Rape proves objective morality?

[Aldebaran]

Yikes, I should've written that better...I can see how you misread it. Allow me to rephrase...

Modern day man commits sin (as you said, because of our sinful nature). Adam and Eve committed sin (in spite of the fact that you believe they did not have a sinful nature). If both modern man and Adam and Eve committed sins...then how do you tell which one has the sinful nature? What's the difference between one with a sinful nature and one without? (Since apparently they both commit sins)

Ok, well I'd say the difference is that they were created sinless and had all the benefits of that. They would have lived forever, the land was not cursed and produced fruit for them. Basically, they had it made until someone came along and told them they could have something even better, which turned out to be false. Today, we have the sin nature that Adam and Eve took us into. We don't live forever anymore. Death is in the world, and we naturally gravitate toward doing what is against God.

 

[Skavau]

Ok, well I'd say the difference is that they were created sinless and had all the benefits of that. They would have lived forever, the land was not cursed and produced fruit for them. Basically, they had it made until someone came along and told them they could have something even better, which turned out to be false. Today, we have the sin nature that Adam and Eve took us into. We don't live forever anymore. Death is in the world, and we naturally gravitate toward doing what is against God.

What was the point in the devil exactly? Why did God allow it to be there?

How can anyone read the content of your explanation and not view what God did, or allowed as anything less than global entrapment: Born sinful, born wretched and commanded to be perfect.

 

[Aldebaran]

What was the point in the devil exactly? Why did God allow it to be there?

How can anyone read the content of your explanation and not view what God did, or allowed as anything less than global entrapment: Born sinful, born wretched and commanded to be perfect.

I was writing that post as a reply to Ana the Ist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok, well I'd say the difference is that they were created sinless and had all the benefits of that. They would have lived forever, the land was not cursed and produced fruit for them. Basically, they had it made until someone came along and told them they could have something even better, which turned out to be false. Today, we have the sin nature that Adam and Eve took us into. We don't live forever anymore. Death is in the world, and we naturally gravitate toward doing what is against God.

Gotcha, so if the fall of Adam and Eve is what created my sinful nature...then it would appear that they're the ones in need of redemption, not me. My sinful nature is their fault...not mine.

 

[Aldebaran]

Gotcha, so if the fall of Adam and Eve is what created my sinful nature...then it would appear that they're the ones in need of redemption, not me. My sinful nature is their fault...not mine.

Christ Himself became our redemption. Adam and Eve cannot pay for our sin nature any more than we can.

 

[Skavau]

I was writing that post as a reply to Ana the Ist.

I know. I butted in.

 

[Blessedj01]

Isn't using something like a person being raped the most disgusting and inconsiderate way to try to prove that morality can be objective? Isn't it complete ignorance of why almost no one likes being raped? Sense it's completely obvious why most humans don't want someone to beat them up and force them to have sex with them why would this imply that there is a law above our emotions? Why would they think most people not wanting to be raped proved the existence of a law higher than our emotions? I wonder if men would try to argue this before women, since women actually fear rape a lot more than men do since men commonly do the raping.

Most people? As soon as you 'want to be raped,' it's not rape.

 

[Armoured]

Most people? As soon as you 'want to be raped,' it's not rape.

Where did anyone mention wanting to be raped?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Christ Himself became our redemption. Adam and Eve cannot pay for our sin nature any more than we can.

I'm sure you believe that...

The point is I don't need redemption since my sinful nature isn't my fault. The blame, as you clearly explained it, lies with others.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm sure you believe that...

The point is I don't need redemption since my sinful nature isn't my fault. The blame, as you clearly explained it, lies with others.

The blame does, but the result resides in all of us.

 

[Blessedj01]

The blame does, but the result resides in all of us.

We just as much perpetuate sin as our forefathers did.

 

[Hikarifuru]

The Christian doctrine on sin and redemption and the wages of sin being death isn't supposed to make sense to non-believers, it relies on the assumption that human kind is fallen and depraved and with a darkened mind that must be miraculously enlightened by the holyspirit - these ideas aren't aren't scientific in nature or based on logic. It's a foolish discussion.

 

[Aldebaran]

The Christian doctrine on sin and redemption and the wages of sin being death isn't supposed to make sense to non-believers, it relies on the assumption that human kind is fallen and depraved and with a darkened mind that must be miraculously enlightened by the holyspirit - these ideas aren't aren't scientific in nature or based on logic. It's a foolish discussion.

This is what I've concluded as well. It's impossible to discuss something in a meaningful way unless both sides are at least on the same page.

 

[Hikarifuru]

This is what I've concluded as well. It's impossible to discuss something in a meaningful way unless both sides are at least on the same page.

or if the subject is of an ignostic nature.

 

[Aldebaran]

or if the subject is of an ignostic nature.

If we're talking about the God of the bible (the one most people on this site believes in), then the subject isn't going to always go the way you want it to if you have no belief in God.

 

[Hikarifuru]

If we're talking about the God of the bible (the one most people on this site believes in), then the subject isn't going to always go the way you want it to if you have no belief in God.

Do you know what ignostic means?

 

[Aldebaran]

Do you know what ignostic means?

It means that you have to define God before you can actually talk about Him. My God is defined by how He is described in the bible.

 

[Hikarifuru]

It means that you have to define God....

... and what else?

 

[Aldebaran]

... and what else?

.....before you can actually talk about Him. My God is defined by how He is described in the bible.

 

[Hikarifuru]

.....before you can actually talk about Him. My God is defined by how He is described in the bible.

no... what else does ignostic mean?