(June 12, 2016 at 8:56 am)robvalue Wrote: Ok thanks ignorant I can sort of see where you're coming from.

What happens if I sin then? [1] Surely I have sinned at points in my life, according to most people. I apologize to wronged parties for my mistakes and I try to learn from them. In other words, I try to make ammends. [2] But I don't feel I owe anything to any sort of deity, nor do I enter into any bargain with them. [3]

What shall become of me? [4]

Thank you for your very thorough and thoughtful answers. I'm glad you agree about animals!

Steve: It only takes one sin for what? And apparently I already have it (original sin), so what's my incentive not to do more?

I certainly don't love God, because I don't even know what it is, nor have I ever met it. I have no feelings about it.

1) The same thing that happens to everyone else, you miss out on the fullness of human life.

2) Forgiveness and reconciliation are essential to a full human life. Keep that up!

3) I imagine it is difficult to feel like you owe something to some thing you don't think exists. =)

4) How could I know? I would have to either be you or God to know how culpable you are for the way you live/have lived and to know what will become of you in the future or eternity. 

What I can say is that continuing down that road, you may or may not reach a sort of human happiness through the human relationships you described as growing through reconciliation and forgiveness. God is offering you something that goes beyond that. He is offering you a share in his own divine happiness which you can reach through your humanity, through your human relationships, and through a relationship with divinity itself which grows through reconciliation and forgiveness. Right now, you don't believe that offer is real, much less the God who supposedly offers it. Who knows, maybe he'll give it to you anyway at the moment you die, just to show you how much he loves you.

Thank you for your reply

You're right, I don't believe your description of God exists. I don't even understand what it is. I would expect any actual creator to be far more mundane, and unlikely to even be aware of me. Or any of us.

If God is trying to communicate with me in some way, he should be aware that he is failing. He should also be aware of how he could alter his strategy in order to succeed. So I can only assume he doesn't want to succeed.

Jonathan Haidt in his work on moral foundations found that people often distinguish between two different types of moral transgression. Moral transgressions which are actual moral violations, such as harm of another person, and moral faults that are more violations of social conventions rather than actual wrongs. It was found that violations of the latter type were more easily excused than those of the former. If sin is just a measure of what God wants, or what God intended us to be, it seems that this falls in the latter category as well. It's someone's expectation of us. It isn't true moral harm in the way that certain transgressions are. Making it 'About God' seems to take the teeth out of any Christian moral framework. It's taking something that should be about real violations and making it merely a betrayal of God's conventions. I think that's part of why nonbelievers don't take 'sin' seriously, beyond not believing in God.

(June 12, 2016 at 2:00 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Jonathan Haidt in his work on moral foundations found that people often distinguish between two different types of moral transgression.  Moral transgressions which are actual moral violations, such as harm of another person, and moral faults that are more violations of social conventions rather than actual wrongs.  It was found that violations of the latter type were more easily excused than those of the former.  If sin is just a measure of what God wants, or what God intended us to be, it seems that this falls in the latter category as well.  It's someone's expectation of us.  It isn't true moral harm in the way that certain transgressions are.  Making it 'About God' seems to take the teeth out of any Christian moral framework.  It's taking something that should be about real violations and making it merely a betrayal of God's conventions.  I think that's part of why nonbelievers don't take 'sin' seriously, beyond not believing in God.

Well, sin isn't a measure of what God wants. God wants the opposite. What we are is the measure of what God wants. Sin makes us less than what we are/what we are capable of being.

Actions which correspond to what-we-are and add to the fullness of what-we-are are good actions.

I am not familiar with Haidt's work, so I can't comment on his position really.

Just for the record, I am not really proposing an explicitly Christian moral framework. Christianity would only come into play with an assertion that participation in the life of Jesus Christ is the actual source and goal of humanity achieving divine happiness. Without specifying the thing(s) in which human fulfillment is found, I am merely proposing a framework within which the concept of sin can be intelligible, with or without God's existence. Human fulfillment is the measure of morality. If an action leads to human fulfillment (whatever that may mean), then it is a good action. If an action is not capable of leading to human fulfillment, then it is sin (it "misses the mark", it "turns away", it "breaks the law" of happiness, etc.).

(June 12, 2016 at 1:20 pm)robvalue Wrote: Thank you for your reply

You're right, I don't believe your description of God exists. I don't even understand what it is. I would expect any actual creator to be far more mundane, and unlikely to even be aware of me. Or any of us. [1]

If God is trying to communicate with me in some way, he should be aware that he is failing. He should also be aware of how he could alter his strategy in order to succeed. So I can only assume he doesn't want to succeed. [2]

Anytime, Rob.

1) A perfectly reasonable expectation.

2) Fair enough... but it also may be a premature assumption. Maybe he wants to succeed in the future? Maybe not?

Well thank you

I'm used to being blamed for "not listening". Maybe he will succeed in the future. I'm perfectly open to communication with all reasonable beings.

I've been on the brink of killing myself for 10 years, you'd think he would have popped in to say hi just in case by now.

(June 12, 2016 at 3:18 pm)robvalue Wrote: Well thank you

I'm used to being blamed for "not listening". Maybe he will succeed in the future. I'm perfectly open to communication with all reasonable beings.

I've been on the brink of killing myself for 10 years, you'd think he would have popped in to say hi just in case by now.

=)

That sounds like an incredibly difficult struggle, Rob, and I'm moved by your perseverance. If God doesn't pop in, I hope you keep listening to everyone else who would like you to stick around for much longer than 10 years (myself included)!

Okay my picture didn't work but it says;

I am not evil,
I am not fallen,
I am not a sinner,
I am not an abomination.

I am simply a primate trying to do the least amount of damage and experience the most happiness on this rock until I am recycled back into the universe.

I find this wonderful and I feel like it goes along with this thread. Now to catch up for what I missed over the weekend.

---

I think Robvalue pretty much carried much of my own side of the argument by saying what I was thinking as I read everything I missed. I thoroughly enjoyed Ignorant's side of the debate as well. Honestly Steve II the more you added the more I felt my original point driven home.
 
Despite Ignorant's well said arguments I can't help but feel the whole sin thing is just a mess and proof that this is all man made. And then this...

Quote:SteveII
You are still confusing inheriting a sin nature with what you are going to be punished for. 

To be more precise you have to understand the before and after. Before Adam's sin he was righteous and could stand before God (in his presence) "as-is" blameless, without fault, a perfect being, made in the image of God, higher than the angels. After sin, approaching God is no longer possible--he was tainted. The fall was significant because of how high his status was to start. Adam could not help but pass on that tainted state to his offspring. Therefore we inherit a sin nature--a state that requires some kind of repair if we are to get back to the original state.

This just makes everything so much worse. It says that I am right in that according to y'all we have no chance to just be good humans. We really do have to bow down to this 'loving' god and ask him to forgive us just for existing. I don't hate god but if I ever honestly thought he was real I would go out of my way not to be his follower. He isn't loving he is controlling.

(June 13, 2016 at 10:44 am)mlmooney89 Wrote: . . . Despite Ignorant's well said arguments I can't help but feel the whole sin thing is just a mess and proof that this is all man made . . .

=) I couldn't agree more! Thanks for the kind words.

(June 12, 2016 at 2:35 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Well, sin isn't a measure of what God wants. God wants the opposite. What we are is the measure of what God wants. Sin makes us less than what we are/what we are capable of being.

Actions which correspond to what-we-are and add to the fullness of what-we-are are good actions.

Well, we-are merciless killers just as surely as we're kind hearted philanthropists.   Does that add to the fullness of what we are? Is that..then, good action?