09 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSin transfers like a virus?
yes, but even so, despite the fact that one may be innocent and also suffer, the other having overstepped the Bibles moral code has brought the calamity upon the injured party. This does not negate the bibles morality as you have rather vainly tried to assert, for had they kept it, this could and would have been avoided.
09 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungyou can try hard not to sin, but you cannot attain to perfection, thus in some way you shall commit sin, involuntarily, even against your will. please consider this,
[b]It is at present inherent to every human
Then we cannot choose not to sin right?[/b]
(Romans 7:21-25) I find, then, this law in my case: that when I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me. I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, but I behold in my members another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my members. Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with [my] mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with [my] flesh to sin’s law.
thus while we might desire to always do what is correct, because of inherited sin and thus imperfection, we cannot always do what is right. This does not mean that sin gets the mastery over us or that we practice sin, willingly, its a personal battle against the effects of sin that we are involved in.
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK. So nobody except a "perfect man" who is presumably free from the original sin taint can choose not to sin. Regular people do not have free will in this respect. We are forced to sin; this is equivalent to not being able to choose not to sin.
you can try hard not to sin, but you cannot attain to perfection, thus in some way you shall commit sin, involuntarily, even against your will. please consider this,
(Romans 7:21-25) I find, then, this law in my case: that when I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me. I really delight in the law of God according to the man I ...[text shortened]... actice sin, willingly, its a personal battle against the effects of sin that we are involved in.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungits seems to me not quite so simple as you suggest, for we do not wish to sin, thus we indeed exercise our free will, however we are imperfect and make mistakes and err. To state that the will is not involved and that we cannot exercise our will is as you can see, not wholly accurate , for indeed we wish to do what is right, thus our will is exercised, but because we are limited and imperfect we are simply prone to aberration.
OK. So nobody except a "perfect man" who is presumably free from the original sin taint can choose not to sin. Regular people do not have free will in this respect. We are forced to sin; this is equivalent to not being able to choose not to sin.
You see i want to play perfect chess, it is my will and desire to play perfect chess, however i am human and it is inevitable that i shall make mistakes, the more accurately i can play, the less mistakes I shall make and the closer to perfection i get. So it is with sin and imperfection in our present condition, we simply make mistakes even though we desire not to. On the chess board we have choices do we not? which we make on the basis of many different factors. Is it not the same in life, are we not free moral agents to choose a course of action that is wise and one that is not?
10 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitno it cannot be, for the creation was perfect, but it was submitted to futility, not by God, but by humans, according to scripture. Thus as you are aware SG sin entered into the world and we are born imperfect. Why should the designer get the blame for something that he did not do? He did not subject the creation to futility and has went to great lengths and costs, while adhering to his own standards, to reconcile it back to himself.
If we are indeed designed beings, doesn't this indicate a serious design flaw? If so, why do [b]we get the blame for it, instead of the designer?[/b]
in the case of design, i was really intrigued that the body replenishes itself, if we injure ourselves we heal etc, i wondered why this could not go on perpetually and as far as i am aware, given the correct circumstances and environment it should. I asked in the science forum and no one seemed to know, for as yet, there has been no ageing gene identified and mapped, thus i am left with the consensus that ageing and death are the result of inherited sin and imperfection.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePeople do suffer, but do you think people should suffer even if such people do not live up to your moral code? If you do, then you are cruel and possibly a sadist.
yes, but even so, despite the fact that one may be innocent and also suffer, the other having overstepped the Bibles moral code has brought the calamity upon the injured party. This does not negate the bibles morality as you have rather vainly tried to assert, for had they kept it, this could and would have been avoided.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joeWhy should I give you a break? I point out that you are wrong and instead of admitting your error you simply say:
But why are some Catholics against these things? It's because of their religion. The Catholic church believes that pregnacy can be avoided by not promoting condoms! The Catholic church believes condoms should be avoided in the fight against aids. Give me a break.
"It's a free country. You are entitled to your opinion. Facts are facts, however."
Whats that supposed to be about? We all know that I am entitled to my opinion ad you are entitled to yours and that facts are facts. But you are incorrect about the facts and in addition have lied that any reasonable observer would agree with you.
Giving a new example does not prove the first.
I fully accept that peoples religion affects the way they think. However, this is not equivalent to the religion itself or an organized religion being responsible for those peoples beliefs.
In the case of the Catholic Church being against condoms, it is far more complicated than you put it, and they are against condoms for a different reason than you state. I don't personally agree with their beliefs and in this case feel that they are doing a great injustice. But whats that got to do with lightening rods?
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn both cases, it proves that some religious people are idiots. Lightning rods and condoms save lives, but for idiotic religious reasons many people have refused to use them and have encouraged ignorant people not to take advantage of life saving technology.
Why should I give you a break? I point out that you are wrong and instead of admitting your error you simply say:
"It's a free country. You are entitled to your opinion. Facts are facts, however."
Whats that supposed to be about? We all know that I am entitled to my opinion ad you are entitled to yours and that facts are facts. But you are incorrect abo ...[text shortened]... e feel that they are doing a great injustice. But whats that got to do with lightening rods?
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe design is awfully susceptible to this particular virus - a 100% infection rate! Where is the immune system during all this? Was it really so hard to see the vulnerability in advance? You create a species in your own image, but with an intellect which is childlike in comparison to your own - and surprise, surprise, they behave like children the first time they're left unattended. They've no clue that they're 'releasing sin into the world' or anything as weighty as that. God, on the other hand, knows exactly what will happen when they do that one specific wrong thing, and yet takes no steps to prevent them from doing it. You tell me, why not blame God? Isn't this just a case of bad parenting?
no it cannot be, for the creation was perfect, but it was submitted to futility, not by God, but by humans, according to scripture. Thus as you are aware SG sin entered into the world and we are born imperfect. Why should the designer get the blame for something that he did not do? He did not subject the creation to futility and has went to great ...[text shortened]... left with the consensus that ageing and death are the result of inherited sin and imperfection.
The 'solution' is more like chemotherapy than a cure - the design flaw apparently cannot be rectified.
10 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitThere was no design flaw in the creation of the human soul. Ever since then, still no design flaw. Your soul, my soul, every ones' souls have all been created perfect. Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ entered the world without a sin nature and--- as a man--- obeyed God. Imagine that!
The design is awfully susceptible to this particular virus - a 100% infection rate! Where is the immune system during all this? Was it really so hard to see the vulnerability in advance? You create a species in your own image, but with an intellect which is childlike in comparison to your own - and surprise, surprise, they behave like children the first is more like chemotherapy than a cure - the design flaw apparently cannot be rectified.
Adam's soul was perfect, but his choices were not. It was obviously possible to remain in perfection, as Adam and the woman most certainly did for an unspecified amount of time. Moreover, the Lord Jesus Christ maintained that perfect obedience throughout His entire lifetime.
However, Adam eventually gave over the kingdom and in so doing, his perfect soul... died. "Dying, you will die." Choosing the woman outside of the Garden over God inside the Garden, Adam died spiritually and thus passed onto all of his progeny the sin nature.
At the moment of birth, each and every soul is created by God, perfect in every conceivable fashion. Also at the moment of birth, the sin nature is activated. One given by God and one given by Adam.
In short, God has given us everything we need to succeed. What is your excuse?
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joeYou are correct. But that doesn't support your original claim, which you seem remarkably reluctant to admit was false.
In both cases, it proves that some religious people are idiots. Lightning rods and condoms save lives, but for idiotic religious reasons many people have refused to use them and have encouraged ignorant people not to take advantage of life saving technology.
I must also point out that some people are idiots regardless of their religion or lack of it. The vast majority of people who don't use condoms in Zambia choose not to for non-religious reasons.
I find it interesting that you assume that the people being encouraged not to use life saving technology are ignorant. This is not necessarily the case at all. In fact there are plenty of very well educated and knowledgeable Catholics who will not use condoms for religious reasons.
Also, although you call the reasons for not using condoms 'idiotic religious reasons' you don't appear to know what those reasons are, so you can hardly justify calling them idiotic.