Rachel, I am going to put down your responses (Here) and go through them, the same way you did.
I want to establish a pattern of thinking. I find it offensive that you would add homosexual to the list of people who have committed horrendous acts against humanity. For the sake of entertaining your ideology I will continue, but some friends of mine who I dearly adore are homosexuals, and I would call them better people then most “christians.”
It is superficial to say that one can change their heart after committing one of the most horrific acts abusing humanity. So lets assume there is a god, and he is as you are beginning to describe. He knows the hearts and deeds and intentions of his followers and those who “stray.” Now we have to assume he is not guilty (god) of having created man ill and then, under penalty of hell and suffering, forced him to spend his life repenting for his sickness. That way we can free god from being part of the collective guilt for having created sin. Now assume that everyone is a sinner, not just your list, but all of humanity. Well then we have to assume either there are levels of sickness or all sicknesses are equal.
Hmm, my intention was to point out the imperfection, not the acts itself. But about homosexuals, well I have two cousins, who are closet gays, and they come to me for help in our family, so don’t go assuming that I hate homosexuals, I do not.
Why would God be guilty, if you do not know, the text doesn’t say he made man sick, so no point there IMO. I am not saying that someone who committed the most horrific acts in human history can change his heart. He can’t; and they do not, they become so hard in their wrong character that they simply never admit they are wrong.
So by this assessment all people are equal, in that they can’t make a perfect circle. Now that I feel this has been directed at a ten year old child with no concept of sin, we can move to the next paragraph. I don’t subscribe to the good/bad doctrine of people. We are just humans. To say we all have bad in us mandates that we are all a little evil, and sick and so we can’t help the horrible things we do. I refuse to believe that everyone is a bit evil. Just because your god seems bent punishing humans for the crime of birth does not mean the rest of us see it that way.
Ok, this is seriously flawed. So you are saying that we can be bad but not evil? Hand me the text book which says: where do you or I cross the line between little bad and evil. If you do not subscribe to such a doctrine that is fine by me, but simply saying that there is none of these things present in us, is plainly avoiding the obvious. We are just humans, I agree, imperfect humans, we do good things and we do bad things, but we are by nature, imperfect. You will have a hard time proving otherwise, even by a non-theist standard, give me one example of someone who never did anything bad, relative to anyone? I mean, you can try proving it but I can only say its not worth it, otherwise I would ask you to prove your point rather than assert it.
So you establish a sin is a sin without regard to severity and accountability. I disagree as I am sure would many individuals. First my understanding of a sin is “something you know in your heart is wrong and do without regard to the wrong you are doing.” It can cover many things, however the bible stipulates certain things as sins, and even gives punishments by severity of them. Which was not part of your forgiveness model. Now should you be a follower of scripture, to follow the new testament is not to dismiss the old. In fact that was stated by Jesus. He in fact said, ” I have not come here to do away with the ways of old, but to fulfill the prophecy.” So every statement of punishment in the old testament is established as the same. His dying was to end the sacrificing of animals, and death for sin. However it did not establish alleviation for guilt or punishment. Stating that god knows and judges your heart accordingly then means he has to judge what you have done in this time on earth and reward/punish according. The only reward offered is heaven, the only punishment hell. That is after life.
No, I disagree because now you are using a different definition of sin – as an act. Remember, I didn’t treat sin like that. I said “it is the lack of virtue, the lack of ability to be perfect” which causes bad acts, not that the bad acts itself which make someone bad. People are imperfect and therefore they do bad things too. Bad acts are a result of imperfection, sin as an action is the result of being imperfect. You are telling me, I have fever and I am trying to tell you WHY you have a fever? You are describing symptioms, I am describing cause. Lets not mix the two.
O, no, this is going to be problematic for you here. So at one hand you are using Matthew 5:17, highly paraphrased, to back your assumption but you miss John chapter 8 where Christ actually did not keep the old testament, in fact he went the complete opposite. Again, as I advised you earlier, you are making the same mistake a a literalist would make. You are not reading from the text, you are reading into it. Adjusting your point in it rather than see what the text says – which is:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
Where is the “you should follow the old testament too” part in this? cuz I certainly can not see it, unless you are implying that it should be read like it? There is a good thing why the legalistic practice of the law is abolished. A single verse means nothing, when isolated any verse can be misconstrued. You have to lift the whole meaning of the entire body of texts and not single lines, for without context they are useless. For instance I can use the same technique against your point, see Ephesians 2:15 –
by abolishing in his(his being “Jesus”) flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
See Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
See, now you end up with your premise to be faulty. No, the O.T has no transference to the N.T with any rules or regulation, namely the law. Its done with. Period. So no…since your basic premise is faulty, your conclusion is lacking. God is not judging us by what we have done rather its more of what we should have had done and we didn’t. True in the O.T that is how God judged but after Christ it has changed.
Shall I advise a book – “Is God a moral monster” by Paul Copan. It will help you understand the O.T in a different light, though I am doubtful you’ll see its worth for spending your time…but I still recommend it.
So lets say for your purposes that Hitler is equal in sin to a guy who cheated on his wife, or even thought about it. Equating the deaths of six million people with an act, or thought of an act is absurd. In no way can either of those things be equal. If they are in the mind/heart of your deity then human morality wins by default. After all we put tags on crimes/sins which are equal and proportionate to the deed. We do not punish thinking, which is good, because it is insane to punish a mere thought. After all the human conscience exists to think, and understand.
Again, I never spoke of acts and nor did I equate the act of genocide and cheating, I said both Hitler and the average guys are the same in a natural sense, that they both have something in common, imperfection. Because of that imperfection, one went on to kill 6 million people, the other just cheated on his wife. The degree to what they did is irrelevant to the point I was making. In fact I remember stating:
” Hitler and a man cheating on his wife are not the same with respect to the magnitude of what they did; but they are same in one way – they all are in essence corrupt to some degree”
Look here, I agreed that the magnitude of Hitler’s atrocities are not the same and equal as the average man, but I compared the two personalities, another way.
I really think you should read my post again and again because you clearly missed what I wrote. There was a reason I said that you take your time with it. We can not discuss this when we both mean different things when we say the same word. For example:
When you justify this (all sin being equal) with ex-pedophile, ex-killer, ex-rapist then you ignore facts. The fact is in each of those cases the repeat is likely to be 80-100%, even if the person is truly remorseful and repentant. The fact is prison eliminates vast opportunities for their continued function. Other wise it is like a person with with a crack addiction at a crack buffet. They will do what they simply are allowed to. And if your god can see justice being rewarding a murder equal to a person who spent their life helping the poor and sacrificing, then obviously his idea of justice is a bit skewed. Regardless of your intent to solidify the notion that we are not qualified to judge a soul or actions, or the persons heart. The fact remains that dismissing a horrible action and rewarding the person equal to another person based on the idea they thought of a sin is just sloppy justice. If a person thinks about masturbating it is in no way equal to murder. No matter how you see the ejaculate. This ideology of all sin being equal holds no merit. There is no place in the bible which verifies this. If this was the interpretation which od also held to be true then his punishment for all deeds would be the same and looking at scripture it was not. Each situation was vastly different. So how can you be sure he would not feel the person was not punished enough in this life and needs continued punishment. Perhaps this is also something you have not considered, even if the person is truly repentant.
This is grossly misinterpreted. All sin is equal not by the results of what happened but by their shared nature, coming from an imperfect being. I can only say that this is written nicely but it did not address my point at all. In fact you seem to be equating bad behaviour and sin to be the same. The former has to do with ethics, the latter is a theistic terminology, you can not fairly define the term “sin”, using non-theological standards. I mean even if you do it would just be plain wrong.
Secondly, crazy as it is – Grace does seem crazy – grace treats everyone exactly the way they do not deserve to be treated. Therefore it often produces an emotional reaction against outrageous generosity and mercy which is undeserved by all physical standards.
I am wondering where you got the fancy for equating O.T the same as N.T because from where ever you picked it (I doubt you have done your own research) was pretty much a wrong notion. Even if you are taking the bible as something of a support for your assertion here, indirectly authenticating its use that it does have meaning and purpose, which I know isn’t the case for you since you believe otherwise. The thing is, I see cherry picking here, suiting yourself with the verses that can be isolated and the wording read in isolation, as it would mean something today, is a huge mistake. It doesn’t work like that and if you have seen people doing that, I know I have and I still do, including a lot of Bible thumpers then again you have picked up a faulty mechanism of reading the scriptures and no wonder it doesn’t make sense to you. You are not even reading it right.
It makes no sense to set up a punishment/reward system which has a loophole in it the titanic can fit through. If there are conditions imposed upon us, and nothing we can do meets those conditions, but only an mediator can help us with the requirements and that mediator has all power, then we have to go by their mediation. The mediator in this case would be Jesus. Now since he said that he was not doing away with the ways of the old, then he established all the same rules applied. Which meant stoning, burnings, eye for an eye, death to homosexuals, death to adulterers and murders. Which does not leave much time for repenting, when you are busy being killed. Now say there is enough time for a prayer before you are killed. Well then how do you weigh the sincerity. That is flawed as well. So what I see logically here is a completely flawed system meant to make man always guilty. In thought and deed he is forever on the wrong side of his thinking and actions.
Well, this is again based on what I wrote above.
1. Jesus fulfilled the law, he did not re-establish it.
2. Show me a scripture which says Jesus established the OLD LAW.
3. You are right on this one, “how do you weigh sincerity”.
I am afraid its between God and the person, we can not truly know the heart of a person. And on spiritual grounds I am not even concerned with his sincerity. At best I can be wrong. But what does it matter about what I think about his sincerity. If he was not sincere in his heart, he was not forgiven. Grace seems like its a free sin buffet but its not, its the exact opposite. One can abuse this system only in the eyes of people but on a spiritual level this system can not be abused.
Furthermore accusations of sinning by murder, death, or war are not applicable. God himself commanded the death of thousands because of their location. Simply to remove them from the land so that Abraham could inhabit it. God also had no issue with rape, as long as the man then married the virgin he raped. Since a man was not prohibited from any number of wives, he does not have to worry about adultery because he can just rape the woman and then marry her. See how things begin to unravel. It is hard to keep sins in line when there is a given way out. In fact if you do things in the name of god, then how can they be sins, such as murder. This is why religious thinking is flawed and secular morality wins out.
Will go point by point here:
Q. God himself commanded the death of thousands because of their location?
A proper context in your posts would be a relief to me, honestly. The answer is, no; not because of their location. The land grabbing was the result, not the reason. The six nations which were abolished – the Canaanite and others – were ordered by God to be killed because God did not want any of those nations and their rituals to be carried forward. Because you will agree with me, that killing and sacrificing humans and throwing and slaughtering your children is also an abomination. I also would mention that this was not a favoured step. God does not rejoice when sinners die. He is in fact grieved because his creation has turned too much corrupt. I know of a mother who killed her son, because he was going to kill his wife. I do not think this is justified either but the alternate is no better, would you agree?
Plus what does this has to do with N.T?
Q. God also had no issue with rape, as long as the man then married the virgin he raped.
Coming from a feminist I find this ironic. In the ancient times, male dominant societies were the norm. If a girl was raped, she could have no real justice. The society would not accept her in marriage either. So God commanded that if a girl was raped, the man who raped her, would marry her too and that means she would have the social status of a wife. The command was not to rape, as you so liberally and wrongly make it sound, the point was to stop rape. It meant, if you raped a girl, you are responsible and you will treat her with respect, honour and dignity, you will marry her, you will provide for her and you will also protect her. You can not rape her and walk away, she is your responsibility. Do not assume that ancient women were treated equal to men, they were not considered equal. Rape was a common problem and so God established the commandment in favour of the girl, not of the man, as you seem to have put it.
Context, Rachel, context!
Q. In fact if you do things in the name of god, then how can they be sins, such as murder. This is why religious thinking is flawed and secular morality wins out.
Wow! you are right, how can things be done in the name of God be not sin if its murder.
Yeah, so do you believe that murdering an enemy soldier on the battle ground in the name of your country or flag is good? more so is it justified, if so why?
If not, why not?
You’ll get your answer if you answer mine.
Q. This is why religious thinking is flawed and secular morality wins out.
I have no issues with secular morality as long as it is not decided by votes. 🙂
As for the rest of your post, it is based on your earlier premises, which I have shown you would be wrong in the sense you have applied them. So I see no reason to expand further on them. If you wish for a particular point to be addressed, let me know.
If this is your god, as you claim then basically you can’t even know if you will achieve heaven. All you can do is be constantly guilty and remorseful of even your creation. This god is not an all loving god, and he is not a kind god. What this shows me is that he is a invasive, manipulative, cruel, jealous deity with a gilt complex for creating inferior creations and then punishing them for his inability to create something perfect. It is like burning ants on a hill just to watch them suffer.
No, this is not my God you are describing. 🙂 However the description does look ametuer. For one, it falls miserably on the anthropomorphic projection, attributing human qualities to God? In fact I challenge you to prove your premise that God inhabits emotions in the same sense as humans do? Without it the above is simply a refusal to agree from an argument of emotion but not precisely logical framework.
Although I must admit that you ended your post in a knock-out fashion, Im saddened to see that unfortunately for you, the entire effort and the power behind that punch was directed at nothing but air. Which is not what I had expected because I would love the challenge but so far I have failed to see one which is legitimate.
Well, have a very good morning, Rachel. 🙂