Why the desire to sin?

[Ken-1122]

The salvation offered by Jesus was not a reaction to the fall of A&E. It was not plan B; it was always the only plan. Ultimately, God acts to display his own glory and to have others enjoy it.

But if Satan was not allowed access to mankind, there would have been no fall, no salvation needed by Jesus and no need for any kind of plan at all! So why did he allow Satan access?

Ken

 

[Hospes]

But if Satan was not allowed access to mankind, there would have been no fall, no salvation needed by Jesus and no need for any kind of plan at all!

Ken

I'm not sure, but I would think then God's ultimate goal would not have been achieved. I encourage you to give more thought about God's goal if you want to understand better his means of attaining it.

 

[Pastor Glenn]

Good question. God created us in his image to love and serve him. He also created mankind with free will - a choice to do so. Hell was never intended for anyone but the Devil and his angels. Because God is Holy and Righteous he cannot stand sin, so he made a plan of salvation through personal faith in Christ and his shed blood.
Separation from God and eternal punishment is the end result for those who by their own free will reject God's plan of salvation. To put it bluntly - People make their own choice to go to hell.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not sure, but I would think then God's ultimate goal would not have been achieved. I encourage you to give more thought about God's goal if you want to understand better his means of attaining it.

So what is God's ultimate goal? (assuming a God capable of anything actually has goals)

K

 

[Ken-1122]

Good question. God created us in his image to love and serve him. He also created mankind with free will - a choice to do so. Hell was never intended for anyone but the Devil and his angels. Because God is Holy and Righteous he cannot stand sin, so he made a plan of salvation through personal faith in Christ and his shed blood.
Separation from God and eternal punishment is the end result for those who by their own free will reject God's plan of salvation. To put it bluntly - People make their own choice to go to hell.

So why did he allow Satan access to Adam and Eve and the rest of mankind? We could have had freewill without Satan involved don’t cha think?

 

[oi_antz]

If I believed that a God existed, I would consider worshipping the wrong one a bad thing, but because I don’t I see no harm in worshipping a God that does not exist.

That is missing the point. The point is that worshipping a false idea leads to the worshipping of other false ideas, and if not immediately, then eventually one of those false ideas is going to cause you to do something that is wrong.

What does equal rights have to do with it?

Does the preference for one's desires over another's rights ever not lead to sin?

When I hear him telling me stuff, who do I believe is talking to me?

Ken

I don't know and I don't think that is important. What is important is whether you believe what He tells you.

 

[Hospes]

So what is God's ultimate goal? (assuming a God capable of anything actually has goals)

K

Ultimately, God acts to enjoy and display his own glory and to have others enjoy and magnify it also. It is the pursuit and experience of delight in his glory by himself and others.

 

[Ken-1122]

That is missing the point. The point is that worshipping a false idea leads to the worshipping of other false ideas, and if not immediately, then eventually one of those false ideas is going to cause you to do something that is wrong.

Those who woship the "right idea" (christians) worship other wrong ideas also; so what difference does it make?

Does the preference for one's desires over another's rights ever not lead to sin?

That is one of a thousand things that leads to sin.

I don't know and I don't think that is important. What is important is whether you believe what He tells you.

As I said before, God never spoke to me; if he did I would not be an Atheist.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Ultimately, God acts to enjoy and display his own glory and to have others enjoy and magnify it also. It is the pursuit and experience of delight in his glory by himself and others.

So how does God get glory by allowing Satan to corrupt his children?

Ken

 

[oi_antz]

Those who woship the "right idea" (christians) worship other wrong ideas also; so what difference does it make?

The difference it makes is that we do wrong things because we aren't worshipping the right idea.

That is one of a thousand things that leads to sin.

Yes, does that nullify the statement?

As I said before, God never spoke to me; if he did I would not be an Atheist.

Ken

How do you know that is true?

 

[Ken-1122]

The difference it makes is that we do wrong things because we aren't worshipping the right idea.

The same can be said about the Hindu who worships the wrong idea.

Yes, does that nullify the statement?

Yes! It's not about equal rights, it's about trying to get ahead by cheating.

How do you know that is true?

I've never heard him.

Ken

 

[Hospes]

So how does God get glory by allowing Satan to corrupt his children?

Ken

Good question, and I will give it some thought before I write.

One thing I can address is a wrong presupposition your question may imply: when you write "his children", I do not think Christianity teaches all people are his children in the same sense reconciliation via Jesus makes a reconciled person a child of God. So I will reword your question to "how does God get glory by allowing Satan to corrupt his creation."

I'll be back.

 

[oi_antz]

The same can be said about the Hindu who worships the wrong idea.

I believe that is true.

Yes! It's not about equal rights, it's about trying to get ahead by cheating.

I don't know, I mean that cheating isn't necessarily going to harm anyone, and I don't know if it is sinful. Doing something because you want the reward so much that it is going to impact someone in a way you would not like to be treated is the point I am making. I don't know if that is ever not sinful, do you?

I've never heard him.

Ken

Why do you think that is not what He has decided to be best for you right now, and for me?

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't know, I mean that cheating isn't necessarily going to harm anyone, and I don't know if it is sinful.

Actually I was talking about the type of cheating that is a sin.

Why do you think that is not what He has decided to be best for you right now, and for me?

Are you suggesting that maybe God has decided that me being an atheist is what is best for me right now? Well I can understand you taking that position, and I am sure you can understand me taking the position that God does not exist.

Ken

 

[Tempus Fugit]

It's pretty difficult with modern neurological and psychological discoveries to explain why God created humans with the desire to sin. Attributing it to free will is actually opposite to what it really is, since emotional responses aren't entirely voluntary (and the Bible punishes thought crimes); it's not as though babies choose to cry. And all of our emotions seem to be convenient evolutionary adaptations; God would have no reason to include them in Adam and Eve in the first place. And if you think it's somehow a violation of free will to not give them negative "sin"-motions then explain why he didn't give them more, and instead only the ones that happen to be evolutionarily advantageous in a hunter-gatherer society Adam and Eve weren't even in...

Indeed, why is it that God would make sins thoughts that:

1. He programmed us to instinctively feel in response to certain stimuli
2. Are in some instances necessary survival mechanisms.

Really, this God is either an idiot or extremely cruel. Or he doesn't exist.

 

[oi_antz]

Actually I was talking about the type of cheating that is a sin.

Can you provide an example, and explain why my statement is incorrect?

Are you suggesting that maybe God has decided that me being an atheist is what is best for me right now? Well I can understand you taking that position, and I am sure you can understand me taking the position that God does not exist.

Ken

It was presumptuous and not necessarily correct. I failed to successfully express that I look to the potentially positive effect of the situation, and attempt to understand why God might have decided to permit it. I cannot understand your position that God does not exist, I have not been an atheist yet.

 

[Hospes]

Good question, and I will give it some thought before I write.

One thing I can address is a wrong presupposition your question may imply: when you write "his children", I do not think Christianity teaches all people are his children in the same sense reconciliation via Jesus makes a reconciled person a child of God. So I will reword your question to "how does God get glory by allowing Satan to corrupt his creation."

I'll be back.

Hi, Ken. I'm back

I think a good way to answer the question "how does God get glory by allowing Satan to corrupt his creation?" may be to make it personal. Hope it works for you.

The concept of God's grace is summed up in him giving me good I do not deserve and foregoing the punishment I do deserve. Therefore, in order to show me grace, it was necessary I have no claim on expecting his goodness and good reason for deserving punishment. The corruption of his creation is how I ended up in such a position. The work that Jesus did was the means he provided to show me grace. (BTW, Jesus was the plan even before the corruption of creation; he was not a reaction to the Fall.) God's glory is very much seen in the spectacle of his grace. There is one way God's glory is seen via the corruption of creation. The Bible has the phrase "to the praise of His glorious grace." It is largely on that phrase and what precedes it that I make this claim.

Reasonable? (Not expecting your agreement; just asking if I make sense.)

 

[Ken-1122]

Can you provide an example, and explain why my statement is incorrect?

I am not saying you are incorrect, I believe it is possible to cheat in a way that is not a sin.

It was presumptuous and not necessarily correct. I failed to successfully express that I look to the potentially positive effect of the situation, and attempt to understand why God might have decided to permit it. I cannot understand your position that God does not exist, I have not been an atheist yet.

I believe it was Stephen Roberts who said:
When you understand how you can dismiss the possibility of all the other Gods people worship, you will then be able to understand how I can dismiss the possibility of yours.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Hi, Ken. I'm back

I think a good way to answer the question "how does God get glory by allowing Satan to corrupt his creation?" may be to make it personal. Hope it works for you.

The concept of God's grace is summed up in him giving me good I do not deserve and foregoing the punishment I do deserve. Therefore, in order to show me grace, it was necessary I have no claim on expecting his goodness and good reason for deserving punishment. The corruption of his creation is how I ended up in such a position. The work that Jesus did was the means he provided to show me grace. (BTW, Jesus was the plan even before the corruption of creation; he was not a reaction to the Fall.) God's glory is very much seen in the spectacle of his grace. There is one way God's glory is seen via the corruption of creation. The Bible has the phrase "to the praise of His glorious grace." It is largely on that phrase and what precedes it that I make this claim.

Reasonable? (Not expecting your agreement; just asking if I make sense.)

You seem to be telling me how good God is at putting out fires! But I keep asking; why did he start the fires in the first place?
Thanks for your perspective.

Ken

 

[Hospes]

You seem to be telling me how good God is at putting out fires! But I keep asking; why did he start the fires in the first place?
Thanks for your perspective.

Ken

You have shifted your language! Earlier - to continue your metaphor -you wrote of God allowing fires and now you've moved to him starting fires. Let's stick with your original question and not introduce a new presupposition via a modified question. (At another time maybe we'll be up for discussing if someone allowing an event is the same as a person causing the event.)

Assuming God is omnipotent, how would any situation exist for him to display his greatness if he did not at he very least allow it? He allowed fires to display his ability and character by putting them out and for the ones saved from the fires to praise his fire-quenching abilities and esteem the character shown in his willingness to put out fires that he had zero obligation to extinguish.