# My Theology Paper:  WMD and Christianity



## MDLarson (May 31, 2003)

Hey everybody,

I'm finally getting done with my college education... taking a summer school class to finish up.  The class is Christian Theology.

I have to write a 15-17 page paper, something that is very difficult for me to do. ::sleepy::

Anyways, just wanted to reach out into this diverse crowd to dig up some valuable links / books / ideas that might help me out.  Here's my paper thesis (which may change):





> To understand the controversy and significance behind weapons of mass destruction in today's political environment, and how a Christian should treat the subject.  Special emphasis will be given to nuclear bombs and the United States? role in the nuclear age.


If you want, I can email the paper to those interested in what I come up with!  Thanks!

-Matt


----------



## chevy (May 31, 2003)

Try to define the main words:
weapons
mass destruction
today's political environment
Christian

Then try to find other situations to understand what is specific to your subject : "usual weapons", "yesterday's political environment - WWII as an example", "non-Christian".

Then try to make the difference between the truth, and the communication of the political leaders, and why they communicate on one part of the truth.

Finally see the evolution of weapons over the ages, the evolution of the communication over the ages and the evolution of politics over the ages.

You will have filled the 17 pages before you end the work !


----------



## chabig (Jun 1, 2003)

> To understand the controversy and significance behind weapons of mass destruction in today's political environment, and how a Christian should treat the subject.



You do realize that this is not a complete sentence?

Beyond that, I really don't understand what you are going to say. It sounds like the thesis is going to be an anti-American rant. If that's what it takes to please your professors, then I guess that's OK. You have to write for your audience.

But what exactly is the "controversy" in "today's political environment"? And why should a Christian care about WMD any more or less than any other deadly weapon? Do you plan to make the case that it's worse to kill 10,000 than it is to kill 100, or even 1? What about the deterrent and defensive uses of WMD, which no doubt can save lives?

Chevy is right. Start writing and the next thing you know, you'll have way more than 17 pages.

Chris


----------



## ScottW (Jun 1, 2003)

Is the professor a Christian? Nothing like being taught how to cook chineese from someone who grew up in France.  

You could take a different approach to this, and obviously this all depends on your beliefs, but food for thought none-the-less.

My understanding on the "paper" is different than my friends on here who have already replied. It appears to me the issue is, "What should be a Christian's stance or viewpoint in light of the WMD issues facing the world and how does this differ (if in fact it does, it may not) from the world view point or non-Christian view point at large."

If I were you, here is what I would research and how I would go about writing the paper.

1) Take a look through the Bible at different stories in history and events that have to do with war, and God's view point on the subject.

2) Review revelations and the book of Daniel and research the possible matches to "future events" in reference to nuclear war. Things to look for are "wormwood" which is the Russian word for Chernobyl (sp??) and things like tourches coming from the sky (resembling possible missles coming down to earth), etc.

3) I would explain that in light of past events and future events in prophecy that may indeed relate to global, thermal, nuclear war that the two subjects, nuclear war and Christianity are really two seperate issues... and the fact that any country has the right to defend itself whether it be having those weapons or stopping others from obtaining them.

Not sure if that made any sense at all, I am trying to take care fo a little girl right now while writing this and not that easy.


----------



## chevy (Jun 1, 2003)

One thing you have to do before making any affirmation, is to try to understand the point of view of the ones that have a different opinion. A good exercise is to look at a conflict were no Christian is directly involved: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You will see how different cultures considere mass destruction, what is their effect on the war and peace processes.

The next big thing in theology is to look at what happend until now (review your history): this may enlight the strict reading of the written words. The term mass destruction changed its meaning during the time. Look at the war between Christians in Europe (End of middle age, WW I) and how the local church explained the genocides (against evangelists, against catholics) that ended the middle-age, and later the usage of death gas during WW I.


----------



## Arden (Jun 1, 2003)

> To understand the controversy and significance behind weapons of mass destruction in today's political environment, and how a Christian should treat the subject. Special emphasis will be given to nuclear bombs and the United States? role in the nuclear age.


Controversy?  What controversy is there?  Who should have them?  Who shouldn't?  Whether they are buried in Iraq or in Syria?  Why we went after an Arab country with no apparent weapons instead of an Asian country outwardly brandishing them?

Now for significance:  Of course, you always have the possibility of someone using WMD's on another country.  But what other significance can you attach to them?  That they instill fear in other countries?  That they give madmen a feeling of power?  That they can kill lots and lots of people at once?

How is today's political environment more important than yesterday's? tomorrow's?  What about WMD's from the past?  Remember, the only country to nuke another country to date was in WWII.  What about that political environment?

Why would a Christian treat the subject differently than anyone else?  Do not the Muslims have an opinion?  Do not I, as a Jew?  Okay, that's not the issue.  But why don't you approach this as how people from some of the major religions approach the issue, rather than just Christians?  After all, over 2 billion people consider themselves (or are considered) Christian, so there can't be any single way to define a Christian.  How do Roman Catholics approach the subject? Mormons? Greek Orthodox? Unitarian Universalists?

Plainly and simply, the United States defined the nuclear age, and of course we are the only nuclear aggressors.  If we had not developed nukes first, someone else would have, but we in our "righteousness" have the knowledge and wisdom to know when and on whom to use them.  What about other WMD's, though?  What about biological agents? chemicals?  What about nonphysical weapons, like propaganda? spam? email virii?

I hope this helps you see why your thesis is a bunch of bullI mean, develop your thesis more fully and completely.


----------



## acidtuch10 (Jun 1, 2003)

I think you should talk about this subject in third party. Look in from the outside, and judge accordingly. There is no right / wrong, but just opinions. The problem is when writing a paper "opinions matter" and can effect your grade. So Do, so  from an objective, third point/person of view.  Cover the basis and be ready to ask / answer questions, because this is a very controversial subject ( religion and weapons No matter what religion or ethnicity ) are subject to opinion and controversy... But hey this is my opinion  Good luck ~ going to be a big paper !! Would you mind posting it when done?


Thx 
Acid


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 2, 2003)

Acid, I'll consider posting it, but I'd rather email or PM it to interested parties.

Chevy, you don't understand the context of this paper.  The class is Christian Theology.  Everyone in the class is a Christian, including the professor.  The definition of a Christian has been defined...

Man, I gotta go to class.  I'll be back later today to get more of my thoughts out.


----------



## Cat (Jun 2, 2003)

"how a christian should treat the subject" seems to suggest an ethical discussion. However, since christians enjoy a divine revelation, no controversy exists, since there is an absolute standard of truth and good. Hence there can be no controversy.

"To understand the controversy and significance behind weapons of mass destruction in today's political environment" is either a political treatise or  centered on the role of journalism and the media and not theological (in the strict sense) at all. In a broader view everything is obviously theological for a christian.

"Special emphasis will be given to nuclear bombs and the United States? role in the nuclear age" This points again to a historical treatise, wherein a fact in the past is analyzed and related to other facts. Bad historians tend to give their very own personal opinion about these ...

General advice:
Sort out the various fields of enquiry to make your subject manageable and then start by writing down a scheme of your reasoning. What also always helps is a graphical diagram which shows the various relations between the main subjects. You can keep this as reference while writing the various chapters, so you don't lose sight of the overall view, which helps kkeep your text centered around the relevant issues. If your paper is to be scientific, try to incorporate rivalling views and theories in your paper for comparison and be honest about your assumptions and unverified hypotheses. Avoid quoting only a single source (e.g. only a specfic book of the bible), try show that you really looked around for material. Avoid using only material of one particular historical period (e.g. the first century a.d.), but incorporate recent as well as historical sources and comments. 

"Evolutionism degrades you" Religion enslaves you. Better a free monkey than a caged soul.


----------



## toast (Jun 2, 2003)

*removed by toast, read further to know why*


----------



## toast (Jun 2, 2003)

*removed by toast, read further to know why*


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 2, 2003)

Either posing the question like I did was the best or the worst thing I could have done!   I didn't expect people to get so worked up over it or be offended by it... sheesh.

I am *not* going to define what a Christian is in my paper.  That definition is understood in my class context.

I am going to define weapons of mass destruction as nuclear bombs, biological and chemical weapons.  I don't consider a fighter jet to be a WMD because it doesn't cause mass destruction (unless it's only role is dropping a WMD.)

My thesis may stink, but I'm really still trying to work on it.  Perhaps this thread has helped me with that, but I think you guys are reading too much into it (like, _how dare I not take into account the muslim's point of view - I mean after all, it's a Christian class!_)

Like I hinted at before, I'm not sure this was such a great idea.    Maybe you guys could take a step back and give the Christian viewpoint a chance.


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 2, 2003)

> _In my signature_
> *Evolutionism degrades you*





> _Originally posted by Cat_
> *Religion enslaves you. Better a free monkey than a caged soul.*


All are slave to something, even if it's yourself.

The best evolution can offer is death.

On the contrary, Jesus Christ can set you free from the bondage of sin and give you eternal life.  We are created beings of a good God and as such, were designed for much better things than simply a birth>life>death meaningless existence.





> _Galations 5:1_
> *It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.  Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.*


----------



## toast (Jun 3, 2003)

*removed by toast, read further to know why*


----------



## Cat (Jun 3, 2003)

> All are slave to something, even if it's yourself.


Technically, being slave of oneself is the maximum of freedom that can be reached, since it would be self-determination. Freedom is not utter undetermination, but self-determination. Kant already explained how autonomy (literally self-law) is the highest form of freedom man can enjoy.



> The best evolution can offer is death.


This is absolutely true. We just differ in the value we place on death. Death arguably is bad for the individual, but very usefull for the species or for Life in general. No death, no evolution. This however does not mean that evolution is progress to the ultimate and perfect lifeform.



> On the contrary, Jesus Christ can set you free from the bondage of sin and give you eternal life.


This is true only if you accept the entire notion of inherited primary sin, as I do not. Since I am them without sin, in my opinion, I have no need to be saved. Since I have no bonds, I need not to be freed. Eternal life then, is not what it's all cracked up to be. I would like living a long fisical, human, embodied life, but not for all eternity, maybe a few hundred years or so. I honestly don't think I would enjoy it forever. Everything ultimately will become indifferent and boring to me. I would like to re-incarnate though and have another new and interesting life.

Eternal life in heaven I cannot even begin to imagine, so it has hardly any appeal to me. Happiness, joy, love etc. are all known to me through my body. How can I imagine or appreciate now the possibility of disembodied emotions? They will be completely different and unimaginable to me. I must say, for now I like thme as they are.

Moreover, technically there is no salvation through actions or prayer: you are predestined to be saved or not. Read St. Augustine on this.



> We are created beings of a good God and as such, were designed for much better things than simply a birth>life>death meaningless existence.



If we were created in the likeness of god, and hence good, how come the very first generation of humans sinned? Because we had free will, and free will is meaningless without choice. Choice then regards whether to sin and not to sin and statistically should be divided 50% if god and satan don't meddle. If we are designed for heavenly existence, then why do we first get our bdies and our free will? If we are not meant to choose, and thus meant to sin, why were we created good?

birth>life>death is not a meaningless existence. Man is capable of definig his own values and to give meaning to his life by himself. I live a full and rich life, both bodily and intellectually without need for any gods or salvation. Dogmatic beliefs cripple reason and creative thought.

I apologize for any rudeness that may have crept into my posts.


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *I apologize for any rudeness that may have crept into my posts. *


Don't worry about that, all your points were good.  You hit a couple of the major topics of Christian theology (predestination and an all-powerful good God existing along with sin.)

I can post more on that, but sorry, I gotta go to class again...  This seems to be a pattern for me!


----------



## chevy (Jun 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *All are slave to something, even if it's yourself.
> 
> The best evolution can offer is death.
> ...



Most Christians (or christians) think that
1) There is a life after death, good or bad depending on many things
2) The human body and "mecanics", as well as the rest of the creation's behaviour has been shaped by a long evolution, obeying to the rules of God.


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *Most Christians (or christians) think that...The human body and "mecanics", as well as the rest of the creation's behaviour has been shaped by a long evolution, obeying to the rules of God. *


Some do, but I don't.  A lot of other Christians don't and shouldn't.  Christians that try to reconcile evolution doctrine with the Bible are puting themselves in an indefensible position.  The Bible is very clear about the Creation story and is incompatible with evolution (and I can prove this.)

Cat, so death is necessary for the survival of the fittest, and for the evolutionary process in general.  Great, but people still don't want to die (you may be a minority, based on your words.)  Nobody's going to be comforted by the idea that they are somehow contributing to the evolution of the human species.

Evolution doctrine teaches that there is no meaning to your life.  Any meaning you attach to your life is a result of your evolved brain.  For that matter, how can you, as evolutionists, trust your own thoughts, which come from a brain that is a product of a bunch of mistakes?

Millions of kids today are told that they are "important" and "special" in self-esteem classes in school.  But who says?  The evolution teacher?  Little Joey gets out of science class learning that he's nothing but a glorified monkey and goes to self-esteem class to be told he's important.  It's ridiculous.

That's evolution for ya, but you mentioned Augustine, who believed that all who would be saved were already chosen by God for salvation (this is called predestination.)  This is a major point to Calvanism.  This begs the question; "Why should Christians participate in missions, or evangelism, or pray?"  Well, the best asnwer is that the Bible *tells* Christians to do these things.  It is a commandment.  We are part of the means for others' salvation (God alone grants it.)

The flip-side to Calvanism is Arminianism, which would very strongly disagree with St. Augustine.  The Arminian claims that all potentially can be saved.  Both Christian views would disagree with the notion that a person can be saved simply by doing nothing, which your statement implies.  Indeed, it is pretty clear that Christianity is a very "narrow-minded" doctrine, to use contemporary terms.  Guilty as charged.

Well, I'm gonna call it quits here.  I gotta go to bed.  These weeks are really draining my brain up, trying to work full-time and all.  I'll post some on the idea of the all-powerful, all-good God and the existence of sin... that's the best question you can ask of Christians.

-Matt

p.s.  Toast, if I sounded a little defensive, I'm sorry; I was mostly frustrated that people didn't really read my original post. ::love::


----------



## Giaguara (Jun 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *Most Christians (or christians) think that
> 1) There is a life after death, good or bad depending on many things
> 2) The human body and "mecanics", as well as the rest of the creation's behaviour has been shaped by a long evolution, obeying to the rules of God. *



1) most of the christians (who declare themselves to be that, not only in statistics as me but in practise and as state of mind) are afraid of death. they freak out when someone dies or the death passes close them, or any moment htey realize they are not immorta..

2) the body as mechanics makes me think about the western (as opposed e.g. to traditional indian or chinese) medicine.


----------



## Giaguara (Jun 3, 2003)

... and back to the original:

i have never understood the priests asking their believers to "pray for our troops" (is used during any war in AFAIK any church) - and then on the same mass to read "thou should not kill". what are the troops doing there? playing card games with the enemy and the card game winner wins the war? :err: so _you_ are not supposed to kill -- unless you are a part of the troops.

so somehow that seems to be the practical case "as supposed to". be a good citizen, respect the law, go to church, _pray_for_your_troops_ ... i just wonder _why_ ? "if someone hits you, turn your cheek" (or something similar).. wasn't it jesus saying that? so for the most political parts of the bible i know the church should be pacifist (=no war at all). but then in practise too much money and political powers have always been involved... 

the life past death thing ... i would like to find (i believe it's impossible though!) the parts of the bible that were removed by some roman emperors around 300 after christ. they would add their flavor - and once again, the reason (for the removal of them) was political. (any religious institution should be free from the power and the state).


----------



## Cat (Jun 4, 2003)

> Cat, so death is necessary for the survival of the fittest, and for the evolutionary process in general.  Great, but people still don't want to die (you may be a minority, based on your words.)  Nobody's going to be comforted by the idea that they are somehow contributing to the evolution of the human species.



It does convey respect for the greater whole of which we are only small parts. While it doesn't command respect or love, it can be quite impressive nevertheless. You say people do not want to die. This however does not logically imply that people want to live forever. Of course we are afraid to die, because death mostly comes with great pain and agony. Many old people, realizing they have had a full life, welcome death as a well-earned rest. The anguish comes from the pain, not from the dying. Are you afraid of gravity? No: you are afraid of being hurt by falling.



> Evolution doctrine teaches that there is no meaning to your life.


You know this is not true. Evolution doctrine doesn't teach anything about the meaning of life: your interpretation takes evolutionism to imply these things, but evolution theory doesn't contain any statements about the meaning of life. Just as natural science doesn't discuss the meaningfulness or goodness of mass or energy.



> Any meaning you attach to your life is a result of your evolved brain.  For that matter, how can you, as evolutionists, trust your own thoughts, which come from a brain that is a product of a bunch of mistakes?


I beg to differ: there is a distinction to be made between the brain and the mind, and you confuse those in your statements. That the brain is the result of a confused and error prone process does not imply that the products of human thought are equally fallacious. Think of mathematics e.g.



> Millions of kids today are told that they are "important" and "special" in self-esteem classes in school.  But who says?  The evolution teacher?  Little Joey gets out of science class learning that he's nothing but a glorified monkey and goes to self-esteem class to be told he's important.  It's ridiculous.


I agree. Self-esteem cannot be taught, but, as any kind of esteem, must be earned, even from yourself.  



> That's evolution for ya, but you mentioned Augustine, who believed that all who would be saved were already chosen by God for salvation (this is called predestination.)  This is a major point to Calvanism.  This begs the question; "Why should Christians participate in missions, or evangelism, or pray?"  Well, the best asnwer is that the Bible tells Christians to do these things.  It is a commandment.  We are part of the means for others' salvation (God alone grants it.)



Well, I agree obviously. Still this makes praying and doing good pointless if you are already predestined to be saved or not.



> The flip-side to Calvanism is Arminianism, which would very strongly disagree with St. Augustine.  The Arminian claims that all potentially can be saved.  Both Christian views would disagree with the notion that a person can be saved simply by doing nothing, which your statement implies.



According to predestination, a person is already saved before birth. If you disavow predestination, you have two options: 1) you are saved through prayers and good deeds. 2) You are saved because of the ineffable infinite grace of god.
In the sencond case, actions, except possibly deadly sins, don't really matter that much. It's the first case that is interesting. However, the two explicit commandments we find in the bible are quite vague: 1) Go forth and multiply and 2) the classical ten commandments. Now the first one isn't all that difficult to observe ...  the second one requires more thought. What does god command us? Mostly to refrain from certain criminal actions. Anf further to honor him as one and only god, and our parents and the holy days. Wel, elementary Watson, these are no problem. The problem is that christians felt compelled, like all the other hellenistic philosophies at the time, to introduce further fashionable rituals and actions that will make you attain apotheosis. Thua the original bible books were swappen, rewritten, changed, censured, re-assembled, disputed, translated and retranslated and adapted to the spirit of the times. Hardly any divine authority left ...



> Indeed, it is pretty clear that Christianity is a very "narrow-minded" doctrine, to use contemporary terms.  Guilty as charged.



 At least you debate your faith well in an open discussion with infidels. 



> Well, I'm gonna call it quits here.  I gotta go to bed.  These weeks are really draining my brain up, trying to work full-time and all.  I'll post some on the idea of the all-powerful, all-good God and the existence of sin... that's the best question you can ask of Christians.


Looking forward to it!  Good luck with your paper! How is it going? Keep us posted!


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *1) most of the christians...are afraid of death. they freak out when someone dies or the death passes close them, or any moment htey realize they are not immorta..*


Well, I can only say this contradicts my entire life-experience of the Christians I know / knew.  If the deceased was a Christian, we believed we would see them again in Heaven one day.  There was grief and sorrow, but no _fear_.





> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *i have never understood the priests asking their believers to "pray for our troops" (is used during any war in AFAIK any church) - and then on the same mass to read "thou should not kill". what are the troops doing there?*


This touches on the whole idea of a Just War.  Ignoring for the moment any specific conflict, let's entertain a few ideas...
?We pray for our troops' safety (yes, they may be killing people, but our soldiers' lives are also in danger)
?We pray for their success.  The last thing we want when we actually go to war is to lose.  Even if it was a just war, it would be a lost war and still a failure.
?We pray for their quick return.  Here it really wouldn't matter whether the war was just or not - we just want our guys back at home.  Even the most just of wars may become unjust after an extended amount of time.
?We pray that justice, at God's discretion, may be carried out.  This would be the reason war was waged in the first place.

Those are just the thoughts that came to my mind just now.  Hopefully they persuade you that it is not entirely hypocritical that pastors and priests "pray for our troops."





> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *the life past death thing ... i would like to find...the parts of the bible that were removed by some roman emperors around 300 after christ. they would add their flavor - and once again, the reason (for the removal of them) was political. (any religious institution should be free from the power and the state).*


I've never heard this before, and I'd like to ask my professor about it; could you give me more details about this?  As a Bible-believing Christian, I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and I should address this issue, if I can.


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *...You say people do not want to die. This however does not logically imply that people want to live forever.*


This is true.





> *"Evolution doctrine teaches that there is no meaning to your life." You know this is not true.*


Yes, it's true that evolution does not address the meaning of life question.  But I propose that it does not because it _cannot_.  Logically, because evolution _cannot_ give us a meaning for life, life *becomes meaningless* if evolution is true.  That's how I should have stated it before, sorry. 


> *there is a distinction to be made between the brain and the mind, and you confuse those in your statements.*


Definition of "Mind":
"The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination."
The mind is separate, but dependant on the brain.  I think my statement still rings true.  We can go a step further with this; how could these attributes of a mind have evolved?  Certainly the human being as an animal does not need these things to live out survival of the fittest?





> *That the brain is the result of a confused and error prone process does not imply that the products of human thought are equally fallacious. Think of mathematics e.g.*


"Mathematics is the only truly universal language" (Jodie Foster, Contact).  One could argue that mathematics has always existed in the cosmos, therefore transcending the human mind.  I would advocate that God created mathematics, along with the human mind.*



			Still this makes praying and doing good pointless if you are already predestined to be saved or not...According to predestination, a person is already saved before birth.
		
Click to expand...

*No, that's wrong; predestination advocates that the person _remains unsaved_ until they accept Christ.  The proper way to look at this is:  The person becomes a Christian > This affirms that they were indeed predestined.
Otherwise, how can a person be saved if they make no conscious decision?  The Bible is consistent in its accounts of salvation; they are all a conscious decision _after_ they are born.*



			At least you debate your faith well in an open discussion with infidels.  ...Good luck with your paper! How is it going? Keep us posted! 

Click to expand...

*Thanks, and I'm going to have to put off the sin / good God issue again.  Today is a writing day.  I have a week before it's due, and I have a grand total of 1 page done!  Woohoo!


----------



## toast (Jun 4, 2003)

MD,

Your class looks more like a Christian class/lesson than a theology class.

Theology is a science. The scientific aspect of it first appeared in Carl Schmidt's decisionism. Science is empiric, and not scholastic.

There's very little science in this whole thread. I'm hence removing my former post, which was scientific and neither Christian or religious, hence which doesn't fit here.


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Your class looks more like a Christian class/lesson than a theology class.
> 
> Theology is a science. The scientific aspect of it first appeared in Carl Schmidt's decisionism. Science is empiric, and not scholastic.
> ...


What is your definition of science?

Theology = "The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions."
The class is Christian Theology.  You could say that the class is everything that theology means to a Christian.  To say that my class "looks more like a Christian class/lesson than a theology class" seems to contradict itself; I mean, the class is *both* a Christian class and a Theology class.  Or maybe I'm not understanding your point?


----------



## Cat (Jun 4, 2003)

> The mind is separate, but dependant on the brain.  I think my statement still rings true.  We can go a step further with this; how could these attributes of a mind have evolved?  Certainly the human being as an animal does not need these things to live out survival of the fittest?



Yes it does! There are host of scientific accounts of how certain attributes evolve and are genetically transmitted. Evolution theory states that unused attributes disappear (man's tail) and frequantly used attributes get enhanced and specialize (senses, fingers). While the actual fisical attributes in man may not have dramatically changed, the information-processing utilities have expanded immensely. We are able to recognize single faces out of a hundredthousand. In information theory this would mean 17 bits of information. Each single channel (sense) can process only up to 3 bits, but thanks to the immens parallel computing engine that the brain is, we gain an enourmous increase in information processing power. Thus, an evolutional advantage. 



> One could argue that mathematics has always existed in the cosmos, therefore transcending the human mind.  I would advocate that God created mathematics, along with the human mind


One could argue that, but then he would err.  This would amount to very naïve Platonism, with all of it's problems. How do you explain the realtion between man and mathematics? How do we know it? How can we add things to it or discover things if they already exist? What sense does this heavely perfect mathematics make to man? Are there then two mathematics, one of man one of god?

No, mathematics, like man, has evolved. It is a system of concepts and relations, that evolved from practical needs to abstract problems. From simple counting to higher analysis. It wasn't given as perfect completed whole, nor is it now. It has included the most various types of errors and is still viewed from many different perspectives. It is not god given and does not exist outside of man's thought.

Regarding predestinations, we are then talking about different types of predestination. Calvinism actually doesn't at all require you to accept christ, it goes a step further and affirms AFAIK, that if your soul is predestined to be saved, then you will be saved. This can mean that during your life you will be also predestined to accept christ. 



> Otherwise, how can a person be saved if they make no conscious decision?  The Bible is consistent in its accounts of salvation; they are all a conscious decision after they are born


Good question!  In fact if they are predestined it can be that it is a conscious decision, but whether it is free is debatable...


----------



## Arden (Jun 4, 2003)

Science is, IMO, the application of fact.  In this vein, how do you prove God exists or ever existed?  How do you prove Jesus Christ is the savior?  (Remember, eyewitness accounts are falsifiable and people write books, so you can't use those to answer.)

From Merriam-Webster:
*science*: _noun_1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>

In this vein, theology is not a science except of opinions.  Religion is the ultimate field open to interpretation, and nothing is concrete.  Therefore, to call your theology class a science class is faulty.

Anyway, maybe you should get back to the WMD's.


----------



## Giaguara (Jun 4, 2003)

MDLarson, the fear of death is what i've seen in all of my christian friends when they face the death. e.g. when one of their beloved ones die. At least compared to those that believe there is life before and after our life at earth, or those that have had the close-to-death-experiences. (that changes normally a lot.)

And the removed parts of the bible were about reincarnations. A Roman emperor and his mother wanted to remove them, as removing anything about soul 'recyclin' or of multiple lives, would have made the Romans to be more respectful to the life in this life. I have somewhere written who was the Roman emperor, i have a really bad name memory, i remember it was just around 300 after Christ. I will look it up for you.


----------



## toast (Jun 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *What is your definition of science?
> 
> Theology = "The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions."
> The class is Christian Theology.  You could say that the class is everything that theology means to a Christian.*



Hum. Thsi definition comes from dictionary.com. But you forgot to quote the _entire_ definition:

_the·ol·o·gy
1/ The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2/ A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology. 
3/ A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary._

If you read those definitions again, you'll pick up the following words: rational inquiry, school of opinions, specialized. I thought your class was about that, but it does not seem so. See why below.



> I mean, the class is *both* a Christian class and a Theology class.  Or maybe I'm not understanding your point?



Sciences appeal to objectivity, ontology, normativism and rational empirism. Religion appeals to affect, sensitivitity and (inter)subjectivity.

Speaking with both voices or writing through both viewpoints at the same time is, if not impossible, a chaotic and messy as well as useless attempt. Theologists can be Christian, but when they write, they write as theologists and not as Christians.
Science and religion do not meet, MD.  Religion is belief, science is evidence. Christian Theology is a scientific questioning about Christian topics, no more, it does not elude the scientific aspect of theology. The important word here (you guessed it) is 'scientific' and as I can't identify anything scientific in this thread, I state this class has very little to do with theology. 

Referring back to the (incomplete) definitions from dictionary.com, I can't see any rationality nor schools of opinions (not even historical doctrins) nor specialized content in your posts. Hence, my own 2¢ were inadequate here, that's why I just removed them.


----------



## toast (Jun 4, 2003)

> Science is, IMO, the application of fact.  In this vein, how do you prove God exists or ever existed?  How do you prove Jesus Christ is the savior?



You don't. Theology is not belief, it's a study of beliefs. The theologist is a neutral observer, deprived of all his presumptions, including his religious ones. 

Theology is an important branch of doctrinary studies, what we French call 'HDP' or 'HIP', ie. History of Political Doctrins or History of Political Ideas. Theology may study an irrational object, it nevertheless obeys the rules of scientific observations and studies, just like every *-logies.

Call things by their name: theology is a science; mixing actuality and scholastic is catechism.

There are only two pseudo-sciences who refused those rules through time: nazism and stalinism (and that's why they were pseudo-sciences by the way). But this is waaaaaaaaay off-topic.


----------



## chevy (Jun 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *Some do, but I don't.  A lot of other Christians don't and shouldn't.  Christians that try to reconcile evolution doctrine with the Bible are puting themselves in an indefensible position.  The Bible is very clear about the Creation story and is incompatible with evolution (and I can prove this.)
> 
> ::love:: *



I don't doubt that some people "demonstrated" that the Bible is not compatible with the original Darwin proposal.

I'm not sure the purpose of the Bible is to give you a scientific knowledge about the history of humanity.

I'm sure some very sensible and not stupid (scientific, theologic and others) people are Christian and still think the current human shape is the result of a long evolution that is not in contradiction with the Biblic tradition or the Biblic words.

I agree that trying to "reconcile evolution doctrine with the Bible" is meaningless.

One should not forget that, independantly of its current validity, the Bible has been written some 2000 years ago (and more for a good part of it) by people of different culture, speaking different languages. Its content has been selected several time by church autorities (more or less inspired) in the first 600-700 years of its existance.

There is known sentence in French that I'll try to translate in English here "When the teacher shows the solution with its finger, the fool is looking at the finger". I mean by that the one should read the message in the Bible, more than discuss about the exact chosen words.


----------



## toast (Jun 4, 2003)

Amen  to what chevy said. Creationism is a flawed lecture of the Bible, just like charia is a flawed lecture of Quran.


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 4, 2003)

... And this is where I begin to get frustrated.  Not because I don't have answers for some questions, but because it takes so much time putting together well-thought out replies that you guys deserve.  Each question would exponentially grow, and I simply can't keep up.  You all have some good points, but instead of attempting to address each one like I've been trying to do, I'll just write very generally about my faith...
------------------------------------
Yes, I am a Christian.  Yes, I am a sinner, but am also a new creation in Christ.  I recognize right and wrong not only through what the Bible says, but also through my conscience.  I believe the Bible to be fully-innerrant and inspired by God in all matters, while still allowing for poetic expression.  Some of you have attacked the credibility of some or all parts of the Bible - I do not have the evidence at hand to rebuff these attacks in a systematic fasion, but I have read enough truth in the Bible (and explanation to convince me in the classroom) to accept the Bible as true.

I believe God is the author of science, and that science is limited to the natural.  Supernatural things such as divine creation and miracles simply cannot be explained by science, so those who believe in Science (if I may so deify the term) *cannot* accept Christianity or any supernatural type of thing.

I do not use the word "fact" in many of my arguments; a better term would be "truth-claim."  Believing what I do is not to be considered obvious fact that only a fool would not believe.  Nor is believing what I do a *leap-of-faith*.  It is somewhere in the middle.  Some of you are demanding scientific proof for things that only allow for faith.  I can't prove many things.  But at least I can defend my faith.

I also believe that evolutionists have just as much faith as I do (maybe more.)  You _believe_ that we have evolved, so you interpret the scientific data to fit the evolutionary model.  You have faith that the missing link will be found (or adjust the theory if it is not - punctuated equilibrium.)
------------------------------------
So, what now?  I should really get my paper done, but I'd love to keep talking if you guys want to.  Maybe, since I'm so outnumbered,  you all can ask simpler questions!  I'm thinking like yes / no questions.  It's probably not fair, but until I get done with this darn class, I won't have the time to become the apologist that you guys deserve.


----------



## Cat (Jun 5, 2003)

> I do not use the word "fact" in many of my arguments; a better term would be "truth-claim."  Believing what I do is not to be considered obvious fact that only a fool would not believe.  Nor is believing what I do a leap-of-faith.  It is somewhere in the middle.


People would consider that you are in fact making a leap of faith, but I will accept your own vision on this. However, I am curious about how you would go along to define a concept like "truth" or "fact" if you don't relate them. I mean, classically statements are true if they correctly describe facts-of-the-matter or an existing state-of-affair. If I say "The cat is on the mat", this statement is true if and only if the cat is in fact on the mat. The statement is related to the fact through truth-conditions: If those conditions are met, then the statement is true. So if you consider the bible to make true statements, within poetic liberty, how do you deal with "Hold still, Oh sun, and you moon: do not move!" and the six days of creation? Does the sun then actually move? Can't you admit to earth rotation? Did god create the world and all it's living things in six days? Or are these `days' six successive phases of variable lenght (millions of years)? 



> Some of you are demanding scientific proof for things that only allow for faith.  I can't prove many things.  But at least I can defend my faith.


Yes you can: you are holding up quite well, without becoming too dogmatic. However, I want to precise that I am not expecting scientific facts from you, but only rational reasoning. Like Toast pointed out, theology is a science, whiohc tries to think rationally about asystem of beliefs that many consider irrational. I am not discussing your beliefs, but the way you think about them, which, I hope, is a rational way. This implies that you have reasons and arguments, and in fact you are giving them. You do, and may from your perspective of course, appeal to `facts' from the bible, which many do consider not to be facts at all. 



> I also believe that evolutionists have just as much faith as I do (maybe more.)  You believe that we have evolved, so you interpret the scientific data to fit the evolutionary model.  You have faith that the missing link will be found (or adjust the theory if it is not - punctuated equilibrium.)


This is true: once a certain fact has been proven by scientific research, I consider it to be true. You may say that I believe it, but I think it goes a step further. Science claims, and I agree up to a point, that it does not simply provide useful beliefs and fictions, but actual true knowledge. 
Unlike those who believe in the bible, science at large is willing to admit it has been wrong i the past and can be proven wrong in the future and because of that is willing to change it's account, change the statemetns it makes to better account for the facts. Most christians I know are unwilling to change even a single comma in the bible, since it is god-inspired and thus absolutely true. 
You touch on the problem of Agrippa's Trilemma:
1) Ultimately you fall into circular reasoning OR
2) ultimately you strike basic unprovable axioms OR
3) you can go on forever finding reasons

Thus you say, science is a matter of belief, as much as religion or any faith.

I do not think this is true. Science (and rationality at large) tries to avoid cases 1) and 3) and is very interested in what type of assumtions and beliefs can be found in 2). Depending on the type of research there are admissble candidates for 2) which would make science more than just another belief-system. In fact science strives to find a configurations where there are as little possible assumptions that can warrant as much possible knowledge whil being a coherent and consistent whole. Most religions do nothing like this, they don't try to optimize their system but just work with their revelations as basis beliefs. This is a fundamental difference. Scientists will ultimately always accept to rediscuss and doubt their results and assumptions, the faihtfull will always avoid this.
E.g. compare religion to astrology.


----------



## toast (Jun 5, 2003)

Hello MD, I'll keep it short so you can go faster through this thread.



> I believe God is the author of science, and that science is limited to the natural.  Supernatural things such as divine creation and miracles simply cannot be explained by science, so those who believe in Science (if I may so deify the term) *cannot* accept Christianity or any supernatural type of thing.



Science is also about accepting there is no other sphere than the empiric one, ie. the experienced one. This is why the Bible contains revelations: to bring empirism to it.

Watch out, MD, you wrote "those who believe in Science", but science is *not*_a belief, it is not a religion. You don't not believe in science, just like you don't believe in psychology or history. Science is facts.



> I don't use the word 'fact' (...) But at least I can defend my faith.



Hum. That is catechism. I was mistaken by this thread's title .

I wish you luck for this paper,
*gone from thread*


----------



## lurk (Jun 5, 2003)

Toast, Sorry to see you go I think that you were making a valiant effort.  I wish you hadn't removed your posts as they were of value and remember that there are lurkers here who may have gotten your point even if the intended target did not appear to.

MDLarson I am curious are you going to school here at the U or are you at one of the seminaries  I live just down the street from Luther Seminary who knows we may have bumped into each other at the store. 

Just a couple of things I would like to mention that have come up in this thread.  This may be a bit long but please bear with me.



> *ScottW* Is the professor a Christian? Nothing like being taught how to cook chineese from someone who grew up in France.



This is just plain offensive.  Have you ever watched the Iron Chef  The "Chinese" chef was Japanese and he was a bad ass   Not to mention that the new "Japanese" one is from New York.

Honestly, I have taken several theology classes and I think the christian that taught me about Buddhism and Hinduism was quite good.  Ironically I never took any Christian theology classes in school because they had a bad reputation.  Not because of the professors and the content of the courses but rather because many of the stereotypical "Bible Thumper" students who would take the course.  Those students saw the christian theology courses as a place to convert their fellow students.  That made the actual study of theology quite difficult.

Finally, people are allowed to hold differing opinions and world views and it can be very enlightening to be taught about "your" religion by someone who does not believe in it themselves.  It highlights many of the unspoken assumptions that go unsaid while preaching to the choir.  So listen to the atheists, animists, darwinists and whatever other heathens in the world since they may well ask the questions which will make you a better christian.  (Of course that statement applies to any ism or ist replace them at will )



> *Gia*...the removed parts of the bible were about reincarnations. A Roman emperor and his mother wanted to remove them, as removing anything about soul 'recyclin' or of multiple lives, would have made the Romans to be more respectful to the life in this life



The history of the bible is actually really interesting and you are correct about them leaving out several books.  The funny thing is that when I went through catechism (well confirmation classes but the same thing) that was one of the things they spent some time on.  That bit of history always made me wonder how people could take the bible as 100% correct and literally true.  I wonder do people really think that the Gideons were handing out copies in year one.

If you look at the new testament originally there were many more books than are included in the present bible.  Different sects saw different books as being true and divinely inspired and furthermore in cases there were different version of the same book.  This is understandable when you consider that in several cases the accounts in the bible were passed on orally since few were literate and many were only written down decades after the crucifixion.

As an added layer of obfuscation Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic and not Greek which is what the new testament was written in so even if the author remembered exactly what was said we still have to trust their initial translation to the greek. 

When Christianity was gaining acceptance in the Roman empire and becoming an institutional religion there was a need to pull the different traditions together into  something to stamp with the seal of official christianity.  So basically a committee looked at all of the different accounts of Jesus' life and decided which ones were divinely inspired and which were not.  That committee decided which books would be in the bible and which versions of those books would be included.  I believe that Gia is right that this happened in about 300 AD, I did not look it up though.

That did not even settle matters, there is still conflict about what books belong in the Bible.  If you look at a Catholic bible it includes several extra books which are not in the Protestant version (the Apocrypha).

Going back to my confirmation classes this tainted history of the literal veracity of the Bible does not sink christianity.  The argument it that there was the initial revelation given by God which then has been transmitted to us via several unreliable paths.  Then the task of reading the bible is to find the deeper truth using your knowledge of the bible, its history and context.

As an aside it is very interesting to look at what was left out the bible as well as what was selected.  Many of the competing books are lost to time but there are some interesting commentaries on them as well as some amazing archaeological finds.  Off the top of my head some of the things that could be different had "other" gospels been selected that I have heard about.  

 Included stories of miracles Jesus preformed as a small child.
 Documented that Jesus had had a wife and was not himself a virgin (that would sure change the Catholic priesthood ) 
 No immaculate conception, Joseph was his dad.

Now it may well be that these things we rightfully left out of the Bible by that committee in 300 A.D. but you have to wonder.  Another interesting thought game is to wonder how some of the present puritanically uptight sects would have handled the inclusion of _The Song of Solomon _.  It is not as racy as the Karma Sutra but it does open up more possibilities beyond the missionary position 

Geeze this is already too long so I'll stop there but if you really want to talk theology there are some of us still around here to ask the hard questions and maybe we can coax toast to come back.


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 5, 2003)

Can't talk long, but thanks for the encouragement!  Lurk, I live in Minneapolis, but I have been going to Northwestern College in Roseville for a few years now.  It is most definately a Christian college; everybody is supposed be a Christian there.

Just to clarify a little more; I don't think the class is treated as an apologetics class - it feels more like Christian _clarification_ than anything else to me.  If you non-Christians were to sit in, I'm sure we'd have a lively debate, but for me, it's mostly affirmation.

Don't post anymore!  'Cause when I can come back, I'll be able to handle it all!


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 11, 2003)

Man, that was the hardest paper I've ever written.  I am *definately* not a writer. ::sleepy:: The requirement was 15-17 pages and I got 14; that's _including_ the works cited page.

Anyway, does anybody still wanna read it?  I'll PM / email it to ya.  I don't think it's very good... but some of you might enjoy it.

Man, I'm tired.


----------



## toast (Jun 11, 2003)

If you are sending it, please include me in the list 
You could also simply zip it and put it on board here.

To make your essay look like it's longer, adjust word spacing to 110% or get your line hight to (text size) + 2.


----------



## Cat (Jun 11, 2003)

In M$ Word, use Fontsize 12 and format>paragraph>line distance 1.25,
increase left and right margins. Footnotes to pt. 10 or even 12 if you're desperate  Make sure to insert blank lines between each bibliography item and insert page breaks at every new chapter.
Don't use any abbreviations at all ... Possibly make a titlepage with just your name, date, course and professor (and a fancy quote  ). 

Yeah, I've written a lot of those ... 

Posting a zip copy would be the easiest way I presume, otherwise mail me.


----------



## toast (Jun 11, 2003)

Usually I use Quark to write 20-page essays that look like 15-page essays. I'm usually too prolific.

Here's an example (PDF) > http://zolico.homedns.org/thinkhybrid/files/spo/scpo/ficherawls.pdf
More of them > http://zolico.homedns.org/thinkhybrid/scespo.html


----------



## Cat (Jun 11, 2003)

Quark??? Whoa ... I used Quark 3 to layout my faculty journal, but it didn't seem quite right for essays ... I now do them in LaTeX: LaTeX rules! 

I looked at your essay on Rawls: it looks really good! It looks more like a manual than like an essay ... mmmh I think LaTeX + BibTeX is perfect, allow a lot of layout options together with a lot of text manipulation ... I don't know what Quark can do (never used it beyond 3), but how is it at handling footnotes, automatic numbering, importing & converting text?

But then I have to add, for publication purposes, nothing beats LaTeX ... need to change the layout of your references? No problem! Done in a breeze: simply change your \citestyle or \bibliographystyle! Make all quotations smaller? Find&Replace \begin{quote} with \begin{quote} \small: done!

I _love_ LaTeX!


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 11, 2003)

Well, please don't tear into my paper too bad!  I don't think it's as strong as it could be, but I had to turn it in already.  And I just used Word's default margin settings and font size / etc.  Believe me, if I wanted to "cheat" and bump up the page count, I could have! 

... Dang, the file size is too big.  Must be 'cause of a little picture of a nuclear mushroom I have on the front page.  I'll stick it on my website later (I'll let you guys know when I upload it.)

But for now, I'm gonna go out and celebrate with my wonderful wife!!


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 11, 2003)

OK, here's the link!  Check out the rest of my dorky site while you're at it!  

http://www.progressbar.net/downloads.html


----------



## toast (Jun 12, 2003)

Just read it entirely. You should have read Michael Walzer about 'just' and 'unjust' wars.

Maybe that's too much to ask for, but please tell us about the mark and corrections !


----------



## Arden (Jun 12, 2003)

Okay, so the Bible is probably missing parts of Jesus's life (not to mention hoardes of other stuff)?  Nothing about Jesus and his buddies going down to the watering hole, or the local restaurant every week...


----------



## Cat (Jun 14, 2003)

Or about Jesus marrying Mary of Magdalene, their children and them moving to what now is France... yes, they left out the interesting bits...


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 21, 2003)

Hmm, so where were we?  (Sorry I've been "out" for a while.)

The logically contradictory notion of the existence of a *good* God and *evil* sin.

This is the number one question for theologists to answer, and (IMO) a totally iron-clad answer is not to be found.

But...

A)  God is not responsible for our sin:
_"Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one" (James 1:13)._

B)  Humans *are* responsible for our sin:
_"Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.  Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death" (James 1:14-15)._

C)  The first, original (human) sin was committed by Adam and Eve.  In its essence, it was a simple choice to rebel against God's simple rule (don't eat the forbidden fruit).

D)  The existence of a truly free-willed creation necessitates the option to choose against God's will.  Otherwise, we truly would be God's "puppets".

E)  Finally, without the need to redeem us from our sin, there would be no vehicle for God to show His divine grace.  (This is probably the crux of the matter)

Again, realize that I'm not trying to convince anybody; I'm merely offering an explanation of how God can be both perfectly loving and perfectly just.  If ya got anymore questions, please post!


----------



## TommyWillB (Jun 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *To understand the controversy and significance behind weapons of mass destruction in today's political environment, and how a Christian should treat the subject. Special emphasis will be given to nuclear bombs and the United States? role in the nuclear age.*


 Why don't you turn this BS on it's ear... The political significance has everthing to do with people BELEIVING that there are WMD when really there are NOT.

Being a theology paper I'd think the act of people blindly putting their FAITH in our president would be a much more interesting topic than focusing on the Wepopns of Mass Distraction...

I'm not a religious person, but my many years attending Catholic churches left me with this... Morality is about how people treat each other. Our  President lying to us about WMD's in not christian it's BS! 

The president should set a higher moral standard by telling us the truth rather than trying to manupulate the American people with Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt. (Of course that's exactly what the hipocritic Cathloic Church also does, which is why I stopped going...)

See you in hell George!


----------



## Arden (Jun 21, 2003)

It's a good sentiment, but it's a little too late because MD finished his paper already.  You should have posted that much sooner so he could actually take it into account.


----------



## Darkshadow (Jun 22, 2003)

Hmm, the Catholics let go of things slowly, Tommy.  It wasn't so long ago that almost every Christian church taught by fear (fear of Satan, fear of evil, fear of sin...lots of different ways, but by fear).


----------



## TommyWillB (Jun 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Darkshadow _
> *Hmm, the Catholics let go of things slowly, Tommy.  It wasn't so long ago that almost every Christian church taught by fear (fear of Satan, fear of evil, fear of sin...lots of different ways, but by fear). *


It is good to know they actually do let go eventually...


----------



## Cat (Jun 23, 2003)

MD: I think that your points D and A actually contradict each other.



> D)  The existence of a truly free-willed creation necessitates the option to choose against God's will.  Otherwise, we truly would be God's "puppets".


If we are to be truly free-willed, then we must have real choices, which means there actually have to exist two alternatives between which we can choose, which in this case means virtue and vice. Since god is the source and creator of everything, even of Satan, which was Lucifer in heaven, then god has indeed created both virtue and vice, he gave us the possibility to sin and the possibility to be redeemed. But in A) you denied this:


> A)  God is not responsible for our sin:
> "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one" (James 1:13).


This would entail either 1) that we actually createed sin independently from god 2) forces outside of us and god are at work. These are both inadmissible inside christian theology AFAIK, so the only remaining alternative is that god, obviously, created humanity being 50% virtuous and 50% vicious. This is close to other theologies which consider the highest deity/being to be an absolute unification of opposites.


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 23, 2003)

Hmm... technically the first sin was _pride_ by Lucifer in heaven.  Certainly God didn't will that to be.  I also think it's a mistake to say that God created sin - I think it's more appropriate to say that God created the *ability* to sin, through free choice.  In the end, we are all responsible for our own choices.


----------



## lurk (Jun 23, 2003)

To go down that line of thought using a weapons example by burying a land mine I am only creating the * potential * for death and destruction.  When it blows someone's legs off am I not responsible?  

Another problem is you are mixing the act of willing something to be and the act of creation.  The fact that god would not will something like sin does not mean that he did not create it.  The act of creating virtue automatically creates sin as the set of all things not virtuous. ( There is a middle ground of things he could care less about also.)  

Really the only way to admit a statement like "God did not create sin" is to accept that god is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.  Since either he did not know what he was doing or he could not have done otherwise.


----------



## Cat (Jun 23, 2003)

Good points lurk.


----------



## Darkshadow (Jun 23, 2003)

'Tis true, you _can't possibly_ have good without evil.  If there wasn't such a thing as evil, there'd be no way to say something was good.  Or vice-versa.


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 23, 2003)

I guess what I mean is that God did not sin or create "sin."  Humans simply misused their free-will.

I guess to tweak your land mine illustration, I would say that God *does* plant the land mine (it's not sin or sinful in its potential state.)  But He also *warned* Adam and Eve to "Stay away from that patch of land over there."

Does this make sense, or am I not understanding you guys (or are you not understanding me)?


----------

