Can god Sin

Hivemind187

I'm asking this here because I want to get a rational perspecitve on it.

But can god sin?

According to the seven deadly sins the following are the bad ones

Wrath - Certainly guilty.

Envy - Slaughtering the worshippers of other gods for their lands etc

Greed - Wanting all the worship for himself.

Sloth - Seems unwilling to "get involved" on any useful level which is either procrastination or laziness (or his "great plan").

Gluttony - (ok maybe he didn't do this one - but one would wonder, being omnipotent and obviously capable of it, has he tried it?)

Pride - Hugely guilty of this one (making man in his own image being the cardinal one)

Lust - Got Mary up the duff (albeit by proxy and from rumour through her ear - undermining the theory that he was an "intelligent designer").

It's something that struck me on the way home, a bit like a five pound note wrapped in a gold brick to quote Douglas Adams. But if god is capable of everything, surely he is capable of sin and I'm pretty sure that there is evidence in the bible of this. How come the stuff he banned his creation from doing he is allowed to do all the time?

I'll ask this in Christianity later.

Dades

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I'll ask this in Christianity later.

No doubt there, you'd be directed to a Judaism forum if there was one.

Although apparently the same God, the stuff the OT God did can't be attributed to the NT God. Go figure.

Hivemind187

Dades wrote: »

No doubt there, you'd be directed to a Judaism forum if there was one.

Although apparently the same God, the stuff the OT God did can't be attributed to the NT God. Go figure.

Lol, yeah I know. I've been through that one before with the whole "What brought about his personality changes" and "What was he up to before the recorded bits of the Bible".

Mind you, the Lusty bit would be NT wouldnt it? As would the Pride (his son). Argument could be made that his change of tac was a marketing scheme to get folks on his side by being really nice, which is underhanded and its end goal is motivated by greed and/or envy?

Mostly semantic arguments but a fun thought to play with I feel. God the sinner as bad as the rest of us plebs rolling around in the mud. Quite a pleasant image.

Edit: Why isnt there a Judaism forum? Should all three Abrahamic religions be represented?

Fallen Seraph

Sure. I reckon he's guilty of most of them. But to be fair, not sloth and lust. Lets not push it.


Also, as is my understanding the 7 deadly sins aren't even a little bit mentioned in the bible. I think they might be one of those catholic only things, but I'm not sure....

edit: after a quick viddy on wikipedia, it seems that the 7 deadly sins are sorta mentioned in the bible, but only in so tenuous a manner that they may as well not be there.

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote: »

But if god is capable of everything, surely he is capable of sin

The serious answer is that God himself defines what is moral and immoral, and as such cannot, by definition, do something immoral since through the action of doing it it would be moral.

Which explains why God can order in the Old Testament the genocide of whole groups of people and Jews and Christians will say that this was not, and could not, be immoral.

Its like asking can God ever decide that his favourite food is a food that isn't his favourite food. But the very act of picking it it becomes his favourite food.

Hivemind187

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

Sure. I reckon he's guilty of most of them. But to be fair, not sloth and lust. Lets not push it.


Also, as is my understanding the 7 deadly sins aren't even a little bit mentioned in the bible. I think they might be one of those catholic only things, but I'm not sure....

edit: after a quick viddy on wikipedia, it seems that the 7 deadly sins are sorta mentioned in the bible, but only in so tenuous a manner that they may as well not be there.

Fair enough.

10 Commandments then.

Thou Shalt Not Murder : He does. Repeatedly and with great relish it seems.

Thou shalt not covet : He does, clearly, covet the worshippers of other gods (Bael in particular)

lol, I cant really remember the others. Stuff about not picking up sticks on a Sunday and being nice to your mum.

However, Pride is repeatedly referred to as a sin, as is lust, envy, greed etc. At least by example of parable.

The point is, that God himself has committed the sins he has bound his so-called creations not to do. frankly, thats a big no no in terms of leadership.

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote: »

The serious answer is that God himself defines what is moral and immoral, and as such cannot, by definition, do something immoral since through the action of doing it it would be moral.

Which explains why God can order in the Old Testament the genocide of whole groups of people and Jews and Christians will say that this was not, and could not, be immoral.

Its like asking can God ever decide that his favourite food is a food that isn't his favourite food. But the very act of picking it it becomes his favourite food.

It's like trying to keep track of the plot in a time travel movie.

So the argument will essentially be "do as I do, not as I say" ... which is strangely in keeping with Catholic philosophy.

It does beg the question though, why anyone would want to trust in a creature who refuses to stick to his own rules.

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote: »

It's like trying to keep track of the plot in a time travel movie.

So the argument will essentially be "do as I do, not as I say" ... which is strangely in keeping with Catholic philosophy.

That is what I thought but it is actually stranger than that.

The Christians on the Christian forum who talking about this stuff seem to have no concept of morality outside of what God says. They can't form morality, and something can't be moral or immoral independent of God.

Its not that God can do immoral things.

Its that morality itself is defined by what ever God decides it is. If God does something that is moral, even if someone else did it it wasn't. God could kill a baby child and that is moral, because moral is only ever what God decides is moral.

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote: »

That is what I thought but it is actually stranger than that.

The Christians on the Christian forum who talking about this stuff seem to have no concept of morality outside of what God says. They can't form morality, and something can't be moral or immoral independent of God.

Its not that God can do immoral things.

Its that morality itself is defined by what ever God decides it is. If God does something that is moral, even if someone else did it it wasn't. God could kill a baby child and that is moral, because moral is only ever what God decides is moral.

OK. Thats actually frightening.

So does that mean that Christians are happy to define their morals based on example in scripture? God did it so it must be moral?

More than that, it must compel them to act in a certain way in order to be moral. That wholesale slaughter is ok and murder is approved so long as God did it in a specific example - therefore we MUST destroy those whom God deems unfit/heretical etc

Considered from a position that god does not exist that is (at least to my mind) a horrifying concept, albeit an unbelievably convoluted one.

(apologies for any dis jointedness in thought processes this evening, dodgy wireless keyboard and severe caffiene withdrawal)

18AD

Wicknight wrote: »

Its like asking can God ever decide that his favourite food is a food that isn't his favourite food. But the very act of picking it it becomes his favourite food.

Like God lifting a liftable rock that's a rock he can't lift. But the very act of lifting it makes it liftable.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

The serious answer is that God himself defines what is moral and immoral, and as such cannot, by definition, do something immoral since through the action of doing it it would be moral.

That's one prong of the monotheistic edition of of Plato's Euthyphro dilemma that depeche_mode mentioned a week or so ago -- still unanswered, I note.

It's interesting to see that between Euthyphro and his dilemma and Epicurus and his riddle, religious people of a thousand hues have taken over two millennia to fail to answer either of them. No dumbasses, those Greeks.

eoin5

Jesus sinned a few times, like when he got thick with the loan sharks in the temple or when he asked god to get someone else to die on the cross for him.

stereoroid

This must be one of those rhetorical questions - after all, the existence of this "God" in extremely unlikely. I presume you're aware of that, posting that question on this particular forum... :rolleyes:

Hivemind187

stereoroid wrote: »

This must be one of those rhetorical questions - after all, the existence of this "God" in extremely unlikely. I presume you're aware of that, posting that question on this particular forum... :rolleyes:

check my post history clever clogs.

stereoroid

Hivemind187 wrote: »

check my post history clever clogs.

Down, boy. That remark wasn't aimed at your original post alone, but at everyone who thinks this is a serious question. It certainly isn't getting any more of my time. :rolleyes:

PDN

If you guys discover the answer to this one then please let us know.

Theologians have debated this for nearly two thousand years without coming to agreement. The debate basically centres around the following points:
1. Christians believe Jesus was God.
2. Christians believe Jesus was tempted by the Devil.
3. If He was God then He couldn't have succumbed to temptation, because God cannot sin.
4. If He wasn't actually able to sin then how could the temptation be viewed as any way real?

Therefore you have two camps. Those who believe in the peccability of Christ - that he was able to sin but nevertheless did not - and those who believe in the impeccability of Christ. (peccare is Latin 'to sin' - this is where we get our English word impeccable).

So, if you do solve this particular theological conundrum, please do PM me with the answer so I can share it with the theological world.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So, if you do solve this particular theological conundrum, please do PM me with the answer so I can share it with the theological world.

We did solve it. All of it is made up and as such doesn't have to make any sense and in fact doesn't make any sense

Akrasia

Wicknight wrote: »

The serious answer is that God himself defines what is moral and immoral, and as such cannot, by definition, do something immoral since through the action of doing it it would be moral.

Which explains why God can order in the Old Testament the genocide of whole groups of people and Jews and Christians will say that this was not, and could not, be immoral.

Its like asking can God ever decide that his favourite food is a food that isn't his favourite food. But the very act of picking it it becomes his favourite food.

It strikes me more that god is like George w Bush who can pass laws with little 'signing statements' that say 'this law applies to everyone but me'

Obni

PDN wrote: »

Theologians have debated this for nearly two thousand years without coming to agreement. The debate basically centres around the following points ....

Wow, that's certainly a doozy. :eek:
I can see how it would certainly stretch the greatest minds in theology.

Unless..., you know it's almost like there are..., I dunno..., inconsistencies in the bible or something? Like, you know, the whole thing sort of unravels, if you examine the text in any detail.
But that couldn't be, otherwise theology would be a complete and utter waste of time.

An Fear Aniar

The title of this topic is misleading. It's a discussion about biblical matters.

It seems to me to be to be very limited definition of the word. I would use a definition like this:

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god

Otherwise, you might be accused of being a little closed-minded.


.

eoin5

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

The title of this topic is misleading. It's a discussion about biblical matters.

It seems to me to be to be very limited definition of the word. I would use a definition like this:

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god

Otherwise, you might be accused of being a little closed-minded.


.

Perfect is such an unnecessary word in that definition. A perfect what? God? Oops infinite loop...

Dades

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It seems to me to be to be very limited definition of the word. I would use a definition like this:

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god

Otherwise, you might be accused of being a little closed-minded.

It's hardly worth discussing if some random non-interventionist god is capable of sin. Sin as a concept is attributed to the biblical God.

So of course there are a hundred definitions of god, just not every thread has to embrace them all.

DionysusReborn

For those who love an appearance of Nietzsche every now and then I'd just like to say:

One is most dishonest towards one's God; - he is not permitted to sin

stereoroid

Well, if I indulge this little thought experiment for a minute, the answer I come to would be No. Why? Because God, through the scripture(s) He has dictated/inspired, is the one defining just what Sin is, and is not. "It's sin because I say it is" is a circular argument ad absurdum.

What's the old metaphor... "setting a fox to guard the henhouse"? "Sure, the henhouse is secure! All the chickens are safely inside... there just aren't as many of then as there used to be..." :rolleyes:

Soul Winner

If you believe God can sin then He must exist in order to sin and if you believe He exists in order that He might sin then you are not a real atheist.

A real atheist would say: "Of course he can’t' sin, how could he? He doesn't exist remember?"

My own view is that the whole point of Christianity was to send someone who did not sin to pay the price for those who did. Why go to all that trouble if the sinless one was a sinner? And if the story is all made up then why make it up in the first place? Why not just say it was Peter who died for everyone? I see no point in making up such a story if it is all a lie. I could think of better more believable lies. Think of it. If all the disciples were out to do was to make people believe their stories then why add so many supernatural events into the mix?

To get an adequate answer to whether God can sin or not then you must first define God and then define sin. Once you do that then you might be able find out whether God can in fact sin. Just because He gave mankind a law to obey does not mean that He is subject to that same law. Just like the laws of physics. If He created them in the first place then that doesn’t mean that He is subject to them. Hence the ability to walk on water, come through a locked door, ascend into the sky and so on.

If God exists at all then for Him to sin would be to compromise His own essence. Hence His integrity as a faithful and true God would be in question and thus would start the unravelling of ultimate reality into a never before existing ultra-cosmic nothingness.

And if God exists then Atheism was born out of a rejection to bow before an almighty creator. It was born of rebellion. It is Satanic in nature as Satan himself was the first rebel. It is a bare faced refusal to accept ruler-ship and ownership of a Divine being.

Is there anyone in here that hides behind the label “Atheist” who has the balls to say that they actually do believe in God but that you just hate His guts?

eoin5

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you believe God can sin then He must exist in order to sin and if you believe He exists in order that He might sin then you are not a real atheist.

A real atheist would say: "Of course he can’t' sin, how could he? He doesn't exist remember?"

My own view is that the whole point of Christianity was to send someone who did not sin to pay the price for those who did. Why go to all that trouble if the sinless one was a sinner? And if the story is all made up then why make it up in the first place? Why not just say it was Peter who died for everyone? I see no point in making up such a story if it is all a lie. I could think of better more believable lies. Think of it. If all the disciples were out to do was to make people believe their stories then why add so many supernatural events into the mix?

To get an adequate answer to whether God can sin or not then you must first define God and then define sin. Once you do that then you might be able find out whether God can in fact sin. Just because He gave mankind a law to obey does not mean that He is subject to that same law. Just like the laws of physics. If He created them in the first place then that doesn’t mean that He is subject to them. Hence the ability to walk on water, come through a locked door, ascend into the sky and so on.

If God exists at all then for Him to sin would be to compromise His own essence. Hence His integrity as a faithful and true God would be in question and thus would start the unravelling of ultimate reality into a never before existing ultra-cosmic nothingness.

And if God exists then Atheism was born out of a rejection to bow before an almighty creator. It was born of rebellion. It is Satanic in nature as Satan himself was the first rebel. It is a bare faced refusal to accept ruler-ship and ownership of a Divine being.

Is there anyone in here that hides behind the label “Atheist” who has the balls to say that they actually do believe in God but just hates His guts?

Careful with that axe eugine .

I think a lot of the replies here are in a fiction mode, a bit like a discussion on who would win Batman vs Superman.

Soul Winner

eoin5 wrote: »

Careful with that axe eugine .

I think a lot of the replies here are in a fiction mode, a bit like a discussion on who would win Batman vs Superman.

I'm just tired and narky.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

My own view is that the whole point of Christianity was to send someone who did not sin to pay the price for those who did. Why go to all that trouble if the sinless one was a sinner?

Or, as the old argument goes, why go to all that trouble when the deity who dreamed up this weird exchange was, simultaneously, victim, judge, executioner, purchaser and seller? Makes no sense at all.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is there anyone in here that hides behind the label “Atheist” who has the balls to say that they actually do believe in God but that you just hate His guts?

Good heavens, narky indeed!

I'm sure there's somebody, but so what? I would hate to live in a universe ruled over by the kind of one-dimensional, predatory deity that the bible describes. And I've no doubt that if I were so misguided as to think that such a contradictory creature did exist, then I'd certainly be afraid of it on my behalf, and hateful towards it on behalf of others.

But thankfully, this deity ceases to exist as a meaningful entity through its own internal contradictions and becomes, in the end and in a certain light, something really quite funny.

stereoroid

Soul Winner wrote: »

To get an adequate answer to whether God can sin or not then you must first define God and then define sin. Once you do that then you might be able find out whether God can in fact sin.

This kind of follows on from what I was trying to say: "God" is defined by his human believers, and as so defined, "God" is the one who defines what Sin is. There's nothing objective about any of this, it's all a multi-layered fiction written by humans! :pac:

I can imagine a JRR Tolkien scholar writing something like this:
"To get an adequate answer to whether Sauron is evil or not then you must first define Sauron and then define evil. Once you do that then you might be able find out whether Sauron is in fact evil."

stereoroid

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you believe God can sin then He must exist in order to sin and if you believe He exists in order that He might sin then you are not a real atheist.

A real atheist would say: "Of course he can’t' sin, how could he? He doesn't exist remember?"
...

Is there anyone in here that hides behind the label “Atheist” who has the balls to say that they actually do believe in God but that you just hate His guts?

mmm... DUH! I said that weeks ago, yet this thread is still ongoing. Balls have nothing to do with it: we're screwing with your deluded little heads, because this whole thread is a castle made of sand, built on sand. :rolleyes:

Tigger

Hivemind187 wrote: »

"What brought about his personality changes"

he got laid for the first time

Sangre

Dades wrote: »

No doubt there, you'd be directed to a Judaism forum if there was one.

Although apparently the same God, the stuff the OT God did can't be attributed to the NT God. Go figure.

Odd how a being that exists outside of time and is everywhere at once for all time would, or even could change his nature and actions