[ARCHIVED DEBATE] A Civilized Debate on Religion

[Menassa]

Before I begin to even consider jumping into this debate, let me get some baseline information, as everyone's religious beliefs are different from another's.

1) Can we agree that the Abrahamic gods (be it Yaweh of Judaism, Allah (blessed be his name) of Islam, or "God" of the Christian doctrines) is considered to be all knowing?
2) Can we agree that said deities are all loving?
3) Can we agree they are all just? (that it they hand out punishments that are excessive in nature)


I would rather clear the tables and put every fact on the wall, clear as day, that "This is the information we are discussing".

Thats a bit difficult to agree on...

You're probably tired of me doing this but...

I mean unless you are a follower of the Abrahamic faith, most would agree that Yahweh/Allah/"The lord thy God" is pretty hateful, has many instances where he doesn't know what is going on (Sodom is only destroyed because God has to send the angels down to gather information)

If you could bring me the verse where God sends angels to gather the information? Because what I'm getting is this:

Genesis 18:20
And the Lord said, "Since the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and since their sin has become very grave, .
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה זַעֲקַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה כִּי רָבָּה וְחַטָּאתָם כִּי כָבְדָה מְאֹד:

and promotes incredibly poor judgement for instances of justice (e.g. supporting slavery, condoning rape etc).

We would have to further specify what instances of rape.
And which type of slavery... well there really is only one type since the other's not actually slavery.

I mean you have to take an extreme metaphorical stance for Yahweh to appear as loving, especially considering he slightly commits genocide on the entire planet except for some animals and one family of humans. To this day I still don't quite get any metaphor beyond "FEAR HIM!"

Not entirely, while the Oral Tradition does tells us God is our Father/King, he is Justice/Mercy (which is probablly also found in the Written Torah as well) we do have this little tidbit.

Exodus 34:6
And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed: Lord, Lord, benevolent God, Who is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness and truth, . וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהֹוָה | עַל פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא יְהֹוָה | יְהֹוָה אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת:

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

It does not appear that God does exist, if only because there is nothing to exist, and the idea of God is not consistent with itself.

[The USOT]

If you could bring me the verse where God sends angels to gather the information? Because what I'm getting is this:

Genesis 18:20
And the Lord said, "Since the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and since their sin has become very grave, .
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה זַעֲקַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה כִּי רָבָּה וְחַטָּאתָם כִּי כָבְדָה מְאֹד:

Genesis 18:21. The next line =p
http://biblehub.com/genesis/18-21.htm

In every translation I can find, God states that he must go down to see if the claims against Sodom are true. Something that would make no sense for an omnipotent being.

We would have to further specify what instances of rape.
And which type of slavery... well there really is only one type since the other's not actually slavery.

We won't go into this again. We have had this conversation on multiple occasions and I find your views on rape and slavery disturbing and have no desire to speak more about it.

Not entirely, while the Oral Tradition does tells us God is our Father/King, he is Justice/Mercy (which is probablly also found in the Written Torah as well) we do have this little tidbit.

Exodus 34:6
And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed: Lord, Lord, benevolent God, Who is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness and truth, . וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהֹוָה | עַל פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא יְהֹוָה | יְהֹוָה אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת:

The Torah says many things. I mean considering we know reform and stimulus work well for making people behave better, it seems he fails if you take a literalist interpretation of the flood. At the very least, he fails at being benevolent by default.

[The Mizarian Empire]

I put those statements forward as I would rather clear the floor for a rather humble but to the point statement. While i'm sure many atheists have heard the statement at some point in some form or another of an ancient greek philosopher, one Epicurus, specifically the Epicurean paradox:

Code: Select all

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?


Allow me to expand upon these points more thoroughly. We know that (according to christian doctrine) God created Lucifer, "The Bearer of Light" as his name means in latin. If god were all knowing, surely he would have acknowledged well before his creation that Lucifer would create a grandiose rebellion that would split the heavens and cause an unending strife. Surely god would be capable of seeing the threat this one, single angel would be to his reign? If so, as an all knowing and all just god, why would he NOT do everything within his power to abolish the threat this would create to his human children (whom he would know he would create eventually, being an all-knowing entity)? Surely a deceitful, hateful creature whom would later become the "Father of lies" Should be dealt with justly by god before he can become a true threat not only to his realm but to mankind?

While we are on this subject (but less on the all knowing point) let us delve into the matters of being "all just" as well as "all loving". I want you, the reader to think about this, deep inside for a moment. Think deep and hard to yourself about how you would respond to this situation. Suppose you have a loving; stable family, a wife, a white picket fence, a child (or two or more) and were told tomorrow you would have to murder one of them in cold blood. You are being ordered to do this because he or she does not agree with your religious point of view and are being told to do so by believers of your very same religious beliefs. As another scenario I want you to imagine he or she or they were murdered by an unknown member of that same organization because your family member felt they deserved the right to believe what they wanted to believe. Do you, as a believer of an all knowing, all just and all believing god, that your god would really stand by and say that their actions are tolerable and still be considered all just and all loving?

Such actions happen every day across the world, more people are killed in the name of an all loving, all just god than for almost any other reason the world 'round.

Every day men murder, steal, lie and cheat and remain unpunished for their crimes by an all loving, all powerful god.

Every day society condemns the societal oddities to a life of unending pain and torture from an all powerful, all knowing god

Every day thousands are raped, murdered, robbed and disgraced under the watch of an all loving, all powerful and eternally fair god.

[Sensorland]

IMHO, God guided the world through creation and evolution, not directly creating it, but allowing for the events that shaped the world to happen. Also, the "Seven Days" in which God created the world wasn't seven day, it was figurative.

[Menassa]

If you could bring me the verse where God sends angels to gather the information? Because what I'm getting is this:

Genesis 18:20
And the Lord said, "Since the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and since their sin has become very grave, .
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה זַעֲקַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה כִּי רָבָּה וְחַטָּאתָם כִּי כָבְדָה מְאֹד:

Genesis 18:21. The next line =p
http://biblehub.com/genesis/18-21.htm

In every translation I can find, God states that he must go down to see if the claims against Sodom are true. Something that would make no sense for an omnipotent being.

Then, let us see.
The great Biblical commentator Rashi states that this incongruity was included to teach us a lesson about deciding judgement cases.

We would have to further specify what instances of rape.
And which type of slavery... well there really is only one type since the other's not actually slavery.

We won't go into this again. We have had this conversation on multiple occasions and I find your views on rape and slavery disturbing and have no desire to speak more about it.

I don't believe I've ever specified my views on rape to you,
Slavery I have...

Not entirely, while the Oral Tradition does tells us God is our Father/King, he is Justice/Mercy (which is probablly also found in the Written Torah as well) we do have this little tidbit.

Exodus 34:6
And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed: Lord, Lord, benevolent God, Who is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness and truth, . וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהֹוָה | עַל פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא יְהֹוָה | יְהֹוָה אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת:

The Torah says many things. I mean considering we know reform and stimulus work well for making people behave better, it seems he fails if you take a literalist interpretation of the flood. At the very least, he fails at being benevolent by default.

IIRC, God pushed off the flood's occurrence as far as he could allowing the human beings ample time to repent...
I'd also like to specify, the Oral Tradition states the actions committed by the people of that generation, perhaps it doesn't happen with you, but it happens with many people who get to thinking that in this situation and many others the people weren't that bad from a secular standpoint.

They were, society had totally crumbled...

[Sensorland]

I put those statements forward as I would rather clear the floor for a rather humble but to the point statement. While i'm sure many atheists have heard the statement at some point in some form or another of an ancient greek philosopher, one Epicurus, specifically the Epicurean paradox:

Code: Select all

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?


Allow me to expand upon these points more thoroughly. We know that (according to christian doctrine) God created Lucifer, "The Bearer of Light" as his name means in latin. If god were all knowing, surely he would have acknowledged well before his creation that Lucifer would create a grandiose rebellion that would split the heavens and cause an unending strife. Surely god would be capable of seeing the threat this one, single angel would be to his reign? If so, as an all knowing and all just god, why would he NOT do everything within his power to abolish the threat this would create to his human children (whom he would know he would create eventually, being an all-knowing entity)? Surely a deceitful, hateful creature whom would later become the "Father of lies" Should be dealt with justly by god before he can become a true threat not only to his realm but to mankind?

While we are on this subject (but less on the all knowing point) let us delve into the matters of being "all just" as well as "all loving". I want you, the reader to think about this, deep inside for a moment. Think deep and hard to yourself about how you would respond to this situation. Suppose you have a loving; stable family, a wife, a white picket fence, a child (or two or more) and were told tomorrow you would have to murder one of them in cold blood. You are being ordered to do this because he or she does not agree with your religious point of view and are being told to do so by believers of your very same religious beliefs. As another scenario I want you to imagine he or she or they were murdered by an unknown member of that same organization because your family member felt they deserved the right to believe what they wanted to believe. Do you, as a believer of an all knowing, all just and all believing god, that your god would really stand by and say that their actions are tolerable and still be considered all just and all loving?

Such actions happen every day across the world, more people are killed in the name of an all loving, all just god than for almost any other reason the world 'round.

Every day men murder, steal, lie and cheat and remain unpunished for their crimes by an all loving, all powerful god.

Every day society condemns the societal oddities to a life of unending pain and torture from an all powerful, all knowing god

Every day thousands are raped, murdered, robbed and disgraced under the watch of an all loving, all powerful and eternally fair god.

You should remember that it was humans who chose to become sinful in the first place. If God should choose to let us have free will, then some people will use it poorly.

Everyone is punished for their evils at some point in life. Ever heard of karma?

[Menassa]

I put those statements forward as I would rather clear the floor for a rather humble but to the point statement. While i'm sure many atheists have heard the statement at some point in some form or another of an ancient greek philosopher, one Epicurus, specifically the Epicurean paradox:

Code: Select all

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?


Allow me to expand upon these points more thoroughly. We know that (according to christian doctrine) God created Lucifer, "The Bearer of Light" as his name means in latin. If god were all knowing, surely he would have acknowledged well before his creation that Lucifer would create a grandiose rebellion that would split the heavens and cause an unending strife. Surely god would be capable of seeing the threat this one, single angel would be to his reign? If so, as an all knowing and all just god, why would he NOT do everything within his power to abolish the threat this would create to his human children (whom he would know he would create eventually, being an all-knowing entity)? Surely a deceitful, hateful creature whom would later become the "Father of lies" Should be dealt with justly by god before he can become a true threat not only to his realm but to mankind?

While we are on this subject (but less on the all knowing point) let us delve into the matters of being "all just" as well as "all loving". I want you, the reader to think about this, deep inside for a moment. Think deep and hard to yourself about how you would respond to this situation. Suppose you have a loving; stable family, a wife, a white picket fence, a child (or two or more) and were told tomorrow you would have to murder one of them in cold blood. You are being ordered to do this because he or she does not agree with your religious point of view and are being told to do so by believers of your very same religious beliefs. As another scenario I want you to imagine he or she or they were murdered by an unknown member of that same organization because your family member felt they deserved the right to believe what they wanted to believe. Do you, as a believer of an all knowing, all just and all believing god, that your god would really stand by and say that their actions are tolerable and still be considered all just and all loving?

Such actions happen every day across the world, more people are killed in the name of an all loving, all just god than for almost any other reason the world 'round.

Every day men murder, steal, lie and cheat and remain unpunished for their crimes by an all loving, all powerful god.

Every day society condemns the societal oddities to a life of unending pain and torture from an all powerful, all knowing god

Every day thousands are raped, murdered, robbed and disgraced under the watch of an all loving, all powerful and eternally fair god.

You should remember that it was humans who chose to become sinful in the first place. If God should choose to let us have free will, then some people will use it poorly.

Everyone is punished for their evils at some point in life. Ever heard of karma?

Free will is an integral part of God's punishment-reward system.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I put those statements forward as I would rather clear the floor for a rather humble but to the point statement. While i'm sure many atheists have heard the statement at some point in some form or another of an ancient greek philosopher, one Epicurus, specifically the Epicurean paradox:

Code: Select all

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?


Allow me to expand upon these points more thoroughly. We know that (according to christian doctrine) God created Lucifer, "The Bearer of Light" as his name means in latin. If god were all knowing, surely he would have acknowledged well before his creation that Lucifer would create a grandiose rebellion that would split the heavens and cause an unending strife. Surely god would be capable of seeing the threat this one, single angel would be to his reign? If so, as an all knowing and all just god, why would he NOT do everything within his power to abolish the threat this would create to his human children (whom he would know he would create eventually, being an all-knowing entity)? Surely a deceitful, hateful creature whom would later become the "Father of lies" Should be dealt with justly by god before he can become a true threat not only to his realm but to mankind?

While we are on this subject (but less on the all knowing point) let us delve into the matters of being "all just" as well as "all loving". I want you, the reader to think about this, deep inside for a moment. Think deep and hard to yourself about how you would respond to this situation. Suppose you have a loving; stable family, a wife, a white picket fence, a child (or two or more) and were told tomorrow you would have to murder one of them in cold blood. You are being ordered to do this because he or she does not agree with your religious point of view and are being told to do so by believers of your very same religious beliefs. As another scenario I want you to imagine he or she or they were murdered by an unknown member of that same organization because your family member felt they deserved the right to believe what they wanted to believe. Do you, as a believer of an all knowing, all just and all believing god, that your god would really stand by and say that their actions are tolerable and still be considered all just and all loving?

Such actions happen every day across the world, more people are killed in the name of an all loving, all just god than for almost any other reason the world 'round.

Every day men murder, steal, lie and cheat and remain unpunished for their crimes by an all loving, all powerful god.

Every day society condemns the societal oddities to a life of unending pain and torture from an all powerful, all knowing god

Every day thousands are raped, murdered, robbed and disgraced under the watch of an all loving, all powerful and eternally fair god.

A theist may respond with the Free Will defence, which goes something like this:

God allows some evil to take place because it is necessary to bring about a greater good (a shared starting point for most theodicies)

This greater good is the ability to choose between good and evil.

If we got rid of evil, people would not be able to choose between good and evil.

Ergo, evil is necessary.

This, they claim, explains away the existence of moral evil (such as rape, murder, war, oppression, etc.), while, admittedly, does not explain for natural evil (hurricane, famine, drought, etc.), though Augustine, I believe, did try to answer this with the same free will theodicy, by claiming that when man choose to eat the fruit of evil, the consequence of that first choice was not only death, but also the existence of natural and moral evil (that is, a seperation from the All Good God).

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You should remember that it was humans who chose to become sinful in the first place. If God should choose to let us have free will, then some people will use it poorly.

Everyone is punished for their evils at some point in life. Ever heard of karma?

Free will is an integral part of God's punishment-reward system.

Yet, that assumes a broadly Libertarian notion of Free Will, whereas if we had a more compatibilistic system, for example, if God made the world in such a way that, between Good and evil, we would freely (that is, out of our own volition) choose to do good over evil, then the Free Will defence falls apart.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I put those statements forward as I would rather clear the floor for a rather humble but to the point statement. While i'm sure many atheists have heard the statement at some point in some form or another of an ancient greek philosopher, one Epicurus, specifically the Epicurean paradox:

Code: Select all

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?


Allow me to expand upon these points more thoroughly. We know that (according to christian doctrine) God created Lucifer, "The Bearer of Light" as his name means in latin. If god were all knowing, surely he would have acknowledged well before his creation that Lucifer would create a grandiose rebellion that would split the heavens and cause an unending strife. Surely god would be capable of seeing the threat this one, single angel would be to his reign? If so, as an all knowing and all just god, why would he NOT do everything within his power to abolish the threat this would create to his human children (whom he would know he would create eventually, being an all-knowing entity)? Surely a deceitful, hateful creature whom would later become the "Father of lies" Should be dealt with justly by god before he can become a true threat not only to his realm but to mankind?

While we are on this subject (but less on the all knowing point) let us delve into the matters of being "all just" as well as "all loving". I want you, the reader to think about this, deep inside for a moment. Think deep and hard to yourself about how you would respond to this situation. Suppose you have a loving; stable family, a wife, a white picket fence, a child (or two or more) and were told tomorrow you would have to murder one of them in cold blood. You are being ordered to do this because he or she does not agree with your religious point of view and are being told to do so by believers of your very same religious beliefs. As another scenario I want you to imagine he or she or they were murdered by an unknown member of that same organization because your family member felt they deserved the right to believe what they wanted to believe. Do you, as a believer of an all knowing, all just and all believing god, that your god would really stand by and say that their actions are tolerable and still be considered all just and all loving?

Such actions happen every day across the world, more people are killed in the name of an all loving, all just god than for almost any other reason the world 'round.

Every day men murder, steal, lie and cheat and remain unpunished for their crimes by an all loving, all powerful god.

Every day society condemns the societal oddities to a life of unending pain and torture from an all powerful, all knowing god

Every day thousands are raped, murdered, robbed and disgraced under the watch of an all loving, all powerful and eternally fair god.

You should remember that it was humans who chose to become sinful in the first place. If God should choose to let us have free will, then some people will use it poorly.

Everyone is punished for their evils at some point in life. Ever heard of karma?

So, how do you account for Natural Evils, such as floods, droughts, etc.

[The USOT]

Then, let us see.
The great Biblical commentator Rashi states that this incongruity was included to teach us a lesson about deciding judgement cases.

So the bible is intentionally inconsistent?

I don't believe I've ever specified my views on rape to you,
Slavery I have...

I once had a telegram conversation with you (I am fairly sure it was you, it was either yourself or benuty) about how women are treated in the bible.

IIRC, God pushed off the flood's occurrence as far as he could allowing the human beings ample time to repent...
I'd also like to specify, the Oral Tradition states the actions committed by the people of that generation, perhaps it doesn't happen with you, but it happens with many people who get to thinking that in this situation and many others the people weren't that bad from a secular standpoint.

They were, society had totally crumbled...

I don't know, nor ultimately care how bad they were. Cultures evolve and change, with even horrific areas becoming far more civilised. Think how Nazi Germany (sorry for the Godwin) within the space of a few years went from an ultranationalist authoritarian racist society to the modern lovely culture and peoples that they are now. Or think how quickly Aztek culture dissapeared and was not replaced by more sacrafice. Even if they were horrific, as long as they were humans they had the potential to change as a civilisation.

But far worse, what on earth had the children/babies in the womb done? They can't have been bad...

[Menassa]

Then, let us see.
The great Biblical commentator Rashi states that this incongruity was included to teach us a lesson about deciding judgement cases.

So the bible is intentionally inconsistent?

Sometimes, in order to teach us lessons.
I discuss this more in a thread about Biblical contradictions.

I don't believe I've ever specified my views on rape to you,
Slavery I have...

I once had a telegram conversation with you (I am fairly sure it was you, it was either yourself or benuty) about how women are treated in the bible.

You will forgive me, but I do not recall this...

IIRC, God pushed off the flood's occurrence as far as he could allowing the human beings ample time to repent...
I'd also like to specify, the Oral Tradition states the actions committed by the people of that generation, perhaps it doesn't happen with you, but it happens with many people who get to thinking that in this situation and many others the people weren't that bad from a secular standpoint.

They were, society had totally crumbled...

I don't know, nor ultimately care how bad they were. Cultures evolve and change, with even horrific areas becoming far more civilised. Think how Nazi Germany (sorry for the Godwin) within the space of a few years went from an ultranationalist authoritarian racist society to the modern lovely culture and peoples that they are now. Or think how quickly Aztek culture dissapeared and was not replaced by more sacrafice. Even if they were horrific, as long as they were humans they had the potential to change as a civilisation.

Again, they're time to repent was considerable...

But far worse, what on earth had the children/babies in the womb done? They can't have been bad...

Ultimately my answer is going to be that there was 0 probability for change, and God, being omniscient knew this.

[The USOT]

You should remember that it was humans who chose to become sinful in the first place. If God should choose to let us have free will, then some people will use it poorly.

Everyone is punished for their evils at some point in life. Ever heard of karma?

As a Buddhist, Karma doesn't really make sense in that fashion
Its better to think of Karma as a system of self punishment/reward in the mental sphere. Do actions that cause suffering and you will perpetuate suffering in yourself. Help prevent suffering and generally you will be rewarded for it.

It doesn't make sense beyond the metaphorical terms to explain the nature of punishment and reward. Simply put, I could assasinate somebody and gain great rewards, but I would feel awful and it would torment me the rest of my life.

Now that is out the way...
Humans did not choose to become sinful in context of christianity.
2 people who did not understand a choice chose to. That is the full extent of any choice made in the doctrine of sin, and it barely qualifies as a choice.

[The USOT]

Ultimately my answer is going to be that there was 0 probability for change, and God, being omniscient knew this.

Then the story is literally impossible.
Hell, teleporting all the babies to a location to be raised by Noah would have been enough of a change. Culture is not biological, so they would have been fine that way.
The only way there is 0 probability is if somehow there were 0 children on earth, Humans stopped changing their oppinions/have life changing revelations, cultures did not evolve, humans could not rationalise, economic factors stopped existing.

Hell, any one of those would have been enough to change any culture. Literally all of those would have to be absent for 0 probability to be relevant.

[The Mizarian Empire]

You should remember that it was humans who chose to become sinful in the first place. If God should choose to let us have free will, then some people will use it poorly.

Everyone is punished for their evils at some point in life. Ever heard of karma?

I would assume you are referring to the story of adam and eve in genesis, in which case you are accusing Adam and Eve of commiting wrong, despite god never giving them the essential knowledge of right an wrong.

That being said, it is as another user posted, why are we constantly bombarded with floods? with droughts? these are acts of nature that punish everyone for the acts of a minority.

Why punish Africa with constant civil wars, disease and famine when instead god should have long ago uplifted them and brought them into modern society without the help of western influences?

Why didn't he do the same for Native Americans whom were killed in scores by smallpox and other European diseases?

Why do terrorists continue to kill, murder and maim to this day in the name of god when an all loving, all just god would do everything in their power to put a stop to these acts as rapidly as they could?

Why does god continue to conceal himself and allow atheists to grow in number when all it would take is to show himself openly to quell all doubts that he does in fact exist?

Why does hell, a place where sinners are punished for all eternity, exist at the will of an all loving, all just god? as much as I hate rapists, punishing them for all eternity for a moment's fallacy does not seem like the work of a just god.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You should remember that it was humans who chose to become sinful in the first place. If God should choose to let us have free will, then some people will use it poorly.

Everyone is punished for their evils at some point in life. Ever heard of karma?

As a Buddhist, Karma doesn't really make sense in that fashion
Its better to think of Karma as a system of self punishment/reward in the mental sphere. Do actions that cause suffering and you will perpetuate suffering in yourself. Help prevent suffering and generally you will be rewarded for it.

The result of Karma manifests itself not only in this life, but the next. If the Karmic system is 'mental', it is only so because we, Buddhist, deny that the self exists at all.

It doesn't make sense beyond the metaphorical terms to explain the nature of punishment and reward. Simply put, I could assasinate somebody and gain great rewards, but I would feel awful and it would torment me the rest of my life.

Only, you would suffer and pay for it, not simply in terms of mental anguish.

Now that is out the way...
Humans did not choose to become sinful in context of christianity.

In context of Chritianity, people do choose to sin, and original sin is only the result of the original choice.

2 people who did not understand a choice chose to. That is the full extent of any choice made in the doctrine of sin, and it barely qualifies as a choice.

Which is where God comes in with his grace.

[The USOT]

The result of Karma manifests itself not only in this life, but the next. If the Karmic system is 'mental', it is only so because we, Buddhist, deny that the self exists at all.

Not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Indeed, although the Buddha himself certainly would have done so, it arguably makes no sense at all with annata and doesn't match well to reality. Even if there were an entity to reincarnate, there can't be a guarantee for permanent bodies (for instance, heat death of the universe) and thus makes no sense. Following in line with the works of the Buddha, it makes sense to reject the doctrine of reincarnation as it defies reason.

Only, you would suffer and pay for it, not simply in terms of mental anguish.

Not neccesarily. There are plenty of people who got away with terrible things and only suffered mental anguish. By all means I do not downplay mental anguish at all, but a physical punishment is not guaranteed as there is not always an agent to deliver it/nor is that neccesarily desirable.

In context of Chritianity, people do choose to sin, and original sin is only the result of the original choice.

The original sin can't be a choice if they had no knowledge of good and evil. It isn't even the case of a blind pick, its closer to me asking you blargon zie die werren and then treating w.e. answer you came up with as a choice.

Which is where God comes in with his grace.

What? People couldn't choose and were thus punished, and this is grace?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Indeed, although the Buddha himself certainly would have done so, it arguably makes no sense at all with annata and doesn't match well to reality. Even if there were an entity to reincarnate, there can't be a guarantee for permanent bodies (for instance, heat death of the universe) and thus makes no sense. Following in line with the works of the Buddha, it makes sense to reject the doctrine of reincarnation as it defies reason.

Buddhists, by definition, really do need to accept the doctrine of Death and Rebirth, otherwise, concepts such as the Pure Land Sutra's emphasis on rebirth in the Amitabha Buddha's Western Pure Land, or the Buddha's frequent emphasis on releasing all beings from the six realms of existence, becomes incoherent. It is how one is released from the samsara cycle that one is to realise and fully understand that, as the Heart Sutra says: "form is not different from emptiness, and emptiness is not different from form. Form itself is emptiness, and emptiness itself is form. Sensation, conception, synthesis, and discrimination are also such as this. Śāriputra, all dharmas are empty: they are neither created nor destroyed, neither defiled nor pure, and they neither increase nor diminish. This is because in emptiness there is no form, sensation, conception, synthesis, or discrimination. There are no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or thoughts. There are no forms, sounds, scents, tastes, sensations, or dharmas. There is no field of vision and there is no realm of thoughts. There is no ignorance nor elimination of ignorance, even up to and including no old age and death, nor elimination of old age and death. There is no suffering, its accumulation, its elimination, or a path. There is no understanding and no attaining." Therefore, it is wrong to say that Buddhists can reject death and rebirth, unless it is to say that unltimate enlightenment consist of realising the "illusionary" nature of the world and of dhrama.

Not neccesarily. There are plenty of people who got away with terrible things and only suffered mental anguish. By all means I do not downplay mental anguish at all, but a physical punishment is not guaranteed as there is not always an agent to deliver it/nor is that neccesarily desirable.

Again, as Buddhist, we are required to believe that though the flower of their Karmic action, be it good or bad, does not bloom within this lifetime, it will occur in his next life time.

The original sin can't be a choice if they had no knowledge of good and evil. It isn't even the case of a blind pick, its closer to me asking you blargon zie die werren and then treating w.e. answer you came up with as a choice.

The choice is between following God's order or not.

What? People couldn't choose and were thus punished, and this is grace?

God gives his grace to those that see that they are in sin, and repent.

[Edlichbury]

So the bible is intentionally inconsistent?

Sometimes, in order to teach us lessons.
I discuss this more in a thread about Biblical contradictions.

I once had a telegram conversation with you (I am fairly sure it was you, it was either yourself or benuty) about how women are treated in the bible.

You will forgive me, but I do not recall this...

I don't know, nor ultimately care how bad they were. Cultures evolve and change, with even horrific areas becoming far more civilised. Think how Nazi Germany (sorry for the Godwin) within the space of a few years went from an ultranationalist authoritarian racist society to the modern lovely culture and peoples that they are now. Or think how quickly Aztek culture dissapeared and was not replaced by more sacrafice. Even if they were horrific, as long as they were humans they had the potential to change as a civilisation.

Again, they're time to repent was considerable...

But far worse, what on earth had the children/babies in the womb done? They can't have been bad...

Ultimately my answer is going to be that there was 0 probability for change, and God, being omniscient knew this.

Repent what though? Because at the time of the flood, God at that time had only given one command on how to live - don't eat the fruit of the tree. Yet he still finds fault in people for not following the commandments he hasn't actually given them yet.

What kind of monstrous asshole would destroy millions because he finds that easier than actually giving them rules and seeing if they change?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Sometimes, in order to teach us lessons.
I discuss this more in a thread about Biblical contradictions.



You will forgive me, but I do not recall this...



Again, they're time to repent was considerable...


Ultimately my answer is going to be that there was 0 probability for change, and God, being omniscient knew this.

Repent what though? Because at the time of the flood, God at that time had only given one command on how to live - don't eat the fruit of the tree. Yet he still finds fault in people for not following the commandments he hasn't actually given them yet.

What kind of monstrous asshole would destroy millions because he finds that easier than actually giving them rules and seeing if they change?

Morality isn't impossible without religion or commandments from God.

[Menassa]

Sometimes, in order to teach us lessons.
I discuss this more in a thread about Biblical contradictions.



You will forgive me, but I do not recall this...



Again, they're time to repent was considerable...


Ultimately my answer is going to be that there was 0 probability for change, and God, being omniscient knew this.

Repent what though? Because at the time of the flood, God at that time had only given one command on how to live - don't eat the fruit of the tree. Yet he still finds fault in people for not following the commandments he hasn't actually given them yet.

What kind of monstrous asshole would destroy millions because he finds that easier than actually giving them rules and seeing if they change?

It is maintained that of the 7 Laws of Noah, all but the one pertaining to animals was given to that generation.

[New Zreuche]

Repent what though? Because at the time of the flood, God at that time had only given one command on how to live - don't eat the fruit of the tree. Yet he still finds fault in people for not following the commandments he hasn't actually given them yet.

What kind of monstrous asshole would destroy millions because he finds that easier than actually giving them rules and seeing if they change?

Morality isn't impossible without religion or commandments from God.

It is, it would just take much longer to develop

And now that we have established morals/human rights, we don't really need religion anymore for that area of society.

And before anyone points this out:
Moral standards are in decline these days in the west, but imposing religion on society isn't the right option.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Morality isn't impossible without religion or commandments from God.

It is, it would just take much longer to develop

And now that we have established morals/human rights, we don't really need religion anymore for that area of society.

And before anyone points this out:
Moral standards are in decline these days in the west, but imposing religion on society isn't the right option.

What? Religion doesn't offer morality, just as moral systems can exist, and have existed, without religion.

[Sun Wukong]

Morality isn't impossible without religion or commandments from God.

It is, it would just take much longer to develop

And now that we have established morals/human rights, we don't really need religion anymore for that area of society.

And before anyone points this out:
Moral standards are in decline these days in the west, but imposing religion on society isn't the right option.

Everybody always says moral standards are in decline.

Even in an era without slavery, that actively opposes sexism and racial intolerance.