|
Cavaradossi posted:He doesn't need to, he's achieved the redemption of all mankind through Christ's sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice is the literal opposite of meaningless: as this thread should tell you, "there is only one thing that matters and it is Jesus Christ". So the creator of the universe created humanity, with perfect anticipatory knowledge of exactly what would happen, the entire narrative of the process being completely clear to Him in the moment of authorship or before. (Related question: Could God have chosen to do something differently, or, having foreseen what will happen, is God unable to contradict what He Himself has perceived?) Having done this, God sends Himself down to suffer and die while getting across a mixture of moral lessons, many of them quite good but with many material similarities to other religious and philosophical figures of the era, some time before, and indeed some time after. This therefore redeems humanity from the sins God created us with, but only, perhaps, if we do certain things, maybe. This is also the seminal event in human history. What need had God to create any of us? We are all irrelevancies in the face of this... THING, God decided to do one day. If we one day communicate with intelligent aliens, how does this affect our story here? It seems to make me realize where people are seeing a religious problem - if we encounter aliens who do not have similar narratives, then we have been toyed with by God for some perverse end which He has elected to spare the Reticulans or the gas-giant bags from. icantfindaname posted:right, nessus was asking how the orthodox explanation makes sense, not nestorianism
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You already KNOW the answer to this: More like ways that favor baby punching over awesome fun. Nothing mysterious about that, it's just dickish. But seriously I thought evil was the result of free will, but apparently it's okay to violate free will when all I want to do is fly to the store instead of walk? Cavaradossi posted:John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God. Define your terms, specifically "beginning," "Word," "God," "with," and "was." Those last two seemed to be used in ways that violate logic, how can something be with something which it also is, and why is "Word" prioritized over "God" when they are the same thing...heck, why even have different terms at all. Doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:More like ways that favor baby punching over awesome fun. Nothing mysterious about that, it's just dickish. But seriously I thought evil was the result of free will, but apparently it's okay to violate free will when all I want to do is fly to the store instead of walk? What don't you understand about mysterious But yeah, its pretty stupid. God is blessing you when you gain, or working in mysterious ways when he does not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:right, nessus was asking how the orthodox explanation makes sense, not nestorianism Oh, then the same applies then; it is neither gnostic nor a mystery religion, though it contains mysteries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:More like ways that favor baby punching over awesome fun. Nothing mysterious about that, it's just dickish. But seriously I thought evil was the result of free will, but apparently it's okay to violate free will when all I want to do is fly to the store instead of walk?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think free will is generally held to refer to moral or rational things and choosing between right and wrong. You don't have wings or organic jet thrusters so you can't fly (without mechanical aids), but this doesn't take away from your moral sense. If you DID have wings and COULD fly like that guy from Barbarella, it would still be wrong of you to poo poo on your neighbor's car. Yeah but something like "I choose not to die of cancer, thus leaving my children orphans," seems to be a moral or rational choice - I mean, choosing to die from a preventable disease, leaving orphans, "just because," would be an immoral act, so choosing otherwise would be moral. But this is a moral choice that is often denied us. Saving your brother after he falls into the ocean is a moral choice, but oops, you've been swept under by the tides too, you don't get to make that choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:God could have just redeemed all mankind with a snap of his fingers. The whole riggamaroll with Jesus was unnecessary. No, it takes a much greater sacrifice to redeem all of humanity's sins. Suppose we send someone to prison for theft. We could have snapped our fingers and let the person free - but we don't; this does not atone for the crime. All of the sins of all humanity is a much greater burden to bear, and only Christ could redeem that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No, it takes a much greater sacrifice to redeem all of humanity's sins. Suppose we send someone to prison for theft. We could have snapped our fingers and let the person free - but we don't; this does not atone for the crime. All of the sins of all humanity is a much greater burden to bear, and only Christ could redeem that. Whoa so who set up all these rules that God is constrained by? Did God constrain himself just to get the chance to get incarnated and tortured, or are they functions of the universe that God is unable to change?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yeah but something like "I choose not to die of cancer, thus leaving my children orphans," seems to be a moral or rational choice - I mean, choosing to die from a preventable disease, leaving orphans, "just because," would be an immoral act, so choosing otherwise would be moral. But this is a moral choice that is often denied us. Saving your brother after he falls into the ocean is a moral choice, but oops, you've been swept under by the tides too, you don't get to make that choice. Cavaradossi posted:No, it takes a much greater sacrifice to redeem all of humanity's sins. Suppose we send someone to prison for theft. We could have snapped our fingers and let the person free - but we don't; this does not atone for the crime. All of the sins of all humanity is a much greater burden to bear, and only Christ could redeem that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Right, but other than God (apparently) entities don't have the infinite ability to make their will come true. The moral thing here is in what you do with your limited powers, sort of like Spider-Man. Eh, I guess, if you consider "one of my sons died morally and heroically" a better or equivalent outcome than "both of my sons are alive, and one morally rescued the other." Though, say, dying of a random thing like currents doesn't require an infinite ability to make your will come true, it's just a random thing denying your ability to exercise your will. Of course, it's not random, I guess, it's planned and designed by God, so he's the one denying the exercise of your will "save my brother." This doesn't even touch on impaired judgement. How does schizophrenia or dementia fit into one's ability to exercise their will to make moral judgements?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Nessus posted:God created us with full knowledge of what we would do, according to definitions which He Himself created. We've established these rules don't apply to God, because when he kills a ton of people it is a good act, but when we do it, it isn't; God could therefore have set different boundaries, but he did not. God could have created us without free will (He created lots of things without free will). But creatures without free will cannot know their creator. God created us to know him. Of course this gives us the ability to reject God. You have to choose not to do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No, it takes a much greater sacrifice to redeem all of humanity's sins. Suppose we send someone to prison for theft. We could have snapped our fingers and let the person free - but we don't; this does not atone for the crime. All of the sins of all humanity is a much greater burden to bear, and only Christ could redeem that. When we charge someone for theft we don't send their buddy Steve to jail in their place. Substitutionary punishment is inherently immoral.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Eh, I guess, if you consider "one of my sons died morally and heroically" a better or equivalent outcome than "both of my sons are alive, and one morally rescued the other." Though, say, dying of a random thing like currents doesn't require an infinite ability to make your will come true, it's just a random thing denying your ability to exercise your will. Of course, it's not random, I guess, it's planned and designed by God, so he's the one denying the exercise of your will "save my brother." You're taking free will in the sense of being able to do what you want, and that when you can't do certain things because of a lack of an ability or other obstacles in your way, your will is being impaired. I think this is somewhat true from a Thelemic viewpoint, but the Thelemic viewpoint would also say that once you know your authentic true will, there will be no obstacle you can't move. However, this 'true' will is different from the day to day wants and desires, even if they are very strong. I'm talking about it as the capacity for moral choice, the part of you which can consider whether it is right or wrong to go do a certain thing (but does not guarantee success in such actions.) A better example here might be: Your brother is embezzling from his company and shows no signs whatever of being caught. What's more he's bought you a new car. Do you turn him in and end the gravy train, or do you continue to benefit from your brother's criminal actions? The idea here is that you are, assuming you are reasonably grown-up and not materially impaired by something, able to make distinctions between what is right and what is wrong and act accordingly. (You might try to turn in your brother, and then his Mafia buddies whack you and you're found in the East River.) Cavaradossi posted:God could have created us without free will (He created lots of things without free will). But creatures without free will cannot know their creator. God created us to know him. Of course this gives us the ability to reject God. You have to choose not to do so. Nessus fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:God could have created us without free will (He created lots of things without free will). But creatures without free will cannot know their creator. God created us to know him. Of course this gives us the ability to reject God. You have to choose not to do so. Define "know," and don't equate free will with consciousness, because those are two entirely separate things. Also I'm interested in your objections to my earlier criticisms - drowning and mental impairment like Schizophrenia or a tumor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The idea here is that you are, assuming you are reasonably grown-up and not materially impaired by something
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The idea here is that you are, assuming you are reasonably grown-up and not materially impaired by something, able to make distinctions between what is right and what is wrong and act accordingly. (You might try to turn in your brother, and then his Mafia buddies whack you and you're found in the East River.) The "act accordingly" and "mental impairment" parts are my whole point. Anyways, in your example, the "moral" choice leaves the world with one criminal and one dead person, so it's only a good choice once you accept the "real" world exists beyond this pale shadow we call existence - otherwise God would say, I know you want to do the right thing, so it counts, but don't get yourself killed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
When you take it at its face, the entire narrative of the Bible seems to be: God had a shitload of angels who praised and served Him, but by design, not by choice. This wasn't good enough for Him, so He set up the world as a sort of game and/or testing ground wherein people would, through their lives on Earth, either choose to serve Him or not, and those that did got to go to Heaven where they'd continue serving Him forever. Those that did not decide to worship him get sent away to hell forever. The system wasn't working, though, because so few people were good enough to go to Heaven, so God found a loophole via Jesus and thus anybody, sinner or not, can come worship Him after they die if they chose to worship Him on Earth. The End of Days is basically the point at which God says, "yep, got enough servants now, time to close the testing ground." In this view, not only is God a complete narcissist and jerk, but he seems subject to laws beyond his control. That's the weird thing about the Jesus sacrifice to me; God had to have some sort of tangible showcase of forgiveness of the world's sins. If God is really God, yes he could have just snapped his fingers. Cavaradossi posted:No, it takes a much greater sacrifice to redeem all of humanity's sins. Suppose we send someone to prison for theft. We could have snapped our fingers and let the person free - but we don't; this does not atone for the crime. All of the sins of all humanity is a much greater burden to bear, and only Christ could redeem that. Let's imagine it this way: you say snapping fingers is not good enough for the sake of atonement. Instead, let's say that everyone in the US commits a horrible crime worthy of the death penalty. The president then chooses to kill himself and nobody serves any jail time - indeed, quite the opposite, they all get a new car. Where is the atonement there? Where is the justice?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:When we charge someone for theft we don't send their buddy Steve to jail in their place. Substitutionary punishment is inherently immoral. Which is why we need the sacrament of penance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:God could have created us without free will (He created lots of things without free will). But creatures without free will cannot know their creator. God created us to know him. Of course this gives us the ability to reject God. You have to choose not to do so. Free Will is a lie. All your choices and actions are determined by a complex and ongoing series of electro-chemical reactions in your nervous system. You can no more choose to act against your nature than a lizard can choose to become a bird overnight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Which is why we need the sacrament of penance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Define "know," and don't equate free will with consciousness, because those are two entirely separate things. Also I'm interested in your objections to my earlier criticisms - drowning and mental impairment like Schizophrenia or a tumor. CCC 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What, exactly, are we apologizing for at this point? Sin
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
The Snark posted:To answer your question about one thing faith offers that atheism does not, hope for some measure of persistence past death for one. As an atheist you die and... are now so much rotting meat. What do you have to hope for? That your limited amount of life might be spent in a way you judge to be worthwhile. Which doesn't remotely dull the terror of death but life isn't generally a very happy thing, so I wouldn't really expect it to have a happy ending. Yes you're going to die and yes it's horrible, but that's part of being human. You just have to face it, do your best. It's quite possible to live without hope for life after death. I would personally argue that it helps to place a suitable amount of importance on your rather short amount of time being alive, and motivates you to use it appropriately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Which is why we need the sacrament of penance. The sacraments are meaningless to God. What worth does even a billion billion lifetime's of penance hold when compared to infinity? What worth does a single penny hold to Bill Gates?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:CCC 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. You've repeatedly refused to explain what any of your words mean, so yeah. It's stupid to think that a neuron misfire or a tumor is an "evil disorder" considering there's only one entity capable of stopping it, and He chooses not to. It can't be both a part of his plan and a disorder of his plan at the same time, but then you (at least the sources you're emptyquoting) seem comfortable with vagueness and fallacies and nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
The sin that God defined, and which God created us knowing fully we would do, but which offended him so much he had to stage a complex murder plot for his own Self in order to make up for it maybe, to some extent, possibly, if you're lucky. There is obviously evil in the world and bad deeds, but this construction of sin you create seems to make a mockery of the very idea. If I created a situation where a bad thing happened, and which I knew would happen, and then blamed the situation for that bad thing occurring, I would probably only be able to get away with it if I was very powerful, which perhaps is the lesson being imparted here. "Power justifies everything." Sharkie posted:You've repeatedly refused to explain what any of your words mean, so yeah. It's stupid to think that a neuron misfire or a tumor is an "evil disorder" considering there's only one entity capable of stopping it, and He chooses not to. It can't be both a part of his plan and a disorder of his plan at the same time, but then you (at least the sources you're emptyquoting) seem comfortable with vagueness and fallacies and nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Nessus posted:If I created a situation where a bad thing happened, and which I knew would happen, and then blamed the situation for that bad thing occurring, I would probably only be able to get away with it if I was very powerful, which perhaps is the lesson being imparted here. "Power justifies everything." We don't blame roadlayers for car accidents. They create the situation where car accidents can happen. But the drivers are (sometimes - assuming for example that they don't succumb to brain tumours) morally culpable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:We don't blame roadlayers for car accidents. They create the situation where car accidents can happen. But the drivers are (sometimes - assuming for example that they don't succumb to brain tumours) morally culpable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:We don't blame roadlayers for car accidents. They create the situation where car accidents can happen. But the drivers are (sometimes - assuming for example that they don't succumb to brain tumours) morally culpable. Come on, you know this analogy doesn't hold up. Don't dance around the issue with flawed metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Roadlayers don't have omniscient knowledge of the future, though. I think it would be a pretty blinkered roadlayer who didn't realise that car accidents could happen on the roads they created.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:We don't blame roadlayers for car accidents. They create the situation where car accidents can happen. But the drivers are (sometimes - assuming for example that they don't succumb to brain tumours) morally culpable. The reason we don't do that is because the roadlayer did not, ostensibly, create the road, the car, the people driving it, the laws of physics which describe the nature of the car accident, and the concept of linear time which causes its effects to be permanent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:I think it would be a pretty blinkered roadlayer who didn't realise that car accidents could happen on the roads they created. No, but they didn't also construct every single circumstance under which those accidents would occur, in perfect knowledge that they would occur, had to occur, could never do otherwise than occur as would be the case for, you know, an omniscient creator God.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:I think it would be a pretty blinkered roadlayer who didn't realise that car accidents could happen on the roads they created. I mean, that would ease up a lot on you here, if God was omnipotent but he too does not know EVERYTHING.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
You'd think creating the entire existence would keep you pretty well informed of happenings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So are you saying God does not have perfect knowledge of the future? God created Man with free will. Men choose their actions. God knows (in eternity) those choices. Some of the choices are bad ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:God created Man with free will. Men choose their actions. God knows (in eternity) those choices. Some of the choices are bad ones. Which begs the question of why he would create people deliberately in the knowledge they'll gently caress up and go to hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:God created Man with free will. Men choose their actions. God knows (in eternity) those choices. Some of the choices are bad ones. Except when men don't choose their actions, right? Which brings us back to mental impairment. There's also the matter that men don't choose the environments in which their choices are made and thus constrained. A kid born in ancient Assyria doesn't have any means of determining "worship not-YHWH and kill your enemies" is a bad choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which begs the question of why he would create people deliberately in the knowledge they'll gently caress up and go to hell. Raises the question. God created Man to share in His own life. Like any parent, his children might choose the wrong thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Raises the question. God created Man to share in His own life. Like any parent, his children might choose the wrong thing. Wait, that's not a good analogy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:Except when men don't choose their actions, right? Which brings us back to mental impairment. There's also the matter that men don't choose the environments in which their choices are made and thus constrained. A kid born in ancient Assyria doesn't have any means of determining "worship not-YHWH and kill your enemies" is a bad choice. We've done the parts of the CCC on reduced moral culpability, and the descent into Hell and the redemption of the dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:17
|
|