One question for Christians

[Cyberman]

sin or evil (against God's will) = death sentence from God.

Great - a solid definition! See? All that trouble and upset could so have been avoided so easily! Right, so sin is some action against God's will (and apparently is synonymous with evil, or at least comparable with it). Okay.

1. How can anything happen contrary to God's will?

2. Doesn't that make sin totally dependent on the existence of God and the correct understanding of its character? Put another way, if God were to be removed from the picture, sin would disappear forever. Why then does God not make itself cease to exist and thus destroy sin?

All assuming that "God" actually exists, obviously.

[ronedee]

sin or evil (against God's will) = death sentence from God.

Great - a solid definition! See? All that trouble and upset could so have been avoided so easily! Right, so sin is some action against God's will (and apparently is synonymous with evil, or at least comparable with it). Okay.

1. How can anything happen contrary to God's will?

2. Doesn't that make sin totally dependent on the existence of God and the correct understanding of its character? Put another way, if God were to be removed from the picture, sin would disappear forever. Why then does God not make itself cease to exist and thus destroy sin?

All assuming that "God" actually exists, obviously.

1. free will

2. LOL! You are not making things easy here stimmy!

[sin] is the absence of God. When God created man, He knew that "free will" would have to be included. Otherwise we would just be robots. The problem with [free will] is that it leaves us exposed to relying on ourselves.

We could use a baby learning to crawl as a "kind of" metaphor.

I don't know if you have children, I have enough for both of us! They try and get away from you as fast as they can to explore. Tell them not to do something? And BINGO...they do it!

So, with mixed feelings we let them explore...and possibly hurt themselves and us in the process.

Would we want them as robots doing our bidding? LOL! Sometimes! No...we wouldn't. We want them to grow up independant, but being essentially good, and loving to us! We like them to be successful, and kind of like us! We wuld do anything for our kids...even die for them! Because we love them more than ourselves!

Are you getting my point stimm? Why not God?

[Cyberman]

No, my fiancée and I were never able to have children, though it was the one thing we always wanted. Now the family name is destined to perish with me.

So I see the point you are trying to make with your parent analogy. Unfortunately, I also see the flaws in it. For one thing, were I to have been a father, I would have been in my children's lives for as long as I would have been able. I would have been there for them, caring for them, nurturing them, protecting them. They could have come to me for anything they'd need and I would have given it to them without another thought. In short, I would have been existent. Do I seriously need to complete the point? Seriously?

Re: sin is the absence of God - Please stop the Dolphinetics (leaping from one point and then diving into another). I am not a child and I don't care for being treated like one. First you claim that sin is something against God's will; now it is the absence of God. If you don't want to make up your mind then that's okay, I'll just find a grownup to talk to and leave you to the tender mercies of the wolfpack.

[Statler Waldorf]

::Takes a bow::

Haha

We added nor subtracted anything. In the Genesis account, the moon is referred to as a light the same way the sun is. Can you prove that this is not the way it was meant to be understood?

If we use the definition of light then the Moon is just as much of a light as the Sun because they both illuminate. There is no qualifier in the definition stating that something that is reflecting waves of light cannot be called a light. I bet you’re a lot of fun to be around…
“Hey, nice red shirt!”
“My shirt is not red! It’s reflecting the red wavelength of light and absorbing the others so it appears red to you! But it’s not you fool!”

There’s a reason we use descriptive language.

The thing many people forget is that, when you break it down, moonlight is still the sun's light. Are we really going to argue about that?

Are you saying that AGU, NASA, and Nature all forgot that? I think it’s more likely they realize that simply because a source (like the Bible) uses descriptive language (such as moonlight) it does not mean that source is scientifically ignorant. I do not accuse NASA of being geo-centrists simply because they use the terms “sunrise” and “sunset”….do you?

[Dionysius]

Missed this.

I read the first view pages and found just as I have elsewhere an inability to answer a question that is foundational to the tradition. I often asked why was it necessary for Jesus to be crucified? How were men saved? The answer invariably was, you are saved from God's wrath. To which just opens a string of question begging.

Where does Jesus say that His sacrafice saves us from God's wrath?

Good question, where?

Let us give thanks and the proferring of gifts to one another that Jesus did use a metaphor that is entirely absurd, that is devoid of noticeable meaning for if he had made it more rational then it wouldn't be as easy to ridicule re-educate the underdeveloped.

Jesus did say that: "He & the Father were the same".

So, maybe God Himself paid the price for sin?

But alas, that for the "unbeliever" means nothing either.

Nor can it mean something if the person proclaiming it is unable to explain how it is of benefit.

The effect is thus, believe me there is a man hiding in the clouds who has a man for a wife and together they made a son which is also the man who gives his wife to whomever will worship him. If you don't worship him your body and your soul will be destroyed by an invisible force which I have no way of verifying or explaining to you, called sin. The man sent his son the man, which is himself, down to earth and killed him but not before torturing him. He then raised him from the dead in order to confuse the hell of out of you and render moot the entire previous sacrifice and torture because he can. Also if you don't believe you will be sent to a place of fiery torment and judgement when you die for time without end. Make sense, thought it would, sign write here x____________________

[Statler Waldorf]

That's not my face... but thank you!

This was hilarious! Made my day.

[Whateverist]

sin or evil (against God's will) = death sentence from God.

What is God's will?

What is God's will? Probably whatever ronedee damn well says it is.
If you have any faith in ronedee's pronouncements at all, you had best get your act together before you get condemned to hell!

[Dionysius]

What is God's will?

What is God's will? Probably whatever ronedee damn well says it is.
If you have any faith in ronedee's pronouncements at all, you had best get your act together before you get condemned to hell!

Rondee has seemingly taken an anti-ministerial stance with me as my series of overly complex questions has no doubt stultified her mind.

[Bad Writer]

If we use the definition of light then the Moon is just as much of a light as the Sun because they both illuminate. There is no qualifier in the definition stating that something that is reflecting waves of light cannot be called a light. I bet you’re a lot of fun to be around…
“Hey, nice red shirt!”
“My shirt is not red! It’s reflecting the red wavelength of light and absorbing the others so it appears red to you! But it’s not you fool!”

You totally missed the point of my question, which is why you started talking about modern-day findings about lightwaves and reflection (because we know they totally talked about that kind of stuff back when they were writing the books of Moses), so I'll rephrase it for you.

Can you prove that the author of Genesis didn't mean to convey that the moon was a source of light?

The thing many people forget is that, when you break it down, moonlight is still the sun's light. Are we really going to argue about that?

Are you saying that AGU, NASA, and Nature all forgot that? I think it’s more likely they realize that simply because a source (like the Bible) uses descriptive language (such as moonlight) it does not mean that source is scientifically ignorant. I do not accuse NASA of being geo-centrists simply because they use the terms “sunrise” and “sunset”….do you?

I don't, and I hope you wouldn't either. For the record, I never accused them of "being geo-centrists", so don't twist this in any such way to make it seem like I did. Please take my words at face value, and I'll do the same for you, SW.

Now, again, I ask you: are we going to argue that the moon isn't the sun's light?

[DeistPaladin]

Are you saying that AGU, NASA, and Nature all forgot that? I think it’s more likely they realize that simply because a source (like the Bible) uses descriptive language (such as moonlight) it does not mean that source is scientifically ignorant. I do not accuse NASA of being geo-centrists simply because they use the terms “sunrise” and “sunset”….do you?

The terms "sunrise" and "sunset" were coined back when people did think the sun revolved around the earth. Just like "The Big Bang" as originally a derogatory term that didn't describe the theory at all (there was no "bang") but is still used today. People still use terms that were coined by people who didn't know any better because of the persistence tradition or habit.

The people who coined these terms didn't know any better. Yahweh has no such excuse.