TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Christianity and Sin

Go To

Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#126: Sep 15th 2011 at 11:17:11 AM

And if he IS prooveable by it, doesn't that make him none omnipotent? Because he can't stop logic?

That... has to be the worst argument I've ever heard. It'd take the bronze medal even without the typos.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#127: Sep 15th 2011 at 11:21:00 AM

edited 25th Nov '12 3:30:18 PM by JosefBugman

Pentadragon Since: Jan, 2001
#128: Sep 15th 2011 at 11:30:38 AM

God is whatever you want him to be, because he only exist in your head. Hes an imagnary friend for adults.

That is dangerously close to flame bait.

See? If he could do that for Moses, why can't he do it for everyone?

He doesn't do it for Moses. Basically God says that being fully in his presence would make Moses's head explode. What he does do is show Moses of fraction of his being, which messes Moses up pretty badly for a few days and causes his face to glow.

Heaven is the state of fully being in God's presence. It is all God all the time. There is no censoring it.

Similarly, if what protects the "saved" from being immolated by his awesomeness is that he has forgiven them, why doesn't he just forgive everyone? Because he can't forgive you unless you ask for it? Who made up that rule?

It is not that God does not want them in heaven. By choosing to engage in evil acts on earth, their spirits have rejected him and his presence. Being forced into heaven while your spirit is in active rebellion against God would be worse than hell itself.

Unfortunately the alternative, being outside God's presence, really isn't much better.

If you don't like that solution, Christian Universalism teaches that all people eventually go to heaven.

It annoys me when people use "man" as a catch-all for "human."

I apologize. I was unaware that it annoyed you. I'll try to avoid using the word man like that from now on.

Also, sorry for asking you to calm down. I have difficulty reading tone over the internet and took some of your posts the wrong way. It is really not my intent to annoy you.

edited 15th Sep '11 11:34:29 AM by Pentadragon

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#129: Sep 15th 2011 at 11:43:23 AM

edited 25th Nov '12 3:30:40 PM by JosefBugman

Pentadragon Since: Jan, 2001
#130: Sep 15th 2011 at 11:48:34 AM

^ Your example is a sticky situation that I honestly am not sure how to answer. In Catholic theology, a sin is only a sin if an individual commits the act, knows that it is wrong and feels no guilt. This would lead one to believe that an individual who commits heinous acts can get away with it if he is deranged enough to think he is doing good, but I don't really know.

God's full presence kills any human. However, it is only agonizing for someone who rejects God. So Moses would have been perfectly fine dead, but God had plans for Moses.

edited 15th Sep '11 11:50:50 AM by Pentadragon

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#131: Sep 15th 2011 at 11:51:37 AM

edited 25th Nov '12 3:30:52 PM by JosefBugman

Pentadragon Since: Jan, 2001
#132: Sep 15th 2011 at 11:57:01 AM

On earth, yes, but in heaven there would really be no way to avoid it. Heaven is being at one with God.

But if they are committing acts that are considered wrong in their culture, then they would be sinning. The hope is that a missionary is going to give you a simple moral code that you can follow that will help the world community as well as yourself.

EDIT: Or something like that. I'm not sure that I presented that last part well.

edited 15th Sep '11 12:11:46 PM by Pentadragon

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#133: Sep 15th 2011 at 12:01:59 PM

edited 25th Nov '12 3:31:10 PM by JosefBugman

Mooglewoogle Since: Jan, 2010
#134: Sep 15th 2011 at 12:13:51 PM

This topic makes my head hurt. I don't even know why I'm posting it.

"But if they are committing acts that are considered wrong in their culture" It doesn't matter what a culture says. If it doesn't cause harm in some way, it isn't bad. Likewise a culture can say it's okay to stone someone to death because they break some rule, but it's still murder. illing a non-believer would be wrong no matter what a person's culture says. And women working or choosing not to have children will always be okay even if a person's culture says otherwise. (those are just examples)

@Rottweiler: That doesn't make sense. Agnosticism only applies to religion, and it's much easier to convince someone that Stalin existed.

@Karalora: "It annoys me when people use 'man' as a catch-all for human.'" I'm a guy and I agree.

Could people also please not slam religion and say it's not possible as if it were absolute fact?

edited 15th Sep '11 12:32:20 PM by Mooglewoogle

Karalora Since: Jan, 2001
#135: Sep 15th 2011 at 12:43:26 PM

Pentadragon, you haven't actually answered my question.

Everyone is a sinner. God's presence is agonizing for sinners. Yet being in Heaven, with God's full presence, is supposed to be a good thing. So a) what protects the saved in Heaven from the pain, and b) why can't God do that for everyone?

Pentadragon Since: Jan, 2001
#136: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:12:12 PM

^ Not all sins are equal (in Catholicism) nor do all sins result in immediate disconnection from God. Presumably, the more severe the sin or the more frequent, one is less in-tune with God resulting in lesser happiness. Presumably, Gandhi is in a greater state of existence than the well-meaning but morally average Catholic. The more one sins, the more one's spirit is in opposition to God.

Then there is purgatory, but that is a complicated and confusing place of theology so we won't delve too deeply. To be brief, it is a place where people who have neither accepted nor rejected God go until they undergo a reconciliation.

Hell is where souls who reject God fully go. They are so opposed to God's nature and the Supreme Law that it is utter misery for them to be in God's presence. Instead, they separate themselves from God by going as far as possible from his presence. It isn't a good place to be, put is better than the alternative.

There is probably a better way to say that and I may have misrepresented some concepts.

edited 15th Sep '11 1:15:20 PM by Pentadragon

mailedbypostman Since: May, 2010
#137: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:15:56 PM

I'm pretty convinced now that God is an Eldritch Being now. Being incomprehensible and all.

Pentadragon Since: Jan, 2001
#138: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:16:45 PM

^ I think that would be a pretty accurate picture actually. More benevolent than the standard Lovecraftian horror, but still.

:/

edited 15th Sep '11 1:19:53 PM by Pentadragon

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#139: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:20:48 PM

edited 25th Nov '12 3:31:25 PM by JosefBugman

TheProffesor The Professor from USA Since: Jan, 2011
#140: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:34:12 PM

You're making a pretty strong assumption. For one, that's saying that Christians count on being able to manipulate people into coming to church. We don't. Nothing can happen without God wanting it to happen.

You play by God's rules, God doesn't play by yours.

Ramus Lead. from some computer somwhere. Since: Aug, 2009
Lead.
#141: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:43:12 PM

God's presence is agonizing for sinners.

[citation needed]

The emotions of others can seem like such well guarded mysteries, people 8egin to 8elieve that's how their own emotions should 8e treated.
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#142: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:44:51 PM

edited 25th Nov '12 3:33:13 PM by JosefBugman

Ramus Lead. from some computer somwhere. Since: Aug, 2009
Lead.
#143: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:47:42 PM

Do you believe that everything good in the universe is caused by God, or simply "everything"?

Depends on the sect. Care to not talk in broad strokes?

And persuasding people to do something is an integral part of Christianity isn't it?

Not quite, the more general principle is to set a good example so people are drawn to you not by what you say but by your actions.

The emotions of others can seem like such well guarded mysteries, people 8egin to 8elieve that's how their own emotions should 8e treated.
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#144: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:48:52 PM

edited 25th Nov '12 3:33:32 PM by JosefBugman

Ramus Lead. from some computer somwhere. Since: Aug, 2009
Lead.
#145: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:51:49 PM

First off, did he set a good example? Going by the Christian definition of Saint, I'd say he did. After that, it's not necessarily about convincing the person to convert so much as just teaching that person a few values that Christians Catholics find to be inherently good. After all, a person still can make it to Heaven by virtue of, gasp, being a good person.

The emotions of others can seem like such well guarded mysteries, people 8egin to 8elieve that's how their own emotions should 8e treated.
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#146: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:53:43 PM

edited 25th Nov '12 3:33:40 PM by JosefBugman

secretist Maria Holic from Ame no Kisaki Since: Feb, 2010
#147: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:55:06 PM

Genreally this:

  • God, an infinitely good and perfect being, cannot tolerate unrighteous creatures in heaven. No unrighteous in God's presence.
  • Any sin is enough to make someone unrighteous in God's eyes, so we have all disqualified ourselves. One sin enough - all are unrighteous.
  • Jesus gave himself as a sacrifice so God could forgive/transfer/remove sin. Christ's sacrifice and God's justice.
  • Those who believe are no longer in danger of condemnation because their sins have been forgiven/transfered/removed. Persistent forgiveness for believers.
  • Those who do not believe do not receive forgiveness. Sins cannot be forgiven "for free" without compromising God's justice. No forgiveness outside the Cross.
  • Those lacking faith cannot repay God for their unforgiven sin. So, they are cast into eternal suffering as objects of God's wrath. No way to repay.

Retyped from a pdf examplaining Christianity. Ironically from a site criticizing the orthodox position as unbiblical. here

edited 15th Sep '11 2:08:31 PM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#148: Sep 15th 2011 at 1:58:58 PM

edited 25th Nov '12 3:33:54 PM by JosefBugman

Ramus Lead. from some computer somwhere. Since: Aug, 2009
Lead.
#149: Sep 15th 2011 at 2:02:07 PM

@Josef: Hold on, let me look this stuff up, I'm not personally familiar with Saint Bernard or the concept of cherry picking someone given a title by humans.

@secretist: I recommend heading to the local library and seeing if they have a copy of the Catechism in and took a good look through because there's so many problems in those list of bullets that you wouldn't believe.

The emotions of others can seem like such well guarded mysteries, people 8egin to 8elieve that's how their own emotions should 8e treated.
Pentadragon Since: Jan, 2001

Total posts: 294
Top