Did I miss anything?

[professor]

There seems to be a missing component in the responses to my post.

That component is personal responsibility.
We have ALL blown it.
It is no use to try to lay everything off on the first man and woman and attempt to show ourselves innocent.

Look around, the injustice is not coming from Heaven.
Pogo correctly said, "We have seen the enemy and he is us".

I suppose painting God black makes us look bright in comparison.
Is that the deal?

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='719581' dateline='1406683160']
to absolutly everyone who asks, no matter what they have done, no matter who they are on a planetary scale, spanning the whole of human history?

Well, there's a threshold, but at the point at which it has passed one really needs to be asking why god ever would reward such a person. God seems to really lack discernment.

reward them how? With attonement?
Not all who ask for it will receive it per Christ Himself on the subject in Mat 7. Even those who do great things in His name will He recognize. Only those who do the will of the Father.

But this is the real problem here, because none of those crimes, no matter how great, affect god in the slightest. .Even assuming he forgives everyone ever out of hand... there's no cost to that. Merely asserting one doesn't demonstrate it, especially when you're still just talking in abstracts.

only if you believe God has no claim of ownership of anything in this world.

If a man trashes his own house big deal. But, if the same man does the exact same damage to a rented house, that man is liable to everything he has done.

"We" all live in rented homes in this life. Everything here including your skin and everything under it belongs to God.

That means all the trash and damage we do to our 'lives/homes' are committed against the property owner and not the squatter or renter currently living in the residence.

Therefore we owe a debt (one we can not pay.)

... And fails to mention what that cost is.

actually the bible is very clear and mentions in several places that the wage for sin is death. Which is why Christ had to die the way He did.

But why would you point me to the same random, vague assertion in the bible, knowing ahead of time that I don't think the bible is infallible?

because you make assertions based on the ideas and principles found in the bible. When you do the bible becomes a valid point of reference. (Whether you believe it infallible or not.)

The fact that your poorly constructed theology is a part of the biblical narrative doesn't make it better.

my "theology" has little bearing on when you ask a biblically based question or make an assertion about the bible or the God of the bible. At that point any biblically based answer or correction has little to do with personal theology and more to do with what the bible says.

To the question now returns to you. How do you know what thinks or feels?

I don't believe he exists? But costs can be demonstrated, or at least stated, and at this point I also have no reason to believe any cost actually applies to divine forgiveness, because of the evasiveness of the people trying to explain it. Things need to be demonstrated; I don't care if the bible asserts there's a cost, I want to know what it is.

Romans 6:23 is where to find the cost of sin

Not true. They knew disobedience resulted in death.

.

.. From a position where they had no concept of what death was,

what in the bible makes you believe this?

The fact that God used it as a deterrent says otherwise.

Seems a bit passive aggressive, really? Do you put a nuclear bomb in your kid's playpen, because he needs a choice whether or not to touch it?

I really don't think the scenario here is improved by noting that god specifically formulated the most danger ever and placed it in close proximity to his children in order to get them to hurt themselves so he can say "I told you so."

what is the alternative in your opinion?

Fiat assertion of a debt for something I didn't do doesn't convince me. I'm an individual person, supposedly imbued with free will, why am I being packaged in along with everyone else with this nonsense? .

what about the sins you have committed?

Yes. But then, I am actually thinking about it, so that's no surprise.

what specifically?

[ShaMan]

We have ALL blown it.
It is no use to try to lay everything off on the first man and woman and attempt to show ourselves innocent.

You're right, I've blown it. But let me pay for my crimes and let the first man and woman pay for disobeying your god.

And to that end... I have already paid far more than you, a stranger online, can ever comprehend.

[Raven]

Damn! I just get back myself and find that Drich was gone the whole time I was! What a waste of a drippyless forum! Rotten luck that.

But never mind. Welcome back, dude.

One thing that is never going to make any sense to me, never has and never will is this whole blood sacrifice thing. There is not any logic or rationality to it. We are talking about a supposed being who is infinite. All-powerful, all-knowing, all-everything. We, to him, would be as a paramecium is to us. No way, no how could anything that we ever do could mean jack to such a being. Sin is an empty concept. Always was. It was just a way for the priestly caste to keep the rabble in line. Get the great unwashed all worried about what their eternity will be like and maybe they'll behave better. If I had not had this kind of crap pounded into me by those damned nuns I never would have ever believed any of it. Fortunately I got over it in time. The whole yarn is insane, truly.

[Ryantology]

There seems to be a missing component in the responses to my post.

That component is personal responsibility.
We have ALL blown it.
It is no use to try to lay everything off on the first man and woman and attempt to show ourselves innocent.

Look around, the injustice is not coming from Heaven.
Pogo correctly said, "We have seen the enemy and he is us".

I suppose painting God black makes us look bright in comparison.
Is that the deal?

When we do it to each other, you call it murder and genocide and evil and wrong.

When God does it to us, you call it glorious and just.

Now you can tell us about how morality is objective even though you just insisted it is anything but.

[Drich]

Damn! I just get back myself and find that Drich was gone the whole time I was! What a waste of a drippyless forum! Rotten luck that.

But never mind. Welcome back, dude.

yes, yes I love to hate you all as well.

One thing that is never going to make any sense to me, never has and never will is this whole blood sacrifice thing.

do you want it to make sense? (Warning it is easier to dislike something/someone when your confused about it.)

There is not any logic or rationality to it. We are talking about a supposed being who is infinite. All-powerful, all-knowing, all-everything.

Ah, no. While God is all powerful, He nor the bible never once claimed He was "all everything." God describes Himself to be the "Great I am" and the "Alpha and Omega." Which means God is who He wants to be. Nothing More, Nothing less. Does it mean He can creat a rock so big He can not lift it? If, He wanted to then yes, if not than no. That's what real "all powerful-ness" looks like. (Meaning strong enough not to be gummed up in a second grade paradox.)

We, to him, would be as a paramecium is to us. No way, no how could anything that we ever do could mean jack to such a being.

God has invested a lot into us (the whole of creation, and the plan of salvation) therefore your analogy is not valid, as 'we' do not devote continents, planets, solar systems to paramecium.

Sin is an empty concept. Always was. It was just a way for the priestly caste to keep the rabble in line.

Only to those who do not understand it. Sin/the law is only there for one reason now. So that we may see a need to seek freedom from it.

Get the great unwashed all worried about what their eternity will be like and maybe they'll behave better. If I had not had this kind of crap pounded into me by those damned nuns I never would have ever believed any of it. Fortunately I got over it in time. The whole yarn is insane, truly.

You are aware that 'nuns' (nor the rest of that bunch) believes in biblical Christianity right? They believe the popes were all living Apstoles Indued with the power to change the bible (therefore can not believe in it as the popes have changed what it has said over the years.) creating a region of rules to control the "rabble." Biblical Christianity is the opposite of that.[/quote]

[Raven]

@Drich;

Yes, I am very well aware that the RC Church is anything but a bible-based church, being far too
enamored of their church dogma to subscribe to anything else. So yeah, you are right about that much.

I did not go from Catholic to atheist. I spent years looking for some kind of answer that I could live with. I most assuredly was not going to get it from the RC church, so I gave up on that. That is when I started exploring. Tried lots of things looking for answers. Along the way I read the bible. Even joined a Baptist congregation for a while. Thing was, that book is too full of contradictions, repellent Bronze-Age morality, fabrications, and tells of a mean-spirited, cruel, capricious, dictatorial psychopathic god that were he to exist I could never follow anyway. You might sincerely believe that the god of the bible loves us, but I don't see it that way. We're just pawns to him.

So I did find something I could live with. Unbelief. We're all that we've got. Each other. So we might as well be nice to each other, because that is all that there is. Each other and this little world we find ourselves on. We don't need any sky-daddy and never did. Even if we didn't realize it we were getting along just fine without him. So we can manage quite nicely. You Xtians don't give humanity enough credit. All the good stuff sky-daddy gets the credit for, but when things go wrong it's always humanity's fault. Not so. We get both the blame and the credit. Because it's us doing it either way. And we are not doing badly. We may not progress as fast as we'd like, but progress we do. We are better than you guys give us credit for. And we got that way all on our own.

[Esquilax]

reward them how? With attonement?
Not all who ask for it will receive it per Christ Himself on the subject in Mat 7. Even those who do great things in His name will He recognize. Only those who do the will of the Father.

That's a different kind of christianity than I'm familiar with, but it does deal with that specific problem, so... cool.

only if you believe God has no claim of ownership of anything in this world.

If a man trashes his own house big deal. But, if the same man does the exact same damage to a rented house, that man is liable to everything he has done.

"We" all live in rented homes in this life. Everything here including your skin and everything under it belongs to God.

Why does everything, including us, belong to god? Before you answer that he created us, I would argue that sentient entities are an exception to that; after all, babies don't belong to their parents. As for everything else... well, that's just entrapment, if god creates the universe and then forces us into it with no way out. If you trap me in a cell, you're not rightfully owed rent during my occupancy.

That means all the trash and damage we do to our 'lives/homes' are committed against the property owner and not the squatter or renter currently living in the residence.

Therefore we owe a debt (one we can not pay.)

Except that "creation therefore ownership" is a complete non sequitur. What's the logic behind it? I suspect your answer is just going to be to restate the problem, but that doesn't actually tell us why.

actually the bible is very clear and mentions in several places that the wage for sin is death. Which is why Christ had to die the way He did.

The cost of forgiveness for god, I meant.

because you make assertions based on the ideas and principles found in the bible. When you do the bible becomes a valid point of reference. (Whether you believe it infallible or not.)

My problem is that the answer is inappropriate: I asked what the cost to god was for forgiveness, and you answered with "the bible says it costed god to forgive us." That's why you believe that there was a cost, but it doesn't tell me what that cost is. Given that I can't envision the object of that cost, nor can the bible tell us, seemingly, I have no reason to believe there was a cost beyond that the bible says so... and I don't automatically credit the bible with being correct. The rational conclusion, from that point, is to conclude that the bible was simply wrong when it asserts a cost, in order to magnify the supposed sacrifice.

my "theology" has little bearing on when you ask a biblically based question or make an assertion about the bible or the God of the bible. At that point any biblically based answer or correction has little to do with personal theology and more to do with what the bible says.

... And what the bible says varies greatly depending on the personal theology of the person making the claim. For example, you stated earlier that not every believer will get into heaven, but there are others that claim the only requirement for salvation is belief in Jesus. Two people, two mutually exclusive claims, both claiming theirs is what the bible says. We obviously need something else to point to, rather than the say-so of individual believers.

Romans 6:23 is where to find the cost of sin

Is the wages of sin death for god? That's what I'm talking about, here.

what in the bible makes you believe this?

If they were in a garden where death didn't happen, from whence were they to derive a concept of what death means?

The fact that God used it as a deterrent says otherwise.

Yeah,I don't exactly think god was at his most rational during the Genesis days. It's fairly likely he threatened them with death without realizing he hadn't explained what death was to them. Hell, his own understanding of the subject seems pretty hazy: in the threat he says they'll surely die if they eat the fruit, but the end result was them living far longer than any normal human would and dying after living a life. Who the hell knows what god was talking about there?

what is the alternative in your opinion?

You not put the tree in the garden at all, and just let your peeps live out their days in happiness. They'd still have free will, because will has nothing to do with your ability to physically accomplish a thing, but there wouldn't be that obvious entrapment set up there.

Hey, come to think of it, if the big rule was not to eat of the tree, were all the other morally evil things, as we understand them, still against the rules? If so, I guess it'd still be possible to disobey god, and the choice would have been there with or without the tree, making it purely entrapment that accomplishes nothing, and if all those things that are evil were allowed... well, that's pretty screwed up on its own.

what about the sins you have committed?

Like what? I don't steal, I don't hurt other people, I'm strictly a pacifist who donates his time to charity, loves his family and tries to do good in the world. What in my life is so terrible, without original sin, that would make forgiveness by some outside, unconnected agent even necessary, let alone required?

[Drich]

That's a different kind of christianity than I'm familiar with, but it does deal with that specific problem, so... cool.

Why does everything, including us, belong to god? Before you answer that he created us, I would argue that sentient entities are an exception to that; after all, babies don't belong to their parents.

that is the most insane thing you have said to date. If babies/kids do not belong to their parents, then who is responsible for them?

As for everything else... well, that's just entrapment, if god creates the universe and then forces us into it with no way out. If you trap me in a cell, you're not rightfully owed rent during my occupancy.

first things first, so what? So what if you were put in a cell and told to do x.. If you were in that situation then that is how you would have to perform.

Second thing how do you know you were not given and or elected to live this life to prove yourself to God?

Except that "creation therefore ownership" is a complete non sequitur.

what are you a communist? Where do you live that does not allow you to own what you create?

What's the logic behind it? I suspect your answer is just going to be to restate the problem, but that doesn't actually tell us why.

you assume too much. I am not willing to blindly accept the idea that anything I create belongs no one.
Are orangutans sentient? Are dolphins sentient? When man finally creates a viable AI (if we haven't already) will it belong to someone? Of course it will. Just like babies belong to their parents, orangutans and dolphins to their owners. If you do not think any of these beings do not belong to someone, have one do damage to something that belongs to someone else's, and see who the damaged properity owner goes to for retribution, the sentient being who's ownership is being discussed, or the one who has taken ownership/responsibility of the beings care. Have one of these being die and see who is responsible.

Even in a macro sense we as citizens of nations and or other religious/secular groups belong communally to that group and can do things that impact that group as a whole with our actions. We may be individuals but we never truly stand alone we will always belong to someone or something.

actually the bible is very clear and mentions in several places that the wage for sin is death. Which is why Christ had to die the way He did.

The cost of forgiveness for god, I meant.

The price of sin period, is Death. Our God died on the cross because He was paying for our sin. This death was a physical representation of the Spiritual death that God the Son Experienced, As He for our sake was separated from the Father while on that Cross.

My problem is that the answer is inappropriate: I asked what the cost to god was for forgiveness, and you answered with "the bible says it costed god to forgive us."

No I said the cost was Death.

That's why you believe that there was a cost, but it doesn't tell me what that cost is.

death is the cost (do you see a pattern emerging yet?)

Given that I can't envision the object of that cost, nor can the bible tell us, seemingly, I have no reason to believe there was a cost beyond that the bible says so...

you also have no grounds to question God outside the parameters the bible lays out, as without it you would know nothing of Him. Therefore to give you an answer from the bible based on a question constructed from the very same book is valid for no other reason than it is the only authoritiave source in which an answer can be given.

and I don't automatically credit the bible with being correct. The rational conclusion, from that point, is to conclude that the bible was simply wrong when it asserts a cost, in order to magnify the supposed sacrifice.

we were never charged for being correct. We are only charged with being responsible to what we have been given, much like how the educational system works in this country.

When I was growing up Pluto was a planet and their was a coming ice age expected to create glaciers that would span from the north pole to Washington DC because of the global cooling that was taking place due to all the pollution being created by our cars and factories. If we had a test and it asked us about pluto's planetary status or the coming ice age, and we put the currently known truth down as our answer do you think we would have been rewarded for our effort, or do you think it would have been marked wrong?

Same here. God judges us on what we have been given to work with and our faithfulness to our understanding of it, which in truth is no different than how the rest of the world works.

... And what the bible says varies greatly depending on the personal theology of the person making the claim. For example, you stated earlier that not every believer will get into heaven, but there are others that claim the only requirement for salvation is belief in Jesus.

not according to Christ:
Mat 7:
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [n]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

Surely one who prophesy and cast out demons simply believes... That fact that they call out lord, lord says the simply believe.

Again my theology has nothing to do with what is written in mat 7, for these are the words of Christ Himself on the subject matter.
Not my own.
To construct a doctrine that contradicts or at the very least does not take this passage into consideration is that 'theology' you were speaking of, which differs considerably from what I did for you when the question was asked.

Two people, two mutually exclusive claims, both claiming theirs is what the bible says. We obviously need something else to point to, rather than the say-so of individual believers.

does Christ Himself not have final authority in the matter? Again his words not my own personal doctrine constructed from verse fragments scattered across the NT.

Romans 6:23 is where to find the cost of sin

Is the wages of sin death for god? That's what I'm talking about, here.

did God the Son not die on the cross? I do not understand why your having such a hard time with this concept. All of Christianity recognizes and does not argue this point.
Christ died on our behalf for our sins.
We owed a death for our sin. Christ died so we do not have to.

If they were in a garden where death didn't happen, from whence were they to derive a concept of what death means?

what makes you believe that death was not apart of the garden life?
Their were two special trees in the garden. The tree of knowledge of good and evil (which brought death) and the tree of life which according to genesis brought eternal life. Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from all trees in the garden (including the tree of life) they could not eat from the tree of knowledge. Eating from the tree of life is what made them Immortal. For everything in the garden to be untouched by death, the garden as a whole would also have to eat of this tree. Otherwise the garden and everything in it would be as it is now, and be subject to death.

Yeah,I don't exactly think god was at his most rational during the Genesis days. It's fairly likely he threatened them with death without realizing he hadn't explained what death was to them.

now who is wandering off into his own special brand of theology? (Speaking where the bible is silent.)

Hell, his own understanding of the subject seems pretty hazy: in the threat he says they'll surely die if they eat the fruit, but the end result was them living far longer than any normal human would and dying after living a life. Who the hell knows what god was talking about there?

they were immortal, they died, that life ended, and their mortality began. Then they were expelled from the garden so as not to eat from the tree of life and begin anew. (They proven them selves to be untrust worthy in their word about not eating forbidden fruit.)

You not put the tree in the garden at all, and just let your peeps live out their days in happiness. They'd still have free will, because will has nothing to do with your ability to physically accomplish a thing, but there wouldn't be that obvious entrapment set up there.

so you think God should have set things up with man as He did with the angels? Are you not familiar with lucifer's (and 1/3 of the angel population) fall from grace?
No tree there, no planned opportunity to chose, no plan for redemption. Just one mistake/insurrection, and eternal damnation. to you that is better?

Thanks, but I'd rather live in God's world rather than yours. Here I have been given a choice to choose salvation over damnation.

Hey, come to think of it, if the big rule was not to eat of the tree, were all the other morally evil things, as we understand them, still against the rules? If so, I guess it'd still be possible to disobey god, and the choice would have been there with or without the tree, making it purely entrapment that accomplishes nothing, and if all those things that are evil were allowed... well, that's pretty screwed up on its own.

again no, we are only responsible to what we have been given over to understand, and not the whole complete truth/standard.

what about the sins you have committed?

Like what? I don't steal, I don't hurt other people, I'm strictly a pacifist who donates his time to charity, loves his family and tries to do good in the world. What in my life is so terrible, without original sin, that would make forgiveness by some outside, unconnected agent even necessary, let alone required?
[/quote]
Do I really need to make a list, or can't you just admit that you do things God considers to be a sin?

[The Grand Nudger]

We owed a death for our sin. Christ died so we do not have to.

-and yet we still do. Incompetence. Does this god character of yours ever accomplish anything it sets out to do?