Did God Have Control over the Effects of Original Sin?

[clarkal]

paramedicgirl:

Your objections to Catholicism are not so much based on misunderstandings as they are based on obstinate refusal to recognize the truth…

Yes, I’ve heard atheists receive this charge many times. What motivates such a statement? Why do you think I am being
intellectually dishonest? Are you not insulting my intregrity?

I don’t care much OCD I have. If I thought Catholicism were true, I’d attempt to follow it to the best of my ability. It would not be pretty, however, and, if not impossible, it nearly would be, based on my experience.

And how is above different from saying: “Your objections to Islam are not so much based on misunderstandings as they are based on obstinate refusal to recognize the truth.”

clarkal

 

[clarkal]

barsapp:

You are right in saying that I was paraphrasing Pascal’s Wager: the following quotes have been taken directly from “Pensées” (The Necessity of the Wager):

“This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.” “Atheism shows strength of mind, but only to a certain degree.”

“You do not have to be very smart to notice that the first option is the “reasonable” one.”, is my logical conclusion regarding Pascal’s Wager. But consider it as a non-personal statement.

I understand. I have read Pascal (at least the Wager part), but have obviously forgotten about this statement.

barsapp:

“I didn’t quote Democritus. I quoted the author of the web site ebonmusings.org.” You are right. To shorten things I put it that way. I wrote “Nothing is new under the sun.” (Ecc. 1, 9), because ebonmusings.org is only paraphrasing Democritus atomic theory. As you know Democritus is considered one of the fathers of materialism and atheism.

I see. I’m sorry, but I haven’t read Democritus yet. I will now. Thank you, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

“Well, why did God gives us a brain then?” To understand that “our brain” is not enough to reach the complete truth. Consider the testimony of Socrates (certainly a smart guy (400 hundred years before Christ), not like me) (taken from Plato’s Phaedo):

“for I have good hope that there is yet something remaining for the dead, and, as has been said of old, some far better thing for the good than for the evil.”

“he who has lived as a true philosopher has reason to be of good cheer when he is about to die, and that after death he may hope to receive the greatest good in the other world.”

“And now that the hour of departure is appointed to me, this is the hope with which I depart, and not I only, but every man who believes that he has his mind purified.”

“Never fear (…) that a soul which has been thus nurtured and has had these pursuits, will at her departure from the body be scattered and blown away by the winds and be nowhere and nothing.”

We have two wings to reach the Truth: reason and hope.

Well, what can I say? I mean, one could argue that Socrates was working with the knowledge of his time. Would he still believe in this afterlife if he had our knowledge of science? Would Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, etc? Even smart people can make mistakes. But who knows?

I know there were ancients that denied the existence of gods.
I can’t recall immediately the ancient atheists. I’m sure you could, however. You are a smart fellow.

barsapp:

Your quote: “This is exactly my point. It is not just or fair for innocent children to inherit a disease that they had nothing to do with.” Well, that is why Jesus incarnated… Behind your words I notice some sense of justice and goodness… Be sure that the sum of all justice and goodness is Christ, “God with us”, Emmanuel (Mt 1, 23).

Yes, but I do not believe that justice and goodness are the result of a divine person.

Also, I disagree with Christ’s morals except for a few principles, especially the golden rule. However, many people throughout history stated the golden rule in one form or another before Christ. It’s nothing new, and Christ just sounds like he’s repeating Hilel.

 

[clarkal]

First, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It’s not every day I get to talk with a person who went to Berkeley.

LSK:

I do not accept your premise that there is more evil in the world than good. Refering to Africa, I know personally of incredible, wonderfully loving people and happenings there. I know you have fallen into despair if you believe that there is more evil than good in the world. That is a premise you must hold onto in order to justify denying the Lord.

Why do you believe that there is more good than evil?

Here is a list of diseases:

mic.ki.se/Diseases/Alphalist.html

You could spend all eternity surfing through the amount of diseases on there. Hell, just surf through diseases starting with “A”.

Now calculate how many people
suffer from them.

Also, what about moral evil? Do you believe that the world is more moral than immoral? Why do you believe this?

What about the idea that the world’s moral fiber is slowly deteriorating, that people are straying from religious beliefs more and more and becoming more secular? I hear religious people saying this all the time – is it true? Do you believe it? If not, why?

What parts of Africa did you travel to? South Africa? Stop by Ethiopia by any chance? Nigeria?

LSK:

And I think your presence on this board shows you are on the way home. If you did not care, you would not be posting.

I posted my reason for being here in my other posts.

LSK:

You will not win converts to atheism here because we accept premsises that you deny, while you deny premises that we accept. I also think you know this, which is why you are trying so hard to convince yourself.

Read above.

I am not trying to convince myself of anything. I am already convinced that religion is untrue. But you may extract whatever from my posts. I have to respect that, I guess.

And I’m not trying to convert anyone. If I do, even though I don’t think I will, great!

LSK:

I don’t follow a lot of your arguments. There is a lot of “oh, yeah?” kind of statements.

No one else seems to be having any trouble following my arguments. Could you also give me an example of an “oh yeah” statement?

LSK:

The reality is, there is more goodness in the world than evil. And instead of pointing to a specific continent, I will point instead to the entire world as my proof.

Back it up. You can’t just say it’s self-evident, because it’s not to a lot of atheists. Unless they are just being stubborn, desperate to preserve their immorality?

 

[clarkal]

Lazerlike42:

It seems to me the only alternative would be to lock the child in his room and not let him do anything. That’s hardly a good thing to do.

I disagree. I believe that it is a good thing when they are responsible for such consequences. Yes, do not allow them to have such responsibility, but you can allow them to make less serious, safer decisions. Take the baby away from the nuclear button and put him in a safer environment. This by no means eliminates his free will. I think it is irresponsible of God to allow human beings to hold such power, power of life and death.

 

[clarkal]

correction: Hillel.

 

[Mystophilus]

clarkal:

Yes, but I do not believe that justice and goodness are the result of a divine person.

Neither does the Bible.

Also, I disagree with Christ’s morals except for a few principles, especially the golden rule.

What else is there besides the principles? The other parts are merely explications of those, I would say.
‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. (Matthew 22:37-40)
I realise that you are probably none too keen on the first, even if its primary value is as a motivator to perform the second, but with what else of Jesus’ own teaching do you disagree?

 

[clarkal]

Mystophilus:

Neither does the Bible.

Is that official church teaching or your views? Maybe someone who is orthodox could chime in on the subject.
Mysto:

What else is there besides the principles? The other parts are merely explications of those, I would say.‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. (Matthew 22:37-40)I realise that you are probably none too keen on the first, even if its primary value is as a motivator to perform the second, but with what else of Jesus’ own teaching do you disagree?

Yes, of course… You are correct. I would say that I believe in the golden rule, but I differ from Catholicism in what I believe it means to “love your neighbor as yourself”.

I’ll post which teachings I disagree with in a couple hrs. Sorry for the delay, but I’m eating dinner right now. You understand.

 

[Mystophilus]

clarkal:

If I thought Catholicism were true, I’d attempt to follow it to the best of my ability. It would not be pretty, however, and, if not impossible, it nearly would be, based on my experience.

So what do you follow now? I assume that you do have a particular moral/ethical system, and do not merely act upon pure impulse, so what is your basis for decision-making? How do you decide whether or not you should perform a given action? You note that you do not believe in “religion”, which leads me to ask how many you have investigated.

And how is above different from saying: “Your objections to Islam are not so much based on misunderstandings as they are based on obstinate refusal to recognize the truth.”?

It isn’t, and, for “Islam”, we could also substitute “a flat earth”, “UFOs”, and “the indisputable, ineffable divinity of my cat” (church opening soon; all tithes to be paid in chicken).

More significantly, I think that the claim is wrong. From what you have said, I do not think that your objections to Catholicism are based upon either misunderstanding or stubbornness. You have tried to be Catholic, and found it untenable for you. As this is your personal experience, how can any other human being disagree with it? To do so would necessitate the claim that they can understand your situation better than you can.

 

[Mystophilus]

clarkal:

Is that official church teaching or your views? Maybe someone who is orthodox could chime in on the subject.

Hey! Every once in a while, Church teaching does coincide with my views.

While I can back it up from the text, and thus demonstrate that it did not contradict the views of the people who compiled the Bible, I cannot speak for Rome.

I’ll post which teachings I disagree with in a couple hrs. Sorry for the delay, but I’m eating dinner right now. You understand.

Indeed, and I’m glad you’re back. Did you have a good trip?

 

[paramedicgirl]

clarkal:

Yes, I’ve heard atheists receive this charge many times. What motivates such a statement? Why do you think I am being
intellectually dishonest? Are you not insulting my intregrity?

I don’t care much OCD I have. If I thought Catholicism were true, I’d attempt to follow it to the best of my ability. It would not be pretty, however, and, if not impossible, it nearly would be, based on my experience.

And how is above different from saying: “Your objections to Islam are not so much based on misunderstandings as they are based on obstinate refusal to recognize the truth.”

clarkal

I say this not to insult your integrity, but simply because you are well educated in Catholicism, and used to follow the Church’s teachings. You mention in another post that it was the Church’s teachings on sin and hell that caused your OCD to elevate to the level that was disruptive to your life. Is it possible, then, that your objections to Catholicism are based on the fear of hell?

 

[clarkal]

Mystophilus:

Hey! Every once in a while, Church teaching does coincide with my views.

While I can back it up from the text, and thus demonstrate that it did not contradict the views of the people who compiled the Bible, I cannot speak for Rome.

hehe

Mystophilus:

Indeed, and I’m glad you’re back. Did you have a good trip?

Thanks. I had a nice time. I hung out with my brother and his college buddies while my sister shopped for a bridesmaid dress. There wasn’t much time to do anything else, though. However, I did go to NYC in August, and I saw Mamma Mia and spent about 5 hours in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Now that was an experience!

Anyway, on to your other post:

 

[clarkal]

Mystophilus:

I realise that you are probably none too keen on the first, even if its primary value is as a motivator to perform the second, but with what else of Jesus’ own teaching do you disagree?

First, let me say that I do not hate Jesus. On the contrary, I think he’s a cool dude, but I don’t think he was divine.

With that said, I would say that I agree with a lot of his teachings that are still valuable in a worldview without God.

Obviously, I disagree with the teaching about eternal punishment. I also disagree that it is just for Jesus to do something comparable to slaying those who did not want him to reign over him. To me, this seems so tyrannical. (remember the parable of the king). What makes me more upset than his teachings are his omissions. He never spoke out and said that slavery was a bad thing. If you believe that Paul was an instrument of God, then Jesus taught that slaves should be submissive and respectful to their masters. I know that one may say that perhaps the “times” weren’t ready for such a teaching, but Jesus was a really revolutionary guy. He didn’t care about the times or what people thought: he took action, even unto the point of death.

Where I also think Jesus failed in was clarity. There was a lot of confusion in the early Church about who he was, when he would return, and what he was, exactly. If he’s a divine being, an omnipotent being, don’t you think he could have been clearer than he is in the Gospels? There is so much confusion going on in Christianity (look at all the different sects), that I think if Jesus was an omnipotent being, He could have done better. I mean,
why did he talk in parables almost all the time in the Gospels? Why didn’t he state things clearly other than using parables that were hard for most people of that time to understand? How does that help anyone? How does that help save anyone’s soul?

I could go on, but I think these points are digressing from the point of the thread. Perhaps I will start another thread on these issues and y’all can refute me as you see fit.

Let’s keep talking about original sin, though.

 

[clarkal]

Mystophilus:

So what do you follow now? I assume that you do have a particular moral/ethical system, and do not merely act upon pure impulse, so what is your basis for decision-making? How do you decide whether or not you should perform a given action? You note that you do not believe in “religion”, which leads me to ask how many you have investigated.

My morals are based on reasoning from the knowledge I have from nature, experience, science, and human behavior. I honestly do not know what else to base my morals on if I do not have a god.

There are gray areas, of course. I think about them, but I don’t worry about the issues constantly like I did when I was Catholic, when the teaching that “one cannot act in doubt” applied to me.
Mysto:

It isn’t, and, for “Islam”, we could also substitute “a flat earth”, “UFOs”, and “the indisputable, ineffable divinity of my cat” (church opening soon; all tithes to be paid in chicken).

More significantly, I think that the claim is wrong. From what you have said, I do not think that your objections to Catholicism are based upon either misunderstanding or stubbornness. You have tried to be Catholic, and found it untenable for you. As this is your personal experience, how can any other human being disagree with it? To do so would necessitate the claim that they can understand your situation better than you can.

Thank you so much for your understanding. I highly appreciate it, because I sometimes feel alone on this board – I don’t see many atheists here?

clarkal

 

[clarkal]

paramedicgirl:

I say this not to insult your integrity, but simply because you are well educated in Catholicism, and used to follow the Church’s teachings. You mention in another post that it was the Church’s teachings on sin and hell that caused your OCD to elevate to the level that was disruptive to your life. Is it possible, then, that your objections to Catholicism are based on the fear of hell?

I would say that the fear of hell *jump started *my thinking about the issue. When the fear of hell set in, when I really considered it a reality, so many mental alarms went off in my head: how is this just? how could god allow this if he knew ahead of time? eternal pain? forever and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever? It didn’t set right with me. I used to do what Teresa of Avil used to do with her brother (or cousin? some boy…) when she was a kid: she used to contemplate heaven and hell by saying, “Forever and ever and ever and ever and ever…”

It didn’t seem just – even when I read about *why *it was just.

I think what you’re really asking is if I decided to leave Catholicism not out of reason but out of emotional desperation. The answer: no.

 

[clarkal]

Mysto,

OH, and what religions have I investigated? All the major Eastern and Western ones. My favorite religion is Hinduism. I think Hindu spirituality is absolutely beautiful, and so are the music and hymns. So moving.

 

[Mystophilus]

clarkal:

My morals are based on reasoning from the knowledge I have from nature, experience, science, and human behavior. I honestly do not know what else to base my morals on if I do not have a god.

To be frank, many people who do have a god base their morals on much the same things, and then configure their understanding of that god to match. If you were looking for anything else, I could only suggest the possibility of philosophy, but your other post said that you had investigated all of the major religions, and so you should have encountered a fair quantity of that.

Which reminds me, did you include any Daoism? Have you read the Dao de Jing? This was the text which seduced me away from fundamentalism. It is monistic, but not theistic.

There are gray areas, of course. I think about them, but I don’t worry about the issues constantly like I did when I was Catholic, when the teaching that “one cannot act in doubt” applied to me.

It sounds to me as if you have a pretty healthy belief-system.

Thank you so much for your understanding. I highly appreciate it, because I sometimes feel alone on this board – I don’t see many atheists here?

There are not many, but if you look for threads which make particular reference to atheism, such as this one, you can usually find some.

However, at this point I feel that I should make something absolutely clear, just in case. I do not understand your views because I am an atheist; I understand your views because they are rational. I am a heretic, which is to say that I am a theist, a Christian to be more precise, with naughty views. (I have said at least four things in this post which others here would consider morally wrong, but what can else can I do?)

 

[Mystophilus]

clarkal:

Obviously, I disagree with the teaching about eternal punishment.

I do, too.

I also disagree that it is just for Jesus to do something comparable to slaying those who did not want him to reign over him. To me, this seems so tyrannical. (remember the parable of the king).

I cannot recall Jesus ever saying that he was going to kill anyone…?

What makes me more upset than his teachings are his omissions. He never spoke out and said that slavery was a bad thing. If you believe that Paul was an instrument of God, then Jesus taught that slaves should be submissive and respectful to their masters. I know that one may say that perhaps the “times” weren’t ready for such a teaching, but Jesus was a really revolutionary guy. He didn’t care about the times or what people thought: he took action, even unto the point of death.

He did, and his attitudes were very revolutionary, but his policies were not. His own attitude to women was thoroughly anachronistic, but we do not hear of him telling other people to start treating women like intelligent life-forms. Then again, his agenda was not social or political, which was what upset the Zealots.

As for Paul, I do believe that he was an instrument of God, but that is not tantamount to saying that he was right in all that he said.

I mean, why did he talk in parables almost all the time in the Gospels? Why didn’t he state things clearly other than using parables that were hard for most people of that time to understand? How does that help anyone? How does that help save anyone’s soul?

Is it the doctrine that saves the soul?

Perhaps I will start another thread on these issues and y’all can refute me as you see fit.

That would be amusing: how could one refute the statement “I disagree with X”? Mind you, I am sure that some would be willing to try.

 

[clarkal]

Mystophilus:

To be frank, many people who do have a god base their morals on much the same things, and then configure their understanding of that god to match. If you were looking for anything else, I could only suggest the possibility of philosophy, but your other post said that you had investigated all of the major religions, and so you should have encountered a fair quantity of that.

Yes, there are. I think there are also people who do just the opposite.
Mysto:

Which reminds me, did you include any Daoism? Have you read the Dao de Jing? This was the text which seduced me away from fundamentalism. It is monistic, but not theistic.

I have read about it, but I have not read the Dao de Jing. Do you know of Richard Carrier (author, student at Columbia [Ph.D student, I think right now]? He is an Daoist turned atheist, and he helps run the Secular Web. His conversion story from Daoism to atheism is in the library of that web site. It’s very interesting stuff, especially his “mystical” experience, which seemingly confirmed his Daoist beliefs.
Mysto:

It sounds to me as if you have a pretty healthy belief-system.

There are not many, but if you look for threads which make particular reference to atheism, such as this one, you can usually find some.

Thanks a lot for that. I appreciate it. I am doing my best to be honest in this world, because I think that is really important. I would not lie to myself, no matter how my emotions react to certain belief systems. I hate lying.
Mysto:

However, at this point I feel that I should make something absolutely clear, just in case. I do not understand your views because I am an atheist; I understand your views because they are rational. I am a heretic, which is to say that I am a theist, a Christian to be more precise, with naughty views. (I have said at least four things in this post which others here would consider morally wrong, but what can else can I do?)

I understand this. And, yeah, my orthodoxy alarm goes off when I read some of your posts.

Your understanding my position and sympathizing have been very helpful in making me feel at ease here. Thanks for that.

 

[clarkal]

Mystophilus:

I do, too.

I cannot recall Jesus ever saying that he was going to kill anyone…?

It’s in Luke 19, and it’s referred to as the parable of the Ten Minas.

“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

Yes, it’s a parable, and knowing this, I said even doing something “comparable” would seem tyrannical.
Mysto:

He did, and his attitudes were very revolutionary, but his policies were not. His own attitude to women was thoroughly anachronistic, but we do not hear of him telling other people to start treating women like intelligent life-forms. Then again, his agenda was not social or political, which was what upset the Zealots.

I see. Well, it is upsetting to me. If he had said something – which could’ve been done very easily – imagine all the oppression he would have probably eliminated. It’s a major mistake, I think.
Mysto:

As for Paul, I do believe that he was an instrument of God, but that is not tantamount to saying that he was right in all that he said.

There goes my orthodoxy alarm!

But that’s cool. I understand and respect your beliefs very much. I think they are highly rational and enlightened.
Mysto:

Is it the doctrine that saves the soul?

I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. Mind explainin’?
Mysto:

That would be amusing: how could one refute the statement “I disagree with X”? Mind you, I am sure that some would be willing to try.

Well, I don’t know. But I’m sure if I gave reasons to support my conclusion, some people would more than enjoy disagreeing with lil o’ me.

 

[Mystophilus]

clarkal:

I have read about it, but I have not read the Dao de Jing. Do you know of Richard Carrier (author, student at Columbia [Ph.D student, I think right now]? He is an Daoist turned atheist, and he helps run the Secular Web. His conversion story from Daoism to atheism is in the library of that web site. It’s very interesting stuff, especially his “mystical” experience, which seemingly confirmed his Daoist beliefs.

I didn’t, but I have now read it and it was quite interesting, especially his reaction to Daoism.

Where the DDJ affects the OP is that it presents a monistic system without a god per se. Thus, there is the Dao (the way/path/pattern; it does not translate well), from which all else is derived, and which is ineffable. There is no sin, and there is the Dao which “controls”(not an accurate explanation) everything inasmuch as it is the “Principle”(not an accurate explanation): a very different take on the idea of Original Sin. However, I cannot explain this adequately, and neither can anyone else. From the beginning, the DDJ refutes the accuracy of mere words, and so either you get it, or you don’t, but it is definitely worth reading.

Thanks a lot for that. I appreciate it. I am doing my best to be honest in this world, because I think that is really important. I would not lie to myself, no matter how my emotions react to certain belief systems. I hate lying.

Why, may I ask?