 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > The Irrationality of Sin | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 12/8/2004 9:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
It's perfectly irrational (in the sense of unwise, devoid of proper use of intelligence, stupid) to be supremely devoted to self. Sin lies in the intention prior to the external act; that is, being supremely devoted to self is the "essence" of sin.
In devoting oneself to oneself, one effectively cuts himself off from the True Source of Life, and proper context in which that life is to be lived (with others).
Amen.
Well said, John.
Glory be to God.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/9/2004 6:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
This is not in reference to an age of accountability, but we can safely say that a baby and most toddlers are "devoted to self". At some point in the maturing process, this devotion to self is either weakened or strengthened. What are the factors involved in this process? A young child is not able to influence himself except to decide to be self contained. How do they learn to not be self contained? Would not the influences governing this decision come from the outside (i.e. upbringing, societal views and practices, religion)?
Hi Lock,
An interesting question. It seems to me that a young child, being basically helpless and totally dependent on others for it's survival, is not being unrighteously selfish at all when she cries when she's hungry, needs to be changed, etc. (Our first child is nearly two, and she's the joy of our life). Though they seem supremely selfish to us, how else are they supposed to communicate their genuine needs?
As to the influence and training of children to not be selfish, obviously, this can only occur when the child has developed sufficiently mentally to be able to understand right from wrong. Indeed, parents have a most profound influence in a child's development, for either good or evil.
Finally, if we say infants are somehow sinful in that they act in an infantile manner, then it seems to me that we must say that the baby Jesus was sinful. (I personally don't buy the idea that being human by definition means "sinful").
Is 7:16 "For before the boy will know {enough} to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.
Heb 12:7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom {his} father does not discipline?
1 Cor 13:11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 12/10/2004 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Lock,
quote:
John-
We have established that we have a conscience built within our nature, it is the suppressing part that I am referring to. We have established that sin is irrational because it is against our conscience. Does this young child suppress what his conscience tells him is right due to his upbringing or is it something else from within? Is he not taught to suppress his conscience even though not directly told to do so?
Ephesians speaks of those who are "ignorant on account of hardness of heart," and those who have "cast off all feeling." But twin studies have provided strong evidence that different people have different degrees of natural resistance to desensitization to various sensibilities.
Would not the twin studies prove the nurture side of it, that it is a product of unbringing, societal views, religous base, etc. and not something simply "inside" them?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/10/2004 8:37 AM (GMT -6) | | actually, mr. lock, being an identical twin, i've followed many of the twin studies
what they're amazed at is the amount of similar nature there is between identicals separated at birth, i.e. different environments, same choices
we've experienced both, similar choices due to nature, similar choices due to nuture, different choices despite similar nature, different choices despite similar nuture
all it points to is:
each one of us is special and unique, just like everyone else
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/10/2004 3:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Lock,
quote:
Would not the twin studies prove the nurture side of it, that it is a product of unbringing, societal views, religous base, etc. and not something simply "inside" them?
If the same were true for fraternal twins, you would have a point. But in many cases the identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins to a statistically significant degree, even though both kinds of twins have had the same "upbringing, societal views, religous base, etc."
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 12/13/2004 6:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
actually, mr. lock, being an identical twin, i've followed many of the twin studies
what they're amazed at is the amount of similar nature there is between identicals separated at birth, i.e. different environments, same choices
we've experienced both, similar choices due to nature, similar choices due to nuture, different choices despite similar nature, different choices despite similar nuture
all it points to is:
each one of us is special and unique, just like everyone else
Laika,
When you say "similar nature", do you mean the genetics inherited by your parents?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/14/2004 6:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Very quickly. HAVE to do this.
Talbott could have, I believe, easily justified his argument against Craig. Given Rejection Hypothesis:
(RH) Some persons will, despite God's best efforts to save them, freely and irrevocably reject God and thus separate themselves from God forever.
and Talbott's premiss...
P3) Necessarily, God loves a person S (with a perfect form of love) at a time t only if God's intention at t and every moment subsequent to t is to do everything within his power to promote supremely worthwhile happiness in S, provided that the actions taken are consistent with his promoting the same kind of happiness in all others whom he also loves.
...all Talbott had to do was revise his P3 thusly...
P3') Necessarily, God loves a person S (with a perfect form of love) at a time t only if God's intention at t and every moment subsequent AND ANTECEDENT to t is to do everything within his power to promote supremely worthwhile happiness in S, provided that the actions taken are consistent with his promoting the same kind of happiness in all others whom he also loves.
This would imply that God's all-loving intentionality would PRECEDE the creation/actualization of person S's existence and involve God's infinitely-intelligent CONCEPTION of person S's potentiality. From this, he should have argued that a being with omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence, particularly a CREATOR God, would be utterly incapable of creating any person S with such a constitution that RH could obtain.
If we say that RH is the absolute worst thing that can happen to any possible person S, than it is logically incoherent to say that an omnibenevolent being that had the power to avoid RH would NOT!
Think about it.
Doc has said over and over again that..."God’s creatures are finite. Although their freedom cannot be revoked, it can be thought of as “probabtional.” The scope and duration of their freedom is conditioned by many variables and ultimately determined by God’s will." IN other words, creaturely freedom ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, is contrained by divine conditions. Divine conditions that are always conditioned by God's nature and character.
I believe that it would be very easy to argue that, JUST LIKE GOD CANNOT LIE, DESTROY GODSELF, BE ESSENTIALLY UNLOVING, OR CREATE AN INFINITE CREATION OF ANY TYPE, God could not create any being that would have the possibility to render themselves completely impervious to God's wooing for eternity. God could create beings who could resist God for EONS upon EONS...but never eternally and not in EVERY possible circumstance. This preserves creaturely dignity and liberatarian freedom, while emphasizing universalism. It even makes the existence of postmortem hell/conscious suffering/separation from God viable...with universalism. Yes, it is possible that full ontological distinction and self-determination is COMPATIBLE with universalism! Making this compatible with Talbott's argument...
God could never create a sentient being WHOSE ESSENTIAL BEING predisposes towards or allows the possibility of RH.
I would argue that RH is broadly logically impossible with respect to having a omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent CREATOR God.
My 2c. Whatcha think, Tom? Email me.
Back to business,
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/15/2004 6:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Thoughts? Again, what is being proposed...
Given God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence (and all that those things entail), it would be impossible for God to create a sentient being whose ESSENTIAL NATURE allows for the possibility of the worst possible state of affairs for a sentient being, ie. ETERNAL, NEVER-ENDING separation from God. God could no more do this than God could create an inherently completely evil being!
God CAN create a free being that can freely resist God for VERY, VERY, VERY long stretches of time...and personally experience the torment of doing so. But as C.S. Lewis says...finality must come sometime.
Heh.
Thoughts, please.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/15/2004 12:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
quote:
Given God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence (and all that those things entail), it would be impossible for God to create a sentient being whose ESSENTIAL NATURE allows for the possibility of the worst possible state of affairs for a sentient being, ie. ETERNAL, NEVER-ENDING separation from God. God could no more do this than God could create an inherently completely evil being!
God CAN create a free being that can freely resist God for VERY, VERY, VERY long stretches of time...and personally experience the torment of doing so. But as C.S. Lewis says...finality must come sometime.
Heh.
Thoughts, please.
If the second death is not a true death where consciousness and sentience CEASES, I would agree that your contention has some plausibility. Otherwise, it is moot isn't it?
One way of thinking about your view is the following:
Supposedly, according to Arminianism (correct me if I'm wrong folks!), people go along and become harder and harder and EVENTUALLY become hopelessly hardened. But then what about the guy/gal that just passed the so-called age of accountability a month ago and gets killed in a car wreck. He/she never hardened to that point of no return. So why would he/she be hopeless after death?
Am I missing something?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/15/2004 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | If my contention has plausibility, then God would not create beings that he would HAVE to ultimately annihiliate...for that would constitute a being's eternal separation from God...AND would constitute the subject matter for the eternal MOURNING of God. But I see what you mean.
This is what gets me. Consistent Arminians, like Doc and Paul Eddy in "Across the Spectrum", will tell you that postmortem evangelism is really the ONLY FULLY CONSISTENT view to have if one holds to the Free Will Defense. (Actually, this is what bolsters the "age of accountability" thing too) The essence of this belief is that choice for God CAN be done after death. Doesn't it sound funny that people like this will AGREE with postmortem evangelism...but DISAGREE with the idea that it may take a LOOOOOOOOOONG time for postmortem evangelism to work? (Which is pretty much what I'm saying) | | Back to Top | | |
| 44 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:51 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|