My Theology Paper: WMD and Christianity

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! :D

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!
 
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!!
 
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 ! :)
 
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...
 
Or about Jesus marrying Mary of Magdalene, their children and them moving to what now is France... yes, they left out the interesting bits...
 
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!
 
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
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.
 
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).
 
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).
Click to expand...
It is good to know they actually do let go eventually... ;)
 
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".
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
'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.
 
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)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top