RE: Questions for theists.
November 9, 2011 at 3:58 am
(This post was last modified: November 9, 2011 at 3:58 am by tackattack.)
*Bolding by me
While I agree it was fundamentally incapable of being as all inclusive of God's omnipotence, it was allegorical. Sorry if it frustrated you as you seem frustrated. I can see here though that you missed the point, as per my bolding. He created the inhabitants, yes. He did not make sin the inevitable conclusion. He didn't give the allegorical "you" a sinfull nature to seek a prostitute, any more than he gave "you" the desire to be a prostitute. That is a result of man's decision not to trust in God. Being a Christian doesn't make you any less personally accountable for your actions. In fact it holds you to both the laws of the land and to God's laws, which arguably would be more personally accountable. The pont was that it's Christian standard dogma that sin is seperation from God. However you look at the situation as a Christian, if you're sinning you're seperate from God's will and therefore can't hold God accountable, as you're not under his guidance, empowerment or protection.
(November 8, 2011 at 7:57 pm)ElDinero Wrote: I understood it, but it was fundamentally flawed and therefore useless. God's supposed omnipotence is crucial to the analogy, because unlike the city of LV, he knows that all this stuff is going on. Not only does he know it's going on, he created the inhabitants, put the prostitutes there and gave the inhabitants the characteristics that made their decision to seek out a hooker inevitable. Since he set up all these parameters, unlike LVPD, he IS accountable for everything that happens in his 'city'.
While I agree it was fundamentally incapable of being as all inclusive of God's omnipotence, it was allegorical. Sorry if it frustrated you as you seem frustrated. I can see here though that you missed the point, as per my bolding. He created the inhabitants, yes. He did not make sin the inevitable conclusion. He didn't give the allegorical "you" a sinfull nature to seek a prostitute, any more than he gave "you" the desire to be a prostitute. That is a result of man's decision not to trust in God. Being a Christian doesn't make you any less personally accountable for your actions. In fact it holds you to both the laws of the land and to God's laws, which arguably would be more personally accountable. The pont was that it's Christian standard dogma that sin is seperation from God. However you look at the situation as a Christian, if you're sinning you're seperate from God's will and therefore can't hold God accountable, as you're not under his guidance, empowerment or protection.
SW Wrote:Good to talk to you again as well. I seperate it a little differently. I believe we all have free will and are therfore ultimately accountble for our own use of our personal morality. God is a guide or compass for improving our individual accountability, but I don't think he's any more responsible for our bad, than he is for our good. Now our works (which I believe was what you were getting at) are for naught without being empowered through following Christ. Part of living a victorious life though under Grace is accepting that we are all sinners and can't accepting that Grace so that we can receive salvation and show works and fruit from God through us.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari