Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Angle]

By that logic, perhaps it's a test for the people around them. "So I'm gonna make these people different. Let's see if the rest of you can keep from being dicks to them, OK?"

Hell, by that logic, maybe the parts of the bible that condemn homosexuality are a test too. "Can you guys rise above your need to for easy answers to figure out what's really right & wrong?"

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Hell, by that logic, maybe the parts of the bible that condemn homosexuality are a test too. "Can you guys rise above your need to for easy answers to figure out what's really right & wrong?"

i like that pov. it still doesn't make sense, why would an omniscient and omnipotent entity need a test to know the character of a person? one that he made himself

[MonkeyHead]

In addition, an omnipotent deity testing anyone is kind of pointless - omnipotence would allow them to know the outcome beforehand. Unless of course, free will trumps omnipotence, when in which case it can hardly be said to be omnipotence.

[Frumple]

Shits and giggles is always a possible answer when it comes to the divine. They're generally jackasses to some degree, after all. And considering the original believers in the christian god believed other gods existed, it makes a fair amount of sense that this'un isn't actually all that different.

I'unno, I might be fairly down with a sort of dionysian trickster god that actually wants people to not be jerks, but is compelled by its nature to play a few tricks here and there. Would even fit the problem of evil fairly nicely -- the "all powerful/knowing" thing was just stage-play. And explain its evidenced moral character -- all the raping and murdering and torture and plagues and whatnot was just slight-of-hand to screw with people.

Not really what the believers think. You get a few radicals that do believe stuff like that is a test or corruption due to transfer medium (i.e. mankind), but most aren't exactly singing that tune. I have met a few professed christians (unsurprisingly, they've all been among the best people I've known period) that have bluntly said to me, "God is Good, and if the bible contradicts that, the bible is wrong," though. Usually warms the cockles of my heart, that does.

[origamiscienceguy]

Then why create them with that sin? It's not a hindrance to free will if you make all men want a woman naturally. They would still be able to choose to sleep with a man, but it would be sin.
Instead, men naturally desire other men. Why?

Every human is born with sinful tenancies. You would know this if you watch a toddler. They make sure that the parent is watching BEFORE they do something that they know they shouldn't. It makes sense that some people are born with homosexual tendencies, but that doesn't mean they can't ignore it.

[Frumple]

... toddlers are barely sentient. There's no more sin there than a dog peeing on a rug. That's just a developing brain learning and growing the way evolution has built it to.

Incidentally, you'll get the same behavior from dogs, at times. Are they capable of sin?

Though, for what it's worth, as a rule most people aren't actually that inclined towards harmful action, either for themselves or others. It takes training and a hostile environment to make most adults intentionally hurt each other. People generally trend towards magnanimity of varying degrees when they're not being screwed with through various means. There's exceptions, but that tends to involve brain damage or neurological abnormality of some sort, and you can't really blame the person for that.

Personally, I'd state pretty strongly that humans aren't born with sinful tendencies. Kids below a certain degree of development are literally incapable of meaningfully understanding the concept, and that is grown out of providing the process isn't sabotaged to some degree. Sinful action must be trained to come into existence, either by other humans or the world around them.

[origamiscienceguy]

They definitely know that they are not supposed to do that. I am the second oldest of 5 and I remember my youngest sister getting a mischievous look in her eye, then get my Parents attention before touching something that she knows she is not supposed to touch. It wasn't just a "shiny" mentality, she actually waited for them to look.

[Bohandas]

... toddlers are barely sentient. There's no more sin there than a dog peeing on a rug. That's just a developing brain learning and growing the way evolution has built it to.

Incidentally, you'll get the same behavior from dogs, at times. Are they capable of sin?

And more importantly, do they have buddha-nature?

[MonkeyHead]

No, toddlers do not know what they should or should not do. The reason they look to a parent is to try and find out if it is right or wrong. The fact they often go and do it anyway is that they do not understand how the parent is communicating if it is right or wrong or not. Parents making noise is attention, and kids fucking love attention from their parents, even if they do not understand it fully. Kids under the age of 3 or 4 have not yet learnt concepts that in their world are highly subjective - like right and wrong. Heck, they don't understand that other people can own stuff or that everything does not have to go in their mouth. They have to learn good behaviour. Besides, toddlers have no knowledge of any supposed gods or "divine law", so sin is meaningless to them. Sin is a problem created by religions who then sell themselves as the solution. Toddlers are not in that market. The idea of sin, evil, good and godliness also falls smack bang into the Euthyphro dilemma.

[origamiscienceguy]

The age I am referring to is 4-5 years old. They certainly understand right from wrong. Have you had a close relationship with a toddler? (sister, brother, child)

[Bohandas]

... toddlers are barely sentient. There's no more sin there than a dog peeing on a rug. That's just a developing brain learning and growing the way evolution has built it to.

Incidentally, you'll get the same behavior from dogs, at times. Are they capable of sin?

I'd say that no, they are not, based on he classical arguments summarized here

[MonkeyHead]

The age I am referring to is 4-5 years old. They certainly understand right from wrong. Have you had a close relationship with a toddler? (sister, brother, child)

Oh, yeah, by 4 to 5 they sure should do - based on parental input to define such boundaries, of course. That does not mean they always do what they know is right, for a whole pantheon of reasons. It seems a stretch to me to jump to "sin" as the cause, and as such I do not see how toddlers are a good argument in favour of inherent sinfulness as opposed to it being a social construct.

As for close relationship: I have 2 kids of my own (one that has passed destructive toddler phase, and one just at the end of it) and am the eldest of 3 sons. So, yeah, abundant experience.

[origamiscienceguy]

I am not saying that they are consciously sinning, but it clearly shows that their "natural" state is sinning.

[scriver]

How exactly does it "clearly show" that?