If created perfect as scriptures say, why would we need salvation?

[Greatest I am]

If created perfect as scriptures say, why would we need salvation?

Did the Christian God create us sick and order us to be well?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pmArHBW9ns

Salvation can only be had by believers if they embrace barbaric human sacrifice and a God who will immorally have his own son murdered as a sacrifice to forgive sin when other more moral ways are preached in scriptures.

Matthew 7:17,18
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Matthew 12:33
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Christians would have us think that God, the good tree, --- produced corrupt fruit. Scriptures say that that is not possible. If you believe scriptures that say God is perfect that is.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect:

If God creates perfect works and souls, how can man not be perfect?

If perfect, why would we need salvation?

Regards
DL

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

If you believe these fairy tales, they specifically tell us that we have free will. This gives us the ability to do things that God disapproves of.

If that makes us "corrupt," well I guess we'll have to let the philosophers figure it out.

 

[Greatest I am]

If you believe these fairy tales, they specifically tell us that we have free will. This gives us the ability to do things that God disapproves of.

If that makes us "corrupt," well I guess we'll have to let the philosophers figure it out.

Free will is a cop out because as we evolve and compete for resources, we cannot help but do evil to the losers we create..

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Regards
DL

 

[jayleew]

In a nutshell, it's God's plan of creating a being that it can coexist with. God empowered us to be like it. What we do with the power is entirely up to us and its plan is for most of us to kill ourselves, and only the few will be able to follow the path to God's righteousness. I say we don't kill ourselves, but instead love each other. And, we also have been given no reason to believe but for the scriptures (written by a flawed hand) and we should rebel against God if it is found unjust and that our fears created in misunderstanding of the scriptures become validated that God is not good. Give God no reason to condemn you but for your unbelief.

Everyone should see "God on Trial" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_on_Trial

Yes, God is found guilty of breaking the covenant made with Isreal, but the ending is left open to what that means to a believer and non-believer. It is compelling and entertaining. As an unbeliever, I have pause to believe.

Some points brought up is how God chooses to punish people is to kill their innocent sons and daughters like when Pharaoh did not release the Israelites. Would it help deter crime if one of us committed a crime, and as punishment, our firstborn was put to death? If yes, does that make it okay to kill an innocent?
God was angered when David had mercy and did not slaughter people as commanded to do.
Abraham was asked to kill his son as a test of faith.

All of these were God's ideas, not ours. They were commandments of God, not our barbaric and uncivilized laws.

 

[Greatest I am]

Indeed and Christians embrace such and call evil good.

Regards
DL

 

[lightgigantic]

If created perfect as scriptures say, why would we need salvation?

because we are not created omnipotent.

Its a running error of your ideas on religion to equate perfection with omnipotence.
Frankly you would have more success trying to approach sperm donor clinics with the request to become your own father.

:shrug:

 

[Sarkus]

because we are not created omnipotent.

Its a running error of your ideas on religion to equate perfection with omnipotence.

Could one not argue that the lack of omnipotence makes us imperfect? Thus how can we be perfect yet not omnipotent?
And by what definition or yardstick of perfection are we using?

Further, how does not being created omnipotent mean that we need salvation?

 

[wegs]

I *want* to say...in this context of 'perfection,' it is to mean...to reach a pinnacle of holiness?

Perfection, meaning...God is all holy. He created us to be holy. This was always my take, when I'd run across these particular passages.

The other take could also be...he created us 'perfect,' as in adam and eve, however it was man's 'sinful nature' that caused that perfection to be lost forever.

Might be two ways of looking at that, greatest I am. Using Genesis as a barometer though to 'prove' anything, at best, should be used as a metaphor. Even still, as a metaphor, there are still prolems with God creating a 'perfect couple,' but they end up sinning, because he gave them free will.

(putting theory of evo aside lol)

Just my two cents.

 

[lightgigantic]

Could one not argue that the lack of omnipotence makes us imperfect?

No more than one can argue that the inability to be one's own biological father makes us imperfect

Thus how can we be perfect yet not omnipotent?

How can a created (or, to be technical, contingent) entity have scope to omnipotence (since a living entity is always bound - socially, intellectually, biologically, environmentally, linguistically ... and probably at least a dozen more "lly"'s if you give me a moment to rack it up ... in a state of dependence )?

IOW your definition of perfection defies the category under discussion at the onset.

Kind of like arguing that a triangle is not perfect because unlike a perfect circle, it has three sides (never mind that the very definition of a triangle excludes the possibility)

And by what definition or yardstick of perfection are we using?

By the definition established by the category.

IOW much like a circle establishes a certain precedent as far as perfection goes (which excludes, amongst many things, what establishes a triangle as perfect), so does having an existence derived from being constitutionally contingent.

Further, how does not being created omnipotent mean that we need salvation?

It doesn't.
Requiring "salvation" is simply a problem that is answered by examining the relationship, as it stands at the moment, between the said contingent entity and that which it is contingent on.

If there is no existing issues within the relationship of contingency, there is no need for "salvation" (much like if one is already obedient to the issues of contingency that surround a person and their requirement for food and nourishment, there is no need for them to "eat").

IOW its the very nature of not being omnipotent (which by default, would pave the way for such things as autonomous self-sufficiency being out of reach) that one can potentially fall by the way-side of any existing relationships of contingency necessary for survival, existence, performance etc.

 

[Greatest I am]

because we are not created omnipotent.

Its a running error of your ideas on religion to equate perfection with omnipotence.
Frankly you would have more success trying to approach sperm donor clinics with the request to become your own father.

:shrug:

I did not even contemplate omnipotence because it is a stupid and impossible word to apply to anyone including God.

The poor idiot cannot be omnipotent because he cannot even reproduce true.

So why are you introducing impossible concepts to the equation?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I *want* to say...in this context of 'perfection,' it is to mean...to reach a pinnacle of holiness?

Perfection, meaning...God is all holy. He created us to be holy. This was always my take, when I'd run across these particular passages.

The other take could also be...he created us 'perfect,' as in adam and eve, however it was man's 'sinful nature' that caused that perfection to be lost forever.

Might be two ways of looking at that, greatest I am. Using Genesis as a barometer though to 'prove' anything, at best, should be used as a metaphor. Even still, as a metaphor, there are still prolems with God creating a 'perfect couple,' but they end up sinning, because he gave them free will.

(putting theory of evo aside lol)

Just my two cents.

If God creates us with the sinful natures that you see man having, then God cannot fairly punish us if all we are doing is following the natures he gave us. We have no choice but to follow our natures and we have no choice but to do evil to those we compete against as we evolve.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

These concepts are called Evolutionary theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9

Regards
DL

 

[lightgigantic]

I did not even contemplate omnipotence because it is a stupid and impossible word to apply to anyone including God.

Yet you have no grounds for decrying our so called state of imperfection outside of the ground s of our state of being necessarily dependent

The poor idiot cannot be omnipotent because he cannot even reproduce true.

Which is, according to your flawed thinking, because we do not partake of his same state of being outside the frailties of being subject to dependence ..... ie we are not omnipotent like him

So why are you introducing impossible concepts to the equation?

Regards
DL

You have employed so little thinking in your argument that you can't even begin to comprehend the necessary consequences of what you advocate
:shrug:

 

[geeser]

The other take could also be...he created us 'perfect,' as in adam and eve, however it was man's 'sinful nature' that caused that perfection to be lost forever. < snip > but they end up sinning, because he gave them free will.

Hi Wegs. Just a couple of questions.
1, From where did this sinful nature come from?
2, When did they get this free will you mentioned? Before or after the eating of the fruit.

Thank you.

 

[wegs]

Hi Wegs. Just a couple of questions.
1, From where did this sinful nature come from?
2, When did they get this free will you mentioned? Before or after the eating of the fruit.

Thank you.

Hi geeser

First, let me preface with that I don't believe the story of Adam and Eve to be a literal tale.
Having said that, I think that the premise behind it is that mankind's free will (that God created it with) chose sin over God. That if as a believer, you don't follow God, there will be consequences. The assumption of many who take this story literally, is that Adam and Eve must have never been tempted prior to the serpent entering the scene. Once tempted "by evil" they chose evil. But, one would have to assume free will existed before the sin...causing them to sin.

The problem with the story whether you take it literally or not , is the God depicted in the OT thinks of free will as perhaps evil. Free will is the essence of being human.

The story looks like a set up created by the early church fathers to elicit fear within their society. That God is all about punishing so you better stay close to the Church or he'll smite ya.

I believe in God but not the man made distortion of him. Does that help?

 

[arauca]

If

If that makes us "corrupt," well I guess we'll have to let the philosophers figure it out.

I believe You and I and any other animal are born as selfish individuals ( we are inclined for self preservation ) I don't think it have any thing to do with corruption and the motto of atheists is selfishness is just like a primitive animal.

 

[geeser]

Hi geeser

First, let me preface with that I don't believe the story of Adam and Eve to be a literal tale.
Having said that, I think that the premise behind it is that mankind's free will (that God created it with) chose sin over God.

Hi.
So let me get this right, you believe man was created perfect, but chose to become imperfect.
From whence did the ability to choose come from. If god then god is wholly guilty of causing said imperfection. As god is the creator then he is of course the main protagonist.
If a thing is perfect, it needs nothing more, thus it would be impossible for such a creature to sin, or choose sin it would not need too. So no it doesn't help. I need more (as I'm not prefect,lol) I don't quite get it.

 

[Greatest I am]

Hi.
So let me get this right, you believe man was created perfect, but chose to become imperfect.
From whence did the ability to choose come from. If god then god is wholly guilty of causing said imperfection. As god is the creator then he is of course the main protagonist.
If a thing is perfect, it needs nothing more, thus it would be impossible for such a creature to sin, or choose sin it would not need too. So no it doesn't help. I need more (as I'm not prefect,lol) I don't quite get it.

When born, were you not as perfect a newborn as nature could produce with what was at hand?
Yes you were.

You then added to that perfection the next day by being a newborn who knew how to find and use a tit.

You evolved your initial perfection and added to it. You have never stopped and continue to add withoput losing the initial perfection.

You have to think in the terms of what the following mind exercise makes you think.

I like to use the term evolving perfection for nature. Otherwise, a perfect God or nature becomes a stagnant pool of information and our souls and consciousness as a part of that perfection would be useless to the universe.

Evolving, the perfection of whatever God and nature was, to whatever God and nature will be, means we have to think this way, unless you see God as somehow losing his initial perfection. This is not allowed in a perfect God’s or natures repertoire.

When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynical view of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on the anthropic principle and pure logic.

What do you think?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA

This is done by nature and not a God but would be a requirement of a God if he were real.

Regards
DL

 

[wegs]

Hi.
So let me get this right, you believe man was created perfect, but chose to become imperfect.
From whence did the ability to choose come from. If god then god is wholly guilty of causing said imperfection. As god is the creator then he is of course the main protagonist.
If a thing is perfect, it needs nothing more, thus it would be impossible for such a creature to sin, or choose sin it would not need too. So no it doesn't help. I need more (as I'm not prefect,lol) I don't quite get it.

I prefaced by saying I don't take the Adam and Eve story literally.
So...yeah. Lol
I have the same issues with it as you do.

I'm offering an explanation as to how people might view it who think it's literal.

 

[Robittybob1]

I *want* to say...in this context of 'perfection,' it is to mean...to reach a pinnacle of holiness?

Perfection, meaning...God is all holy. He created us to be holy. This was always my take, when I'd run across these particular passages.

That is sort of how I see it too. In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, but the stars are still forming and changing in position and the Earth still changes form with erosion, earthquakes and volcanoes. So as it seems the Heavens and Earth are not yet complete, we also are not created in our complete perfected state, and we are working to attain this perfection.

The whole Bible is a chronicle showing us how we are progressing on this way toward perfection. That part of Genesis is therefore a prophecy, yet to be fulfilled, for the day of ultimate perfection is yet to come. So "man was made perfect" is a prophetic goal to aspire to. Maybe we are not even true MAN yet but just some part of the link between Apes and MAN.

 

[geeser]

When born, were you not as perfect a newborn as nature could produce with what was at hand?

As far as I know, but as you said "as perfect" thus not perfect, just close. For a thing to be perfect it would be free from any flaw or defect in condition or quality; precisely accurate; exactly right; absolute; complete; finished. Thus in need or want, of nothing.

I like to use the term evolving perfection for nature.

You use that, I'll use simply growing, as we are and will always be far from perfect.

Otherwise, a perfect God or nature becomes a stagnant pool of information and our souls and consciousness as a part of that perfection would be useless to the universe.

Evolving, the perfection of whatever God and nature was, to whatever God and nature will be, means we have to think this way, unless you see God as somehow losing his initial perfection. This is not allowed in a perfect God’s or natures repertoire.

I have no belief in god/gods. or any supernatural imagined thing. There is nothing living that can claim perfection.

When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynical view of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on the anthropic principle and pure logic.

When what was written. If you mean your above essay, well it may be logical, but it doesn't show anything is perfect, does it.

What do you think?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA

This is done by nature and not a God but would be a requirement of a God if he were real.

Regards
DL

The best of possible worlds, but far from perfect. Literally.