Morality: trial and error

[Boomygrrl]

Can we really call God "forgiving" if he holds every nitpicky sin over us? If we are born to sin, then we are going to sin.
Why not look at it another way? If he is a loving father (like the analogy), wouldn't he understand us, love us anyways, and deal with our sins as they come, rather than lumping all of humanities sins together, labeling it evil, and in need of redemption?
We are continuously "evolving," learning from trial and error. That's just who we are. To expect perfection or to only accept us if we follow a doctrine that God didn't tell us himself but we are to trust the writers of the bible. All of this sounds odd to me.


Boomygrrl

 

[John812]

Can we really call God "forgiving" if he holds every nitpicky sin over us? If we are born to sin, then we are going to sin.
Why not look at it another way? If he is a loving father (like the analogy), wouldn't he understand us, love us anyways, and deal with our sins as they come, rather than lumping all of humanities sins together, labeling it evil, and in need of redemption?
We are continuously "evolving," learning from trial and error. That's just who we are. To expect perfection or to only accept us if we follow a doctrine that God didn't tell us himself but we are to trust the writers of the bible. All of this sounds odd to me.

God loves us so much that He gave His Son to die for our sins.

Thank you Father


God Bless!

 

[Farquad_38]

Can we really call God "forgiving" if he holds every nitpicky sin over us? If we are born to sin, then we are going to sin.
Why not look at it another way? If he is a loving father (like the analogy), wouldn't he understand us, love us anyways, and deal with our sins as they come, rather than lumping all of humanities sins together, labeling it evil, and in need of redemption?
We are continuously "evolving," learning from trial and error. That's just who we are. To expect perfection or to only accept us if we follow a doctrine that God didn't tell us himself but we are to trust the writers of the bible. All of this sounds odd to me.


Boomygrrl

Indeed, what you descirbe is very odd. Luckily, that's not the way God works. In no way does God hold our sins over us. Once we are forgiven, boom, they're gone. God does not remember our sins and transgressions while we are under grace. We are, in every way, shape and fasion, forgiven for our acts of evil and our sinful nature.
God does understand us -- otherwise, why would he have given us grace? God does indeed love us -- the entire gospel message is that despite our sinfulness, God cares for us and loves us anyway. He does deal with our sins as they come -- God does not remember our past sins and does not forsake us for the sins He knows we are going to commit. Grace covers them all, the sins we ahve commited, are commiting, and are going to commit. And God certainly does not expect perfection. Where you got this idea is completely unknown to me. I don't see how you would obtain it from the Gospel, in any sense. Jesus' entire message was one based on love; an unconditional love, one that is there for us even when (more accurately, especially when) we mess up. What you're describing sounds more like Judaism than Christianity to me.
I would also disagree with the notion that God does not speak to us himself, and we are to entrust our entire faith to the writers of the bible...
Buuuut...that's a whole other discussion that probably wouldn't fit under this thread.

 

[]RiSeN[]

I have studied the bible, thank you. I've read the whole bible, and I've read several books of the bible several times over.

I think we can describe the bible itself as "hearsay." Did Moses witness the creation of the world, the Flood? The wording of the gospels shows that they copied from each other...seems hearsay to me.

So, why do you have so much confidence in your ability to ascertain what it is that God wants? Do you share a condo with him in Heaven Estates?
The way I see it is your guess is as good as mine...no better, no worse.


Boomygrrl

If you go to the middle east you will find that many families know quite well there geneology right back to Abraham. some of them know it almost by heart. It is part of their culture and heritage, it is a tradition passed down till today.

The Gospel books:

Matthew- writer: Matthew, place written: Palestine - 41 C.E
Mark- writer: Mark, place written: Rome - 60-65 C.E
Luke- writer: Luke, place written: Caesarea - 56-58 C.E
John- writer: Apostle John, place written: Ephesus, or near - 98 C.E
Acts- writer: Luke, place written: Rome - 61 C.E
Romans- writer: Paul, place written: Corinth -56 C.E

They copied from each other??? They were all there with Jesus when it happened. They were his disciples, remember? If you see someone walk on water durring a raging seastorm than raise the dead, feed thousands with a few fish and loaves, expeling demons, curing the sick, i think that kinda stuff sticks with you. The fact that they wrote these books in different places at different times and still as you say they 'looked copied' is a testament to who was guiding they're hand in writing.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Can we really call God "forgiving" if he holds every nitpicky sin over us? If we are born to sin, then we are going to sin.
Why not look at it another way? If he is a loving father (like the analogy), wouldn't he understand us, love us anyways, and deal with our sins as they come, rather than lumping all of humanities sins together, labeling it evil, and in need of redemption?
We are continuously "evolving," learning from trial and error. That's just who we are. To expect perfection or to only accept us if we follow a doctrine that God didn't tell us himself but we are to trust the writers of the bible. All of this sounds odd to me.


Boomygrrl

I think maybe the next time someone is knocking on your door with a bible in there hand you should let them in and answer all your questions. It would be much easier to get answers.

 

[Boomygrrl]

They copied from each other??? They were all there with Jesus when it happened. They were his disciples, remember? If you see someone walk on water durring a raging seastorm than raise the dead, feed thousands with a few fish and loaves, expeling demons, curing the sick, i think that kinda stuff sticks with you. The fact that they wrote these books in different places at different times and still as you say they 'looked copied' is a testament to who was guiding they're hand in writing.

Many would debate your views about this...many who would call themselves Christian, too. They use the exact same wording to describe the events. If you and I were to witness the same thing, we would use our own wording to describe it. We wouldn't use the same wording.
Many people believe the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. But if they were, why can't Matthew use his own words, rather than copy from Mark?

Boomygrrl

 

[Farquad_38]

Many would debate your views about this...many who would call themselves Christian, too. They use the exact same wording to describe the events.

Example?

 

[jamicon]

Fallen, while I understand what you are saying, I don't believe it is an accurate reflection.

Genesis 3:6 states, "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings."

To argue that the natural law didn't exist would be to deny the chronology of events. If they had never sinned before, then guilt would not have appeared, but at the moment of sin, then guilt, written into the hearts of man through the "natural law" revealed to them both that they had sinned.

Therefore, the first example of guilt, but the "natural law" must have been there before the guilt. Now, even though they knew that eating of the tree was wrong they could not experience guilt because they had not actually done anything wrong. As an example, we often don't feel guilty for things we don't do even though we know that to do it may be wrong.

What I was referring to by continuing sin was the possible suppression of guilt. If killing a human is wrong, then when I kill I will feel guilty, but after the fiftieth time I may not. Aquinas and Calvin believed that continued behavior in contradiction to the "natural law" could wipe it from your core. In other words, guilt could be muted through continued behavior.

Guilt could not have been present in perfection, but the instant perfection disappeared, then guilt appered. That is why trial and error is an integral part of human existence. The necessity of the "natural law" was to prove that there are certain rules built into all humans. Therefore, the ten commandments was merely a codification of the "natural law."

We might actually be saying the same thing in a backward way. I am merely using the terms and ideas of Aquinas and Calvin.

 

[Boomygrrl]

Example?

I'm at work, so I don't have my bible with me.
You can quote many passages from Mark and it will look the same as from Matthew, and vice versa. They weren't written independently. They mostly chose the same events (I know gospel of John has some unique events), and they use the same wording. The exact same wording.
I don't even use the same wording when I'm describing something twice. I just don't.
If I were to type another response to you, without looking at this, no matter how hard I try, I'm going to use different wording to get the same idea across.
So, they weren't independently written. You can look at it and tell.

Does that mean these events didn't happen? NO. This doesn't prove anything one way or the other. It does make me suspicious when someone says they were independently written.
Most of Matthew and Luke (most,not all) were copied from Mark. There are some differences...and these differences are often contradictory of each other.
So basically, you have three gospels (I'm not even including John, as there are additional problems there) that are almost exactly alike and then all of a sudden where they differ, they really fundamentally differ (ex. geneology of Jesus, the circumstances around his birth, the trial, the appearances). Only Matthew and Luke even mention a virgin birth. I guess it's not spectacular enough for Mark or Paul...amazing.
So forgive me if I'm not so accepting of all of this.

We've now completely derailed. Not sure why we even got off the topic, but I take full responsibility for that.


Boomygrrl

 

[Boomygrrl]

My main point for starting this OP is to try to get behind the logic of needing to be redeemed or born again. I know the assertion that we need to be born again. I know it's in the New Testament. I don't doubt people's knowledge of the bible concerning this. You can quote until the cows come home. I know the assertions. I am trying to address the logic behind it.
To me, it doesn't seem like God is this loving father that people try to describe him as being. He seems rather vindictive (the Flood, the plagues, the events in Revelations). I understand that we sin and need to be punished. Why does God take punishment into such a large scale, like flooding the world or sending sinners to Hell? If God is all-knowing and all-present, why can't he deal with us individually?
Why does he provide a "way out" through Jesus, when people have difficulty trusting that this is the TRUTH? People continue to sin even after turning to Jesus. It doesn't seem to solve anything here on earth...instead it just seems like it becomes an award for the faithful (heaven), for those who believe...and it becomes a punishment for those who either refuse to believe, don't understand it enough to accept it, or for whatever other reason they just don't believe it.
I know the theology behind it. Believe me, I've been schooled on this for all of my childhood and some of my adulthood. I do know what you're saying...I just don't understand the logic behind it.

If morality is trial and error, does your theology make sense?

Boomygrrl

 

[Farquad_38]

I'm at work, so I don't have my bible with me.
You can quote many passages from Mark and it will look the same as from Matthew, and vice versa. They weren't written independently. They mostly chose the same events (I know gospel of John has some unique events), and they use the same wording. The exact same wording.
I don't even use the same wording when I'm describing something twice. I just don't.
If I were to type another response to you, without looking at this, no matter how hard I try, I'm going to use different wording to get the same idea across.
So, they weren't independently written. You can look at it and tell.

Does that mean these events didn't happen? NO. This doesn't prove anything one way or the other. It does make me suspicious when someone says they were independently written.
Most of Matthew and Luke (most,not all) were copied from Mark. There are some differences...and these differences are often contradictory of each other.
So basically, you have three gospels (I'm not even including John, as there are additional problems there) that are almost exactly alike and then all of a sudden where they differ, they really fundamentally differ (ex. geneology of Jesus, the circumstances around his birth, the trial, the appearances). Only Matthew and Luke even mention a virgin birth. I guess it's not spectacular enough for Mark or Paul...amazing.
So forgive me if I'm not so accepting of all of this.

We've now completely derailed. Not sure why we even got off the topic, but I take full responsibility for that.


Boomygrrl

I know you probably don't want to go any more off topic, but if I may adress this, I disagree with the notion you've provided. There are enough differences between the gospels to determine that they are not copied from each other, at least in my view. If Mark's gospel was copied from Matthew's, why does Matthew say Jesus was crucified on the ninth hour and Mark say he was crucified on the third? (Mt 27:46, Mk 15:25) There are other inconsistancies as well, but it's time for dinner and I don't really feel like looking them up. They may have been written in the same style, but as Fallen pointed out, it would have been very illogical for them to have been copied from one antoehr as they were written in different places in different time periods.
The wonderful thing about the gospels is that they are consistant enough to verify Jesus' most famous parables, teachings and miracles, but inconsistant enough that we know they are not copied from each other.

 

[John812]

If Mark's gospel was copied from Matthew's, why does Matthew say Jesus was crucified on the ninth hour and Mark say he was crucified on the third? (Mt 27:46, Mk 15:25)

Both gospels say Jesus was crucified at the ninth hour. The verse you quoted was only when his crucifiction began.

Mark 15:33-34

At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"


God Bless!