From: Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: re: That sin thing
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 09:50:43 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/14.0 - The Aviation BBS, Meridianville AL

James Reed says:
>> Why is it automatically assumed that we choose to sin? Is it
>> something about human nature? If it is, then I don't see why we
>> should answer for a design flaw. Or is it something about free will?
 
>You always have an interesting choice of words.  And you spout
>questions so quickly :-).
 
It's the writer/journalist in me :) College wasn't a total loss...
 
>It is not "assumed" that we choose to sin.  The Bible asserts that it
>is a fact that all have sinned.
 
But the Bible was penned many years before any of us were born. So at
least the authors assumed we would. Or were told that we will by God.
 
>It is about free will.  We are not forced to sin any more than we are
>forced to do good.  We get to choose.  It's true that different choices
>lead to different results.  Someone who drops out of high school
>probably won't make as much money as someone who completes college,
>is that unfair?
 
But we STILL have to be "born again," or whatever the nearest Aramaic
phrase is. If we don't, then we don't just drop out of high school,
we're thrown out - and we're thrown out so fast that we didn't even know
we were there in the first place :)
 
>Whether or not that's a design flaw is an interesting question that
>assumes quite a bit.  The biggest assumption is that we can somehow
>judge God's design.  I don't understand all God had in mind when He
>designed things, nor do I understand how everything works, therefore
>I am incapable of determining whether or not there are flaws.
 
Oh, there are flaws. Logic tells us that. And if logic leads us astray,
then our minds are flawed. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but this
sounds too close to the "it is not for us to question the workings of
the Lord" arguments that have had me pulling my hair out in frustration
for years :)
 
>> But we
>> assume that residents in Heaven, or at least God himself, have free
>> will, and never choose to sin.
 
>There are many Christians who believe
>that Satan and his demons once were angels in Heaven.  The story goes
>that Satan was the "fairest" (or something like that) angel.  He got
>so full of himself that he tried to put himself above God (apparently
>with support of other angels).
 
Satan: "Well, there's God. Just sitting there on his throne, blessing
things. He's all-powerful and all-knowing. Hmm... yeah, I think I can
take him!" :) Satan sure is a moron, eh? :)
 
>I can't comment much on what the Bible says about this.  I'm sure
>there's not blatant, clear-cut, obvious statement of the whole
>story and I haven't personally tried to track down all the pieces
>and make sense out of them for myself.
 
The Bible is a bit obscure when it comes down to the revolt of the
angels. We have to turn to fiction writers for that :) "Paradise Lost"
is a good one, but I recommend "To Reign In Hell" by Stephen Brust.
 
>Sin is not necessarily a plotted evil.  Sin means missing the mark,
>failing to live up to God's standards whether in a "major" or "minor"
>way.
 
So God will send us to hell if we don't repent of things that weren't
our fault? Some Christians claim that God has to be tough with us form
time to time, just like a parent is tough with a child. They say that
this is how we learn lessons. But there are two problems I have with
this:
1) If any parent dished out punishment as extreme as what God does, we'd
clap them in irons and hide them in a jail cell so dark and lonely that
they have to pay spiders for sex.
2) Once you're in Hell, it's a little too late to learn any lessons.
 
>It includes lieing as well as murder.
 
Boy, that's justice for you :)
 
>> Do I still get to burn, because I can't believe in God?
 
>"Can't", "won't", or "would rather not"?
 
"Can't." I don't have any choice in the matter. I just DON'T believe in
him. "Won't" isn't a good phrase, because it implies control over your
beliefs. "Would rather not" isn't any better, because it implies that
your desires affect what you believe.
 
>He was upset
>at the misuse of the temple area and took drastic steps to correct the
>problem.  Haven't you ever heard of "righteous indignation"?
 
I'm a big fan of righteous indignation :) But how come being righteously
indignant while committing vandalism is not a sin, but telling a white
lie to preserve someone's feeling IS a sin?
 
>I think many Christians would say that God want to have a relationship
>with us.
 
Well, we failed at defining a miracle. Maybe we could define a
relationship? A relationship with an infinite being is not similar to
the relationships we have with each other.
 
>The only condition is that in order to have the
>relationship, you have to accept Jesus.  Is that so bad?
 
It is for me :) It's an easy requirement for those who do already. It's
an impossible one for those of us who CAN'T.
 
>Now for the question of why did God give us a choice, why didn't he
>just make us so that we would all choose "the right thing".
 
I'm not suggesting that God make us into wind-up toys. That would be
even duller for him than finite life forms must be. But why didn't he
make us smarter, so we don't choose to do evil out of ignorance? Why
didn't he put us on a more perfect world, where circumstances wouldn't
force good people to rob, lie or kill to feed hungry children after a
natural disaster? It's not always free will that forces evil choices on
us. Sometimes it's mother nature.


--  
 * Christian.Walters@p0.f14.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion