{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/10/2014 8:10:37 PM
26
I think that it was to give humans real choice. If there is no temptation to test, you how do you know that they choose to do good. Free will is useless if your choices are do good or do good.
English
-
Religion came around to attempt at explaining morals, not the other way around.
-
How can you prove that?
-
Because we would have just murdered ourselves into extinction.
-
Can you prove that troglodytes didn't worship fire?
-
Morals must have come before religion as many other animals won't kill for fun and they don't pray to a God
-
That's because animals biologically can't have morals, their brains are not developed the same way as ours. Humans are the only known organisms who are capable of higher-level mental processes such as critical thinking, problem solving, and knowing the morals of right and wrong.
-
Are you trying to that animals are moral? Animals are instinctual. The often kill off their opposition ( hyenas). Not exactly considered moral by our standards.
-
If someone with a knife tried to steal my food I would use self defence even if it caused them to be injured or even die.[spoiler]hit 'em with a golf club[/spoiler]
-
Hyenas kill pups because their mother was effectively the top dog there was No other reason. And even if morality came before religion it doesn't mean that religion was a justification for morality. That is a post hoc fallacy.
-
I said some animals anyway also if people just learnt from the news, they'd think lots of people loved stabbing each other and killing babies too.
-
That still doesn't address the main flaw in this line of argument, which is the post hoc fallacy. The rest is incidental.
-
Yes, because "live as I tell you to, or suffer the consequences" promotes free choice. [i]next![/i]
-
If satan spreads disbelief in god then it is live as I tell you or bet that I don't exist and there won't be any consequences.
-
Edited by TechnoKat: 4/10/2014 8:41:46 PMNo, not really. When the Bible clearly states that anyone who doesn't worship god is screwed anally. It's still "Worship me, or suffer the eternal torture chamber, regardless of [i]why[/i] you didn't worship me."
-
My point was that the choice is to not believe in god. That is what satan wants us to do. Doing wrong is ok so long as you try not to and repent when you do. If you don't believe in god then you suffer the consequences but if you don't believe in god you don't believe that there will be any consequences.
-
Which again equates to "Believe in me, or suffer." Which again is a [i]wonderful[/i] rendition of promoting free will. It's like telling a kid that they can play with any toy they want to, but if they don't play with the ones you tell them to play with, you're going to spank them.
-
A parent that many people will argue doesn't exist. I believe the fundamental choice in this is whether or not you actually believe in god. If you don't then your actions have no consequences. If you do then your actions have consequences. Right now I am faced with the choice of watching pornography or not. I know that I shouldn't and the consequences of doing so are basically me feeling bad about it later but nothing else really. I believe that satan is tempting me to make the wrong choice. I have free will to do what I want in this situation without eternal damnation as a consequence because I believe in god's grace. Where someone who doesn't believe in god probably won't see either choice as particularly bad and inconsequential.
-
Edited by TechnoKat: 4/10/2014 9:05:30 PMSee this is where you're skewing this whole talk. We aren't talking about who exists and who doesn't. The topic is your Gods supposed advocation of free will. Free will to believe in him, or suffer for an eternity after death. An advocation of free will under the terms that acting outside of his commands means subjecting yourself to what is only described as unimaginable suffering, pain and anguish. Which is not at all advocating free will, but rather advocating devotion to god and punishment for anyone who does not do so.
-
There is no sin beyond forgiving. If you truly feel remorse for your sins and repent you can go into heaven. If my only choice is paradise or everlasting torture that's fine with me. Not like it's a hard choice to make.
-
Ok so for the sake of this argument we assume that god exists and everyone believes in him. The point I made in the second half of that last post is that the consequence to all bad deeds is not pain, suffering and damnation. Most sin is not the end of the world. You brought up the bible earlier. In the New Testament Jesus dies for humanity. This defeats death and allows us something other than pain and damnation by following him. It doesn't matter if I have killed thousands of people. If I truly repent I will be forgiven and the consequences will be living with the guilt and so on. I am free to act outside of what god commands me to do. I do it all the time. Gods grace means that the consequences won't be pain and suffering. As for you point, feel free to believe in him or suffer the consequences. As I stated earlier I am going on the assumption that god exists but you don't believe he does. The consequences for your actions may be that you go to hell but I believe that god will take a long look at who you are and how you act. Is this punishment so harsh that it takes away any choice that invokes it? I believe the answer to that is no. I know people who tell me they believe in god and hell but take no action to live a life that will spare them of that punishment because the other options look so good. What we have been focussing on for most of this argument is the punishment or risk but not the reward. Is there a punishment so great that no reward will get you to risk it? I don't think so. You have that choice even if others may think you are crazy for making it. P.S. I apologies for my argument jumping around so much. It is just the way my brain works.
-
You're taking too much personal account into this. Your beliefs, in several cases contradict what the bible, including the New Testament explicitly state revolving around who goes to hell and who does not, who is punished and who is not. You did however bring up a point to further the argument against God's advocation of free will. Believe and behave, and you are given entry to heaven, a place described as paradise. Failure to believe and behave and you are sent to hell. Ask yourself. If another human offered you the choice to do as your told and get paid, or don't, and get shot. Do you consider that person to be respecting your free will? Or are they trying to entice you to do as they command?
-
Interesting point but before I reply I would like to ask you how I contradicted the New Testament?
-
Edited by TechnoKat: 4/10/2014 9:41:27 PMBoth the New and Old Testament claim that non-believers, blasphemers, and hindrances to the spread of the word of god are to be punished by being sent to the pits of hell. And that for repent to truly occur, one must honestly believe in the one true god, and love him as one would love their family. Repentance is only true when met under these conditions. Nothing was said of personal reviews by God, nor that there were exceptions to the non-believers being cast into hell. It simply states that all those who do not love and accept god, are condemned.
-
We all sin every day and chances are I will blaspheme or something like that that means I should be thrown into hell before I die without getting a chance to repent properly. Do I go to hell? What about a baby that dies after living for only a few hours? The bible says we are born with sin in us do they go to hell? Most Christians agree that they will not. People who never had the chance to turn to god will not receive punishment for not turning to him.
-
We can talk more later, I've got to run into town for a few hours and I doubt I'll have time to respond on the go. Until then.
