Moral Progress

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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.

And who set up this system whereby the 'sin nature' is activated? To what purpose?

In short, God has given us everything we need to succeed. What is your excuse?
Cant make up your mind can you? Do we have a sin nature or not? Are we able to avoid sinning or not?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
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 ...[text shortened]... is more like chemotherapy than a cure - the design flaw apparently cannot be rectified.

ah but you see my learned friend one must contend with free will, otherwise God becomes a tyrannical autocrat, and that can never be. Yes being outside the realm of time God is able to look infinitely towards the future and infinitely towards the past, and he did indeed make reparation immediately after the fall.

You see the whole issue has been settled in Christ, for he had to be perfect, for the very reason that you stipulate, for Adam was perfect, with a perfect intellect and fully cognisant with his actions and what the result would be, that is why his actions is in a sense inexcusable. He was lovingly guided and given instruction, provided with everything he needed but deliberately chose to ignore it and departed on a path of moral independent from God. Why should God be blamed for this, for you may be the best parent in the world, but their comes a point when one recognises that ones children are responsible for their own actions, the hope is, that the guidance and instruction they receive stands them in good stead and that they grow to be healthy and happy. If they choose to ignore it? well. . . .

Originally posted by 667joe
People 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.

First of all its not my moral code, i did not invent it. Secondly the principle is very simple, all people suffer, righteous and unrighteous, what i am saying is, that much needless suffering may be avoided by adhering to biblical principles, which highlights the practicality of applying Biblical principles. Deny it you cannot Jo Jo. I wonder myself Jo Jo why you have taken this stance of vehement opposition to religion, and in my mind i think, well, who can blame you? But my friend you must put what religion practices and what the Bible actually contains into different categories, for they are not synonymous.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
God cannot sin, for sin is imperfection and aberration, God is perfect and simply cannot sin. This statement that no one has chosen not to sin is inaccurate, for when Christ walked the earth as a human, he chose not to sin, although under the same pressures as humans, he remained until his death and subsequent resurrection sinless, thus proving tha us if you engage in questionable activities, you may indeed do yourself harm, who is to blame?

God cannot sin, for sin is imperfection and aberration, God is perfect and simply cannot sin...

I always need to challenge this point when I hear/see it (often in the context of lying).
Firstly is the strict definition of sin "imperfection and abberation"? or is it roughly this in a colloquial sense?

I see no reason that a god said to be infinitely powerful/capable creator of all things and defined (either by us or (assumed) by itself via the bible ) to be point of origin for that which it morally correct cannot bend it's own rules when it desires to.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You see the whole issue has been settled in Christ, for he had to be perfect, for the very reason that you stipulate, for Adam was perfect, with a perfect intellect and fully cognisant with his actions and what the result would be, that is why his actions is in a sense inexcusable.

So this perfect human being who was fully aware of the consequences chose, for the sake of an apple with dubious properties, to cause all the suffering that the human race has gone through throughout history? Or am I misunderstanding you?
And what is that whole convoluted story about the snake and Eve all about? I always thought that was an attempt as excusing Adam.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]God cannot sin, for sin is imperfection and aberration, God is perfect and simply cannot sin...

I always need to challenge this point when I hear/see it (often in the context of lying).
Firstly is the strict definition of sin "imperfection and abberation"? or is it roughly this in a colloquial sense?

I see no reason that a god said to be infinite ...[text shortened]... nt of origin for that which it morally correct cannot bend it's own rules when it desires to.[/b]

ok, dig this my learned atheist friend,

Sin
Anything not in harmony with, hence contrary to, God’s personality, standards, ways, and will; anything marring one’s relationship with God. It may be in word (Job 2:10; Ps 39:1), in deed (doing wrong acts [Le 20:20; 2Co 12:21] or failing to do what should be done [Nu 9:13; Jas 4:17]), or in mind or heart attitude (Pr 21:4; compare also Ro 3:9-18; 2Pe 2:12-15). 13, 18, 19)

A consideration of the use of the original-language terms and examples associated with them illustrates these points.

The common Hebrew term translated “sin” is chattath′; in Greek the usual word is hamartia. In both languages the verb forms (Heb., chata ; Gr., hamartano) mean “miss,” in the sense of missing or not reaching a goal, way, mark, or right point.

At Judges 20:16 chata is used, with a negative, to describe the Benjamites who were ‘slingers of stones to a hairbreadth and would not miss.’ Greek writers often used hamartano with regard to a spearman missing his target. Both of these words were used to mean missing or failing to reach not merely physical objects or goals (Job 5:24) but also moral or intellectual goals or marks.

Proverbs 8:35, 36 says the one finding godly wisdom finds life, but the ‘one missing [from Heb., chata] wisdom is doing violence to his soul,’ leading to death. In the Scriptures both the Hebrew and Greek terms refer mainly to sinning on the part of Gods intelligent creatures, their missing the mark with regard to their Creator.

Mans Place in Gods Purpose.
Man was created in “God’s image.” (Ge 1:26, 27) He, like all other created things, existed and was created because of God’s will. (Re 4:11) God’s assigning work to him showed that man was to serve God’s purpose on earth. (Ge 1:28; 2:8, 15) According to the inspired apostle, man was created to be both “God’s image and glory” (1Co 11:7), hence to reflect the qualities of his Creator, conducting himself so as to reflect the glory of God. As God’s earthly son, man should resemble, or be like, his heavenly Father. To be otherwise would be to contradict and reproach the divine parenthood of God.—Compare Mal 1:6.

Jesus showed this when encouraging his disciples to manifest goodness and love in a way surpassing that done by “sinners,” persons known to practice sinful acts. He stated that only by following God’s example in mercy and love could his disciples ‘prove themselves sons of their Father who is in the heavens.’ (Mt 5:43-48; Lu 6:32-36) Paul ties in God’s glory with the matter of human sin in saying that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Ro 3:23; compare Ro 1:21-23; Ho 4:7.) At 2 Corinthians 3:16-18; 4:1-6 the apostle shows that those turning from sin to Jehovah “with unveiled faces reflect like mirrors the glory of Jehovah, [and] are transformed into the same image from glory to glory,” because the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, shines through to them. (Compare also 1Co 10:31.) The apostle Peter quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures in stating God’s express will for his earthly servants, saying: “In accord with the holy one who called you, do you also become holy yourselves in all your conduct, because it is written: ‘You must be holy, because I am holy.’”—1Pe 1:15, 16; Le 19:2; De 18:13.

Sin, therefore, mars man’s reflection of God’s likeness and glory; it makes man unholy, that is, unclean, impure, tarnished in a spiritual and moral sense.

I need to think about the second part, but it stands to reason that God must be exemplary, for if he requires that others adhere to standards of morality that he sets, it would be hypocrisy on his part to 'bend', these standards when ever he sees fit, for it would set a precedent. But its a really good question and needs some thought, so as to give an appropriate answer.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So this perfect human being who was fully aware of the consequences chose, for the sake of an apple with dubious properties, to cause all the suffering that the human race has gone through throughout history? Or am I misunderstanding you?
And what is that whole convoluted story about the snake and Eve all about? I always thought that was an attempt as excusing Adam.

ok, firstly it was not an apple, let us be quite clear, for we are interested in accuracy of statement, are we not? Its was a fruit, never the less, it could have been anything for it was a mere representation of Gods sovereignty, that being, that God , as the creator has the right to set standards of morality. The standard was set, moral independence would result in suffering, pain and eventually death. God being the source of all goodness and righteousness, cannot deviate from his own standards, for that would be hypocrisy, thus, Adam, for wilfully sinning, in full consciousness of the fact, brought ostracism upon himself and his subsequent offspring. Eve on the other hand while being deceived, induced him to be an accomplice in their rebellion and was also punished.

Of great interest to note is the Biblical phrase, 'good to look upon', as in describing the fruit, for it literally means, 'good for imparting knowledge', thus an appeal was made directly to Eves perfect intellect in an attempt to induce her to be morally independent from God.

Also of interest to you and I, is the very same one that Adam and Eve faced, for we can adhere to Gods morality and show that we support his sovereignty or we can continue on a morally independent course.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, firstly it was not an apple, let us be quite clear, for we are interested in accuracy of statement, are we not? Its was a fruit, never the less, it could have been anything for it was a mere representation of Gods sovereignty, that being, that God , as the creator has the right to set standards of morality. The standard was set, moral independe ...[text shortened]... and show that we support his sovereignty or we can continue on a morally independent course.

or we can continue on a morally independent course.

Steady on Rob, we wouldn't want people thinking for themselves now would we. Whatever next!?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]or we can continue on a morally independent course.

Steady on Rob, we wouldn't want people thinking for themselves now would we. Whatever next!?[/b]

the problem of course dear Noobster is not thinking for oneself, for we are each endowed with the faculty of conscience, rather the poor human is limited by his meagre experience and his tendency towards aberration. There is of course nothing stopping you becoming your own God, well i do declare, whatever next ! 😉

Originally posted by twhitehead
And who set up this system whereby the 'sin nature' is activated? To what purpose?

[b]In short, God has given us everything we need to succeed. What is your excuse?
Cant make up your mind can you? Do we have a sin nature or not? Are we able to avoid sinning or not?[/b]

And who set up this system whereby the 'sin nature' is activated? To what purpose?
God. He preserves us dead while alive. It's a little crazier than you think.

Cant make up your mind can you? Do we have a sin nature or not? Are we able to avoid sinning or not?
Not sure I follow you. I've made up my mind; yes, we have a sin nature; yes, we are able to avoid sinning.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ah but you see my learned friend one must contend with free will, otherwise God becomes a tyrannical autocrat, and that can never be. Yes being outside the realm of time God is able to look infinitely towards the future and infinitely towards the past, and he did indeed make reparation immediately after the fall.

You see the whole issue has bee ...[text shortened]... good stead and that they grow to be healthy and happy. If they choose to ignore it? well. . . .

Children will test the boundaries of authority. It is not a question of if, but when. Anyone who has had children, or even been around them long enough, knows this.

You would not write your child off as 'on a path of moral independence' because he touches a hot stove after you tell him not to.

I don't recall seeing any mention of Adam having a perfect intellect. What I do remember is that Adam had never seen nor experienced death, and thus was limited in his ability to understand what that truly meant.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Children [b]will test the boundaries of authority. It is not a question of if, but when. Anyone who has had children, or even been around them long enough, knows this.

You would not write your child off as 'on a path of moral independence' because he touches a hot stove after you tell him not to.

I don't recall seeing any mention of Adam having ...[text shortened]... r experienced death, and thus was limited in his ability to understand what that truly meant.[/b]

1. Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
2. Evil means to act contrary to God's wishes in Abrahamic religion.
3. God didn't want Adam to eat from that tree.
4. Therefore, Adam performed an evil act.
5. Before Adam ate from the Tree, he did not have Knowledge of Good and Evil.
6. Therefore, when he ate from the Tree, he did not know he was doing evil.
7. God punished Adam and the rest of us for this act.
8. Therefore, God punishes people for what their distant ancestors did accidentally.
9. God is psychotic and cruel.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
1. Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
2. Evil means to act contrary to God's wishes in Abrahamic religion.
3. God didn't want Adam to eat from that tree.
4. Therefore, Adam performed an evil act.
5. Before Adam ate from the Tree, he did not have Knowledge of Good and Evil.
6. Therefore, when he ate from the Tree, he did not kno ...[text shortened]... shes people for what their distant ancestors did accidentally.
9. God is psychotic and cruel.

1.Yes
2. No , evil is something quite different
3.see above
4.also see above
5.Quite wrong for he was endowed with the faculty of conscience
6.Clearly erroneous as evidenced by the above
7. God upheld his own standards of morality, Adam knew the consequences.
8. Again clearly erroneous, he was fully cognitive of what he was doing.
9. Unfounded and unsubstantiated statement, humans must take responsibility for their own actions. Rather interestingly Adam also tried to blame someone else.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Children [b]will test the boundaries of authority. It is not a question of if, but when. Anyone who has had children, or even been around them long enough, knows this.

You would not write your child off as 'on a path of moral independence' because he touches a hot stove after you tell him not to.

I don't recall seeing any mention of Adam having ...[text shortened]... r experienced death, and thus was limited in his ability to understand what that truly meant.[/b]

yes children shall, and Adam had freedom of choice test the boundaries of his experience. Touch a hot stove and he may live, play on a motorway (freeway i think you guys call it) and he may not. How far are you as a responsible parent willing to let your child 'test the boundaries'?

If Adam was without sin, he would have been perfect in every sense of the word, physically and intellectually, for sin carries with it defect. That of course is not to say that he shall do everything perfectly, for perfection is relative to ones own talents. For example i would not expect to get an ace every-time i served at tennis, if i had no natural inclination for it, or make a break of 147 every time at snooker. Life would be quite monotonous if that were the case. Let us not kid ourselves, Adam knew the consequences, for God having justice, love , mercy perfectly balanced would not have punished him if this was the case, for his liability would have been limited. Interestingly there is of course no record of Adam ever having repented underlining his wilful course of moral independence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
1.Yes
2. No , evil is something quite different
3.see above
4.also see above
5.Quite wrong for he was endowed with the faculty of conscience
6.Clearly erroneous as evidenced by the above
7. God upheld his own standards of morality, Adam knew the consequences.
8. Again clearly erroneous, he was fully cognitive of what he was doing.
9. Unfounde ...[text shortened]... sponsibility for their own actions. Rather interestingly Adam also tried to blame someone else.

Shoot, robbie, you and your Jehovah's Witnesses always throw a wrench into my plans! OK, JWs do not have this conceptual problem. Thanks for pointing it out.

What exactly did Knowledge of Good and Evil do for or to Adam? The Tree of Life gives immortality right?