Sin before sin?
Posted on: April 6, 2008 - 5:21am
Offline
Sin before sin?
Now the entire concept of christianity is based on the how god needed a blood sacrifice of his son in order to subside his wrath against us for eating the forbidden fruit. By sinning and disobeying him, god caused sin to enter the world, as to say the world was without sin prior to that event. How could adam and eve sin, if sin was not yet in the world? This can't be said to be a metaphor, because as i stated christianity is based on this concept.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed with no evidence." Christopher Hitchens
- Login to post comments
No, special pleading is: "All X must Y, except for Z because it's intangibly different." Like "all things must be created, except for the god I believe in, because it's eternal."
I don't know what to call this knot of reasoning other than distressing.
That's what he can't explain without violating his own foreknowledge circumstances. I know the lyrics to a song because the song was written, THEN I learned the lyrics. He's trying to explain that I could somehow know the lyrics to a song before the song is written and not have that contradict the free will of the author.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
As we are human that is the only way we can think about such things. We can abstractly consider the alternative of looking down upon a situation as an observer with fore knowledge of the event. We would in this scenario know the outcome as we would have such an ability in your fictional representation. But since we are in fact human and know not of anything else we can't translate it to our reality. I see that you believe you can at least in your own perspective. This requires the Faith thing you have that we do not. Good luck with that.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Heh. "Merciless" seems like a pretty loaded term. So, you may perceive it as such, but I do not.
"Strictly" seemed inherent in the word binary. So yes, as I have stated, good/evil concept is binary from one perspective.
It does. My quote was not meant to address this point but rather your use of the word "opposite."
By using it, you conflated the two issues of "opposite in the particular" and "opposite in capacity to be morally not good."
For instance, orange maybe the opposite of the blue, but that does not mean if one is good the other must be evil--they both can be good.
Here is your quote that I was addressing that I was addressing and that was conflating the issues:
Next:
Quote Me:
Quote You:
I don't understand how you see these two concepts as necessarily separate.
I understand how one can argue that they can be perceived that way and that perhaps I was not being clear... so perhaps this will help:
Evil = not good. OR, in other words, Evil = the absence of the good (or, the absence of the quality that necessitates the concept, which, in my construct, is "good"
.
Now.. under such a construct, it is certainly possible to frame everything existent in such a way as to find some good, such an understanding of the world would be consistent with Augustine and Lewis.
Me Said:
You said:
Ah.. dang it.. you have got me a snaffu.
Perhaps what would have been more accurate to say is that, "What is evil is not necessarily the opposite of what is good."
For support of this concept, please see above to the example of orange and blue.