How Do Christians Reconcile The Following Question Regarding Their Faith?

[buddhist]

Free will does not need to be a sin if god have the first humans choices among good options that please god.

If I were god, I would not give humans free will to sin. I will give them free will to love me. They would have positive things to choose from. I would not punish them for not loving mw but if they didnt, that isnt a sin because there is no options other tha positive to turn to.

It sounds like you are describing the Christian "heaven"; this then begs the question: why didn't the Christian god create men and women to inhabit this "heaven" in the first place, without the need for earth and all of its associated sufferings, if he could do so?

 

[sojourner]

Nope. Your "free will" is limited by power. No matter how much you will it, can you fly to Saturn by flapping your arms?

I didn't say we could accomplish our choices, I only said we were free to make those choices. I can choose to fly to Saturn. And I shall do do when the technology presents itself such that I can make good on that choice.

 

[sojourner]

Are you saying that God doesn't insist on receiving worship and belief?

Or are you saying that God does not love us because he insists on all sorts of requirements?

God does not insist on receiving our worship or our belief. God has no requirement of us other than to be true to who we are.

 

[prometheus11]

Comparing our sentience to God, is in my opinion, equivalent to comparing humans with clay. Kind of why I went with that analogy.

Jesus quoted the OT scripture and said, "yes are gods."

And I... really don't know what to say to people who think as you do. Not because there are no words because there are, but because people like you can't hear them. Your rationality is just too different to my own.

So you're not going to use those words for other people reading the thread who might be swayed by your rationale?

 

[prometheus11]

God does not insist on receiving our worship or our belief. God has no requirement of us other than to be true to who we are.

Gotcha. So most atheists need not be concerned with God. Cool!

 

[prometheus11]

I didn't say we could accomplish our choices, I only said we were free to make those choices. I can choose to fly to Saturn. And I shall do do when the technology presents itself such that I can make good on that choice.

Awesome, I choose to have a billion dollars and grow elephant tusks from my kneecaps.

 

[sojourner]

Gotcha. So most atheists need not be concerned with God. Cool!

I don't think they should, if that construct carries no meaning for them.

 

[prometheus11]

I don't think they should, if that construct carries no meaning for them.

Wait, j thought the only criterion was being true to ones self? Now we have to be concerned with if it is true to ourselves AND whether the concepts have meaning for us? This is getting confusing.

 

[Katzpur]

That inherited sin makes people feel they cant be like Jesus. I honestly feel that's a wrong way to look at christian lifestyle. Thats me.

You're right. The thing is, the idea of inherited sin was not what the Christians of Jesus' day believed. I'm a Christian and I don't believe in it any more than you do.

 

[InChrist]

I think that any being that has the power of choice that is less than God, will make less than godly choices, less than perfect choices. This is what allowed sin to enter into the world and all the evil which follows. On the other hand, if we didn’t have the power of choice we couldn’t love God— we couldn’t love one another—we would be robots created to say, I love you God, I love you God, but it would be meaningless. Therefore, in allowing man the power of choice which man must have in order to know God, in order to love God, and to love one another, that opened the door to the possibility of evil.

 

[sojourner]

Awesome, I choose to have a billion dollars and grow elephant tusks from my kneecaps.

...and when you become as Donald Trump, and have the genetic wherewithal to alter your composition, I have no doubt that you'll accomplish your choices. But I fail to see why the concept of free will and free choice should include things outside the bounds of what we were created to be?

 

[sojourner]

Wait, j thought the only criterion was being true to ones self? Now we have to be concerned with if it is true to ourselves AND whether the concepts have meaning for us? This is getting confusing.

If who you are doesn't resonate with a particular mythological construct, how is that confusing?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you have no free will to sin, you have no real choice, which means that you cannot freely engage in love. The "purpose" of free will isn't "so we can be saved." The purpose of free will is so that we can love.

That is odd. If my mother put a hundred toys in front of me, I have free to choose between race cars and barbie dolls. I have the free will to love her still. I can change my mind, but why?

If my mother put a gun with the toys and someone tempted me to use that gun and I did, I would suffer consequences. Instead of taking the gun and the tempter from the "playpin" she decides to throw me out.

Now, I have temptation to do anything.

Her choice to throw me out was not productive in teaching me right and wrong. Saying something is wrong is not the same as teaching him "without" punishment.

If the mother did keep toys in the playpin without a gun, would not rob me free will? No. I see nothing negative.

 

[InChrist]

I was looking for that God you speak of, but he's not there. If he is them I'm no more flawed than he is.

How were you specifically expecting God to show you that He was there?

 

[InChrist]

I think any being that has the power of choice that is less than God, will make less than godly choices, less than perfect choices. This is what allowed sin to enter into the world. On the other hand, if we didn’t have the power of choice we couldn’t love God— we couldn’t love one another—we would be robots created to say, I love you God, I love you God, and it would be meaningless. Therefore, in allowing man the power of choice which man must have in order to know God, in order to love God, and to love one another, that opened the door to the possibility of evil.

 

[prometheus11]

...and when you become as Donald Trump, and have the genetic wherewithal to alter your composition, I have no doubt that you'll accomplish your choices. But I fail to see why the concept of free will and free choice should include things outside the bounds of what we were created to be?

I was just responding to your claims they seemed strange.

All the money in the world isn't going to realize some desires (flapping arms to fly to Saturn).

 

[Thana]

Jesus quoted the OT scripture and said, "yes are gods."




So you're not going to use those words for other people reading the thread who might be swayed by your rationale?

No, Because I'm not here to convince people. I just like to debate.

And you're using the passage out of context, which makes it sound as if the NT or the OT actually considered humans Gods when it was really just referring to humans with authority who were like Gods among men and the whole point was to remind them not to abuse their power.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It sounds like you are describing the Christian "heaven"; this then begs the question: why didn't the Christian god create men and women to inhabit this "heaven" in the first place, without the need for earth and all of its associated sufferings, if he could do so?

Well, the garden of eden was already "heaven" but puting that tree in there that has the same wisdom as god was like puting a needle in food and telling a child not to eat it. Take the needle out. The child can decide to eat it but if he does not it wont affect him eternally.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not because there are no words because there are, but because people like you can't hear them. Your rationality is just too different to my own.

And I feel the same toward people who think like you. Can you not fathom that? Believers dismiss most things I have to say on the subject of their belief - even when I leave them at a loss for words - which I have to admit, I quite often do. I feel it has to do with what I say reaching a point of becoming so uncomfortable that they have to retreat into a sort of "God works in mysterious ways" cocoon to save their minds from some form of what they would consider "deviance". There's something I feel is being "admitted" implicitly there - though I haven't yet been able to put a description of what it is into words.

You seem unable to "hear" my reasons for questioning - even though you believe it was God who gave me this very ability (the ability to contemplate such things, free will, etc.) - to hear the questions, understand they have no answers worthy of acceptance, and even though I know that to be true, ask them anyway. I cherish it - even as you seem to abhor it. Never pity me - for I never have nor will I ever consider myself pitiable in this regard. The same as you would never accept anyone's pity for your beliefs.

 

[prometheus11]

I think any being that has the power of choice that is less than God, will make less than godly choices, less than perfect choices. This is what allowed sin to enter into the world. On the other hand, if we didn’t have the power of choice we couldn’t love God— we couldn’t love one another—we would be robots created to say, I love you God, I love you God, and it would be meaningless. Therefore, in allowing man the power of choice which man must have in order to know God, in order to love God, and to love one another, that opened the door to the possibility of evil.

Why couldn't God have done everything the same way except put a "sin barrier" up that wouldn't allow sin in?