic there.

 

Sin is a concept. Right and wrong are facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alcatraz

And my beliefs are based on that which is true.

 

No, Adam. Your beliefs are based on what YOU believe to be true. There is a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussing sin with me would be a bit pointless as I don't subscribe to the notion of sin.

 

There is good and there is evil, and there are actions and deeds which fall in the middle.

 

Man makes his choices.

Because I know right from wrong, and feel strongly about that, which is probably the reason I do the job I do.

41332[/snapback]

You misunderstood. "Works" not work. "Works" are the actions Christians take that we believe give us positive rewards in Heaven. they are not normally relted to, but not removed from employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alcatraz

You misunderstood. "Works" not work.  "Works" are the actions Christians take that we believe give us positive rewards in Heaven.  they are not normally relted to, but not removed from employment.

41369[/snapback]

You misunderstand, Larry.

 

I believe I do good works in my everyday life, and it is my secular, temporal view of right and wrong which negates the concept of sin.

 

In using my employment I was merely stating that it is my strong sense of right and wrong which led me to becoming a Police Officer.

 

Carrying on it that vein: If I arrest someone, then I do so because the have commited an act which is illegal, an act which society has deemed to be wrong or even 'evil'.

 

I don't arrest them for sinning. Ergo one can have a sound moral base even if one does not believe in a God (or any other diety).

 

Whilst it is true that many (if not most) of our laws were born out of religious teachings, these law making abilities have evolved and devoloped into people 'knowing' right from wrong; good from evil beyond the spiritual

 

Therefore it is my argument that based on this knowledge of right and wrong, there can be a secular base for morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussing sin with me would be a bit pointless as I don't subscribe to the notion of sin.

 

There is good and there is evil, and there are actions and deeds which fall in the middle.

 

Man makes his choices.

Because I know right from wrong, and feel strongly about that, which is probably the reason I do the job I do.

41332[/snapback]

I am not attempting to discuss sin with you, it is a concept only applicable to people of faith. But the topic of the thread is evil, whether or not God created it. To discuss that matter we must differenetiate between evil and sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alcatraz

I am not attempting to discuss sin with you, it is a concept only applicable to people of faith.  But the topic of the thread is evil, whether or not God created it.  To discuss that matter we must differenetiate between evil and sin.

41373[/snapback]

In discussing sin, I was responding to something you said...

 

No, you are, by my reasoning, not evil. You are a sinner. We all are. Sin is not following God's choice for you. Evil is opposition to God. A little too basic, leaving both definitions open to great critisism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms