Rape proves objective morality?

Aldebaran · Sep 7, 2014

Ana the Ist said:
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 · Sep 7, 2014

Aldebaran said:
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 · Sep 7, 2014

Skavau said:
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 · Sep 7, 2014

Aldebaran said:
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 · Sep 7, 2014

Ana the Ist said:
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 · Sep 7, 2014

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

I know. I butted in.

Blessedj01 · Sep 7, 2014

DeanW said:
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 · Sep 7, 2014

Blessedj01 said:
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 · Sep 7, 2014

Aldebaran said:
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 · Sep 7, 2014

Ana the Ist said:
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 · Sep 7, 2014

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

We just as much perpetuate sin as our forefathers did.

Hikarifuru · Sep 8, 2014

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 · Sep 8, 2014

DeanW said:
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 · Sep 8, 2014

Aldebaran said:
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 · Sep 8, 2014

DeanW said:
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 · Sep 8, 2014

Aldebaran said:
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 · Sep 8, 2014

DeanW said:
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 · Sep 8, 2014

Aldebaran said:
It means that you have to define God....

... and what else?

Aldebaran · Sep 8, 2014

DeanW said:
... and what else?

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

Hikarifuru · Sep 8, 2014

Aldebaran said:
.....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?

Rape proves objective morality?

NCC-1701-A

Ode to the Forgotten Few

NCC-1701-A

Aggressively serene!

NCC-1701-A

Ode to the Forgotten Few

Blessedj01

Guest

So is America great again yet?

Aggressively serene!

NCC-1701-A

Blessedj01

Guest

Shine Bravely

NCC-1701-A

Shine Bravely

NCC-1701-A

Shine Bravely

NCC-1701-A

Shine Bravely

NCC-1701-A

Shine Bravely

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency