TB:
TB wrote:
tacticslion wrote:
Another example that I used for this, was poorly used so I could manage to fail to make a point.
Wouldn't it be a violation of free will for God to do that? I still say "walking encyclopedia" -- Jesus chose to take on the essence/theory of God (and succeeded because God had made him perfect). Same result, different person making the choices.
Yeah, technically, it WOULD be a violation of free will… except that the ‘seed’ was all that Jesus was, or rather, what enabled Him to be in the first place. When God impregnated Mary when she was a virgin, it was His ‘brain-seed’ that did the impregnating, making Jesus the same as He was. It’s a poor example, and I admitted as such when I first used it, but anyhoo. Basically, the idea was that Jesus was God, if He didn’t have His divinity. Sorry. The example sucked, even if the concept was sound.
TB wrote:
tacticslion wrote:
So instead of God's infinite everything to back Him up, He literally gave up everything, after a fashion, and gave up His advantage over human kind, and stuck the core of Himself and His essance into a human body, complete with frailty, suckage, and limitations. ...
Except there was nothing for God to give up, since God stayed himself
While God remained Himself, Jesus did not. That’s where I was trying to go with the ‘brain-seed’ idea. After the initial imprint, the two rapidly become different people, in game rules. So, yes, They were different People… because of Their experience, yet They were the same Person because of Who they Were (nature vs. nurture at its finest). Which leads to…
TB wrote:
Oh, he very clearly kept his free will ("not my will, but thine, be done"). He just consistently chose to do what God asked, instead of what he would have preferred.
Actually, we agree on this point. We’ve both been trying to say the same thing, but in different ways. You say that Jesus retained His free will, but did what God asked instead. I, unfortunately with poor wording, attempted to state the same theory. The wording being that Jesus used His free will to submit (or disregard) His free will. So, yeah, sorry about any confusion, but I agree with you on that point, if not semantically.
Oh, and yeah… that particular edition of the KJV for some reason consistently sold out… No, seriously, it did.
And as far as the good/evil force, I understand what you’re coming from. I’m not gonna argue it one way or the other, because ultimately it doesn’t matter. I just think it’s a neat concept!
Tossrock:
Thank you for explaining in the other forum, I’ve actually read both yours and Tamayo’s (I read and responded to yours in the first of several posts I’ve made that were deleted by timed sign-off/submit mistake I’ve attempted to circumvent this time). Also, thank you for your consistency! Without it, we’d not have a debate on our hands!
As far as your problem with original sin, I don’t really understand the difficulty. I am both a science major and a Bible minor. I had a nice, long rant in the first two iterations of how I’d studied a number of other religions, sometimes extensively, sometimes not so, and how science doesn’t have all the answers with <insert personal history and conversations with great atheist scientists and professors here> as proof, but that’s long, I’ve done it a couple of times already, and, unfortunately I don’t feel like doing it again.
The simple answer is that even if Adam wasn’t there, according to God’s law, we’re all screwed. Have you ever done something wrong? Did your father ever do anything bad? You’d be in for it. If not, what about your granddad, or his father, or his father. Seven generations is a long time not to make a mistake, you know. So far, I’ve found that I’ve done enough things to be killed, according to Biblical standards, probably a couple of times. BUT, since science is fundamentally unable to prove our origins (the definition of science is a body of knowledge that we have personally observed and with repeatable experiments to prove said observable theory) evolution is relegated to religion (that which concerns itself/defines/or considers life, eternity, the nature of origins and views on deity… rather a broad subject, don’t you think?) and therefore no science can conclusively prove it, unless a time-traveling device (mathematically and theoretically impossible, unless it sends us forward) happens to poop (yes, this is the correct word) into existence and we are suddenly able to see, hear, and experience the creation of the world.
Further, in creation, it’s pretty much stated that Adam was crafted as an adult. It’d be pretty stupid to make the world an infant, if the man required the ‘adult’ planet. Chickens came before eggs, and wholly crafted universes before men that required them to live. Plus, given all of our disagreeing time-clocks of the universe, we really can’t exist. Given the current rate of magnetic degeneration of our planet (which is speeding up), the magnetic field would be so powerful only 10,000 years ago that no life could ever exist. Heck, at it’s current rate of growth (not compensating for the fact that it’s slowing down), Mt. Everest wouldn’t have existed 3,000 years ago. These are very short life spans for things that are supposed to have taken millions of years to evolve and form.
Nonetheless, we can’t prove that Everest didn’t exist more than 3,000 years ago, just like we can’t prove that we evolved from monkeys. Because there is no record of either. It’s not science, it’s religion.
So… why, then, besides the fact that it’s unpleasant to admit that we’re beholden to a Being much greater than ourselves, and are incapable of making restitution on our own, is it ‘bullshit’ to believe in a mythical progenitor? Heck, Hinduism, one of the most popular religions on earth right now, believes we came from milk. Very well divinely churned, infinite
milk. Holy cow. Literally. Technically, so does Buddhism, one of the most respected religions on the planet. And evolution believes that natural processes that have a zero percent success rate are responsible for life, the universe, and everything. Huh. People will believe the craziest things.
So, joking aside, how is it any different from other religions? You pretty much single out Islam, Judaism, and Christianity with your problems with a mythical progenitor who screwed up for everyone. Hinduism (from which Buddhism springs) indicates that without evil, good is useless and worthless. This is pretty much the same thing that Aaron ‘the mad whitiker’ Bourque wrote. While I tend to disagree with him, I understand the concept, and its integral nature to free will. I believe the choice must always exist, but the existence of the results of said choice do not, for there to be any inherent value to good. Anyway, it’s a minor thing, but that’s yet another reason for it.
Finally, if you want more, a friend of mine recently told me that whenever she’s presented with the epicurean paradox, she reminds people of this: when to people go to God? A great many people turn to the religious only in times of problems. Without difficulties in the world, then why would we realize we need God at all?
Regardless of what I write, I know I can’t force you to accept anything, and no one will believe anything they’re set against believing. It’s simple choice, which is what all belief comes down to. Whether it’s believing that the sky is gaseous or solid (Greek mythos), that man has or has not landed on the moon (flat earth society), or that tacticslion is well spoken or ‘full of shit’ (surprisingly more people on the former than I ever believed possible), it all comes down to a choice. That is all that anything is. Even good. Even evil.
Jasper:
Thank you for your gracious words. I appreciate the distinction of being comprehensible and not a raving lunatic. Yeah, it’s a rare compliment when talking to most non-Christians. The fact that more than one person has stated this makes me… well… almost think it might be true!
Honestly, I hope you become a believer, just as I hope everyone on the forum does (see Yorik’s very eloquent rant for more details), but I hold no illusions about anything. It’s quite impossible to force a belief on someone, and people rarely give up their ideals… especially not on something so ephemeral as an internet debate board. Reason rarely, if ever, convinces someone they are wrong about anything, no matter how trivial or important. So, I’m glad that I’ve made a good impression, and if that’s all I’ve done, it’s more than I could hope for. I’ll just trust in God for anything else… it’s part of my belief, ya know! :)
As for those who left because of bad experiences with others… well, it’s not reasonable, but it’s very understandable. Most people choose anything based on their experiences with the people involved. As previously stated, it’s rarely rationality that causes a person to make an important decision. The vast majority of the time it’s how they perceive something, and in religion’s case, how they’re treated by members of that religion. If someone shows you love, you’re far, far more apt to believe, or at the very least be understanding of, what they believe, than if someone treats you unjustly. It’s the sad fact of life that once something becomes popular, many ‘fakes’ come out of the woodwork to wreak havoc with it and ruin it for others who would be sincere. Because with popularity comes power… something everyone wants. Sad, yet true.
Oh, and thank you for the translation. That bothered the daylights out of me. Very courteous of you.
Wrin:
Wrin wrote:
Wow… now I feel stupid. Or should it be stoopid?
Why? I do stuff like that all the time! Plus, the way I’d written it, it is vaguely hard to discern. I didn’t leave much space, so it’s easy to overlook. No stoopidification necessary!
So…
I’ve written a lot. Again. I once again hope I’ve offended none, but also don’t expect the impossible. And…
Thank you. A very large number of people have made me see that there are those who can be reasonable, even if they’ve had very poor experiences. So, thank you, those who agree, or at least understand, and who have accepted my words.
And…
Thank you. Those who disagree, who feel very passionately that Christianity is empty, or who find many holes or problems with my arguments. I appreciate it! It’s challenging, refreshing and nice!
So, this isn’t a call to end this debate board or anything, I just felt like saying thank you while I thought about it (before I forget). So, now you know that when I’m stupid, at least I’m grateful for the opportunity to be so.
So, I guess I’ll be waiting for any more responses?
Until then, peace, joy, and a healthy dost of God!
Edited: for quote suckage and numerous typos
Edited: I discovered that italics doesn't translate from MS Word to this format. I should have known, but never thought of it. SO... I started to go through and change the italics, but I'm tired, I've spent quite a bit of time writing this thing (especially if you count the two previous attempts) and I'm almost too tired to really care about italics at all. So if something would look smarter, more humerous, or better shown in italics, think of it that way, and we can just assume that I probably did it wrongly, but at least now it looks better in your mind!
I also changed the title to something far more fitting. Have a great day! :D