(November 11, 2020 at 2:14 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: That doesn't answer the 'How' of sin moving through reality.

Given your reply of "Don't sin and cancer won't spread." Again I ask you how the sin moves from the person doing the 'Sin' and to some one else who receives the sin which then goes on to cause cancer?

Not at work.

I see what you're getting at now. The answer is a bit complicated though, and you'll likely not find it satisfactory.

For one, we need to determine the nature of the sin meant to pass through to the next generation. I like to use the sacrifice of children to Molech as an example.

Say you are a priest of Molech, and you have children. Then let's say that you accept another's child to be burned alive as a sacrifice to your god. You perform the ritual.

Next thing you know, God has sent an army against your town to slaughter every man, woman and child, including your own. Is He not justified in doing so? The priest sacrificed a child, and the town stood by and let it happen. They all deserve to die, thinking they could sacrifice the children of others to further their own prosperity.

But there are other ways we pass children through fire. Spoiling them is one way. When you spoil a child instead of discipline it, you get people of the sort who comprise Antifa, though they're really just a more obvious illustration of it. Spoiled brats with no concept whatsoever of right and wrong, who burn down buildings of "innocent" people to make political points. Make no mistake, when God takes to correcting members of Antifa, it will be very much as though they were being burned alive.

Sin is the real cancer; it spreads like a virus. Cancer (and viruses) are simply a physical expression of the spiritual reality.

I realize you might still wonder about children who don't even have the opportunity to grow up. Who knows the kinds of sins parents have committed against others that have brought intense suffering upon other children? Things ripple in this world in many inconceivable ways. I could simply steal some small amount from someone that causes a cascade of disaster and results in the suffering of children. Why should someone's own children not suffer as a result, particularly if that is the thing the sinning parent most fiercely protects? Is that not an eye for an eye?

Let's assume that a god is entirely justified to do whatever - but how could a priest of molech have ever done anything other than evil, as a human being - incapable of good?

The preist did it, he couldn't have done anything else.
The town watched, couldn't have done anything else.
Hell, the fucking baby was human, and therefore evil.

all well and good....but...

Where are these moral responsibilities coming from? Where's the chain of desert? In what way can human beings be morally responsible for things beyond our agency to choose?

(November 11, 2020 at 1:57 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: The definition of sin is simple. Read the ten commandments, or the two commandments Jesus condensed them into (Love God, love your neighbor as yourself). Sin is the opposite of those.

If you want to prevent cancer, then don't sin.

You have a pretty screwed up view of reality.  I have waded through your nonsense replies, and have been disgusted about how you view your deity as working for good through evil means, or "sin" causing all the evil in the world.

Do you understand the biology of cancer?  If we all prayed daily and obeyed the 10 commandments would cancer go away?  No, it wouldn't.

Go tell the families of children that died of cancer that sin "theirs?  God's?  Adam's?  the child's?" brought on the cancer.  My nephew died at 6 of cancer.  Go take your screwed up theology somewhere else.

(November 11, 2020 at 2:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I've been asking you how we can be good or evil outside of the possession of a meaningfully free will.  

I'm afraid I don't get you, then. Just because you don't have a choice doesn't mean your actions are suddenly devoid of all moral consequence. It's God Who places the value on your actions, not yourself. Objective truth determines the value of your actions, and God IS objective truth.

(November 11, 2020 at 2:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Keep telling you I'm not worried about the teacher.  I'm wondering about the student.  You suggested that I could exonerate a god if I took it's intentions into account.  If that would be the good thing to do, and I can't do the good thing - then I couldn't do that.

That's true. You can't exonerate Him except by His grace, because you're incapable of doing the good thing, neither will you until He allows it.

Let us not suffer under the delusion that God is going to save everyone or shed His grace upon everyone in this life. If you're unable to exonerate God, it can only be because you were chosen as a vessel of destruction, meant to be saved in the next life.

You can call that unfair, but that's how the plan works. Some have been chosen to be children of the devil; others are children of God. It has nothing to do with intrinsic value or worthiness, but with how God has decided to accomplish His purposes.

(November 11, 2020 at 2:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That wouldn't be my problem, that would be a problem with the concepts as described.   I can't choose good, I cant learn from evil, I do or don't get grace.  How can I learn a lesson, even if I was taught the lesson a billion times - if learning the lesson were the good thing to do...and I'm incapable of good?

I never said you can't learn from evil. Evil wouldn't exist if not intended for learning. Just because you don't get saved in this life doesn't mean the lessons you've learned won't stick with you into the next life and beyond. I also never said that God doesn't give grace even to impenitent sinners. He does. You will learn as much as you were meant to learn.

(November 11, 2020 at 2:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: If one should always be concerned for the greater good - then I would be incapable of being concerned for the greater good - as I'm incapable of good.  

Again, true, except by the grace of God. I will also say that it's easy to believe that one is concerned for the greater good when one is actually only concerned with expressing his own righteousness, as we observe to be a rampant problem in the political climate/issues of the day.

(November 11, 2020 at 2:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Would it have mattered whether you did or didn't say it?  You tell me that a god wipes away every tear like it has a moral debt.  

Things that can do good or evil may be able to accrue moral debt, and they may be able to satisfy that moral debt - this is rather unlike a thing with no free will, don't you think?  If we are a thing with no free will, in what way do we possess a moral agency, and how can we employ it?

Well, I do believe God has an obligation to wipe away every tear, because it would've been better to never have created us at all if that weren't His ultimate intention.

However, that doesn't mean He has any moral debt, because He'd already made the decision to fix everything in the end from the very beginning. It might be easier to think of it in those terms, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

We can't accrue anything but debt, being sinful in nature and unable to change that in our own power. We may have somewhat of an excuse, but it's not enough of an excuse to remove all consequence. And really, the important thing to remember is that it's all a lesson. Cosmic chips did not fall randomly and we are suddenly found in some unexpected situation of debt. It was all planned...not sure that that makes much sense as I've expressed it.

(November 11, 2020 at 2:31 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: I see what you're getting at now. The answer is a bit complicated though, and you'll likely not find it satisfactory.

For one, we need to determine the nature of the sin meant to pass through to the next generation. I like to use the sacrifice of children to Molech as an example.

Say you are a priest of Molech, and you have children. Then let's say that you accept another's child to be burned alive as a sacrifice to your god. You perform the ritual.

Next thing you know, God has sent an army against your town to slaughter every man, woman and child, including your own. Is He not justified in doing so? The priest sacrificed a child, and the town stood by and let it happen. They all deserve to die, thinking they could sacrifice the children of others to further their own prosperity.

But there are other ways we pass children through fire. Spoiling them is one way. When you spoil a child instead of discipline it, you get people of the sort who comprise Antifa, though they're really just a more obvious illustration of it. Spoiled brats with no concept whatsoever of right and wrong, who burn down buildings of "innocent" people to make political points. Make no mistake, when God takes to correcting members of Antifa, it will be very much as though they were being burned alive.

Sin is the real cancer; it spreads like a virus. Cancer (and viruses) are simply a physical expression of the spiritual reality.

I realize you might still wonder about children who don't even have the opportunity to grow up. Who knows the kinds of sins parents have committed against others that have brought intense suffering upon other children? Things ripple in this world in many inconceivable ways. I could simply steal some small amount from someone that causes a cascade of disaster and results in the suffering of children. Why should someone's own children not suffer as a result, particularly if that is the thing the sinning parent most fiercely protects? Is that not an eye for an eye?

So... an aphorical tale that some how is supposed to be a justification now for sin=cancer?

Still not seemingly able to answer the question of the 'How' sin actually works, though.

I want to understand 'Sin' as a noun. Not s a verb. 'Doing sin' doesn't explain how sin is supposed to causing all these ills for which it is being blamed.


 

Also, hello to the forums. Enjoy your stay.

(November 11, 2020 at 2:34 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Let's assume that a god is entirely justified to do whatever - but how could a priest of molech have ever done anything other than evil, as a human being - incapable of good?

The preist did it, he couldn't have done anything else.
The town watched, couldn't have done anything else.
Hell, the fucking baby was human, and therefore evil.

all well and good....but...

Where are these moral responsibilities coming from?  Where's the chain of desert?  In what way can human beings be morally responsible for things beyond our agency to choose?

God gave us all consciences. We know evil, or at least there are certain things that are obviously evil, when we see them.

Did you realize, when you did evil things in the past, that you were doing evil things, yet you did them anyway? Does that not, in itself, make you responsible?

Who cares that God didn't give you the option? You still did it. And again, as I said, God takes that into account, because His intention is to teach, not to be a sadist.

I understand it's a difficult thing to accept. Impossible, really, except by the grace of God (as with all things). It's probably the single most difficult thing to accept about our existence, because it seems far too harsh.

I will remind everyone that God Himself partook of the same harshness when He was crucified, though He did nothing wrong. If even the most innocent among us must suffer, then how much more those of us who aren't innocent?

Yet not everyone, not even close to everyone, will ever experience so horrible a death as Jesus Christ did. So spare me any moral outrage, please.

---

(November 11, 2020 at 2:39 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: You have a pretty screwed up view of reality.  I have waded through your nonsense replies, and have been disgusted about how you view your deity as working for good through evil means, or "sin" causing all the evil in the world.

Do you understand the biology of cancer?  If we all prayed daily and obeyed the 10 commandments would cancer go away?  No, it wouldn't.

Go tell the families of children that died of cancer that sin "theirs?  God's?  Adam's?  the child's?" brought on the cancer.  My nephew died at 6 of cancer.  Go take your screwed up theology somewhere else.

I don't need to understand the biology of cancer to understand that God causes it.

And yes, if you were to obey the 10 commandments you would have no worries of cancer, or at the least God would provide the healing in some way.

The deaths of children are tragic and particularly sad, but not in vain. There is always a good purpose behind every evil act, and for that there is cause to rejoice, especially when we consider that those children will enjoy the eventual fruits of God's labor as well.

---

(November 11, 2020 at 2:55 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: So... an aphorical tale that some how is supposed to be a justification now for sin=cancer?

Still not seemingly able to answer the question of the 'How' sin actually works, though.

I want to understand 'Sin' as a noun. Not s a verb. 'Doing sin' doesn't explain how sin is supposed to causing all these ills for which it is being blamed.


 

Also, hello to the forums. Enjoy your stay.

I suppose I don't understand your question, then. Committing sin causes evil consequences. It's not complicated.

(November 11, 2020 at 2:52 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

(November 11, 2020 at 2:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I've been asking you how we can be good or evil outside of the possession of a meaningfully free will.  

I'm afraid I don't get you, then. Just because you don't have a choice doesn't mean your actions are suddenly devoid of all moral consequence. It's God Who places the value on your actions, not yourself. Objective truth determines the value of your actions, and God IS objective truth.

A god's gonna do whatever gods do, but that doesn't answer the question of how a moral incompetent can possess moral responsibilities

Quote:I never said you can't learn from evil. Evil wouldn't exist if not intended for learning.

If learning from evil were a good thing to do...and I'm incapable of good....

Quote:Well, I do believe God has an obligation to wipe away every tear, because it would've been better to never have created us at all if that weren't His ultimate intention.

I can't say that I share your belief or your condemnation of a god's purported actions.  

Quote:However, that doesn't mean He has any moral debt, because He'd already made the decision to fix everything in the end from the very beginning. It might be easier to think of it in those terms, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

That's exactly what it means - you're merely asserting that god satisfies this debt - which is all well and good..but how can we have moral debts, if we're morally incompetent?

Quote:We can't accrue anything but debt, being sinful in nature and unable to change that in our own power. We may have somewhat of an excuse, but it's not enough of an excuse to remove all consequence. And really, the important thing to remember is that it's all a lesson. Cosmic chips did not fall randomly and we are suddenly found in some unexpected situation of debt. It was all planned...not sure that that makes much sense as I've expressed it.

None at all - but I'm pretty sure it's not your fault that it doesn't make any sense.  Explaining it properly might be a good thing to do - and being human - you're incapable.

(November 11, 2020 at 3:00 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

(November 11, 2020 at 2:55 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: So... an aphorical tale that some how is supposed to be a justification now for sin=cancer?

Still not seemingly able to answer the question of the 'How' sin actually works, though.

I want to understand 'Sin' as a noun. Not s a verb. 'Doing sin' doesn't explain how sin is supposed to causing all these ills for which it is being blamed.


 

Also, hello to the forums. Enjoy your stay.

I suppose I don't understand your question, then. Committing sin causes evil consequences. It's not complicated.

Commiting sin causes evil?

Right, I've grokked that.

My question is thus. Person 'A' commits sin (Maybe one, maybe a dozen or more). How does the sin move from person 'A' to person 'B' and thence cause cancer (As the conversation is putting it).

Also... does that then imply that doing a sin then has the sin some how moving on and causing a bad thing such as a tidal wave to happen?

If so, how?

EDIT: I completly missed your line of, "Cancer (and viruses) are simply a physical expression of the spiritual reality."

Cool! What is a spiritual reality? How does it interact with us? How do we interact with it? WHat might we use to better detect such a thing?

Not at work.

(November 11, 2020 at 3:00 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: God gave us all consciences. We know evil, or at least there are certain things that are obviously evil, when we see them.

Did you realize, when you did evil things in the past, that you were doing evil things, yet you did them anyway? Does that not, in itself, make you responsible?

OFC.  If I know that something is evil and I choose it, I'm responsible.  We see two distinct moral signifiers that convince us both that we are responsible here.  I knew, and I chose.  Let's explore that. 

If properly recognizing good from evil were good, then I would be incapable.  I couldn't know if knowing were good.  Can I choose?  No, I'm incapable of good.  

This is why I asked you if you were concerned about the issues that our lack of present free will would cause.  We're missing things that we normally refer to in order to establish, ascertain, assign, blame, or otherwise declare desert.

In the absence of those things, how do we do that?  How do you?  Is this an accurate representation of your experience...?. Do you find yourself cognizant of the difference between good and evil, in a fair way, incapable of good?

Quote:Who cares that God didn't give you the option? You still did it. And again, as I said, God takes that into account, because His intention is to teach, not to be a sadist.

I understand it's a difficult thing to accept. Impossible, really, except by the grace of God (as with all things). It's probably the single most difficult thing to accept about our existence, because it seems far too harsh.

I will remind everyone that God Himself partook of the same harshness when He was crucified, though He did nothing wrong. If even the most innocent among us must suffer, then how much more those of us who aren't innocent?

Yet not everyone, not even close to everyone, will ever experience so horrible a death as Jesus Christ did. So spare me any moral outrage, please.

Who cares about god, full stop.  How can I express moral outrage -or- moral empathy if I lack moral agency? You have a friendly audience for this one, with me. I say take the god man down off the cross for whatever fraction of a millisecond it took to pay for my profligate sins. It won't work, and I wouldn't kill the better man to pay my parking tickets anyway.

(November 11, 2020 at 3:10 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: A god's gonna do whatever gods do, but that doesn't answer the question of how a moral incompetent can possess moral responsibilities

You know what is interesting about this is that this is all supposedly hypothetical for you. You probably believe that you DO have moral responsibilities (correct me if I'm wrong), but now that I have given you an "out" you insist that you have none.

And I realize you aren't "actually" insisting that, I'm simply asking if the knowledge that you have no control changes how you feel about the evils you've committed. Should it?

(November 11, 2020 at 3:10 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: If learning from evil were a good thing to do...and I'm incapable of good....

You're clearly ignoring what I've written. Just because you don't believe doesn't mean God hasn't given you the grace to do good at times, including learning from your evil ways.

(November 11, 2020 at 3:10 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That's exactly what it means - you're merely asserting that god satisfies this debt - which is all well and good..but how can we have moral debts, if we're morally incompetent?

That's like saying "how can I stink, if I stink?" If you're morally incompetent then you automatically are going to accrue moral debt. Your problem is the same as all sinners have: you refuse to take full responsibility for your own actions. Much easier to blame God. Not that I'm condemning you for it...we've all done it or will do it at some point.

---

(November 11, 2020 at 3:31 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: OFC.  If I know that something is evil and I choose it, I'm responsible.  We see two distinct moral signifiers that convince us both that we are responsible here.  I knew, and I chose.  Let's explore that. 

If properly recognizing good from evil were good, then I would be incapable.  I couldn't know if knowing were good.  Can I choose?  No, I'm incapable of good.  

This is why I asked you if you were concerned about the issues that our lack of present free will would cause.  We're missing things that we normally refer to in order to establish, ascertain, assign, blame, or otherwise declare desert.

In the absence of those things, how do we do that?  How do you?  Is this an accurate representation of your experience...?.  Do you find yourself cognizant of the difference between good and evil, in a fair way, incapable of good?

Who cares about god, full stop.  How can I express moral outrage -or- moral empathy if I lack moral agency?  You have a friendly audience for this one, with me.  I say take the god man down off the cross for whatever fraction of a millisecond it took to pay for my profligate sins.  It won't work, and I wouldn't kill the better man to pay my parking tickets anyway.

You keep repeating this "if I'm incapable of doing good" mantra. As I just mentioned in my last post, I never said God hasn't given you to do good. You are simply incapable of doing good absent His grace. He gets all the credit for the good, you get all the credit for the evil, because the former isn't in your nature, but the latter is.

And Christ's suffering on your account doesn't equal some millisecond. You're responsible for the whole thing. As I've mentioned, since we all suffer and die on an individual level, then Christ suffered and died for us on an individual level.

I'm not sure there is any point in further argument.

---

(November 11, 2020 at 3:15 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Commiting sin causes evil?

Right, I've grokked that.

My question is thus. Person 'A' commits sin (Maybe one, maybe a dozen or more). How does the sin move from person 'A' to person 'B' and thence cause cancer (As the conversation is putting it).

Also... does that then imply that doing a sin then has the sin some how moving on and causing a bad thing such as a tidal wave to happen?

If so, how?

EDIT: I completly missed your line of, "Cancer (and viruses) are simply a physical expression of the spiritual reality."

Cool! What is a spiritual reality? How does it interact with us? How do we interact with it? WHat might we use to better detect such a thing?

Not at work.

I'm really unsure if you are being serious or deliberately thick. "Sin" on its own does nothing. God determines the consequences of all committed sin. God causes the cancer, because of the sin. This is truly uncomplicated.