V vs. God: An Analogy on Sin

v-for-vendetta

Remember, remember…

After one of my favorite days of the year, the one day of the year I watch one of my favorite movies of the year in celebration, you’d be hard pressed to guess that I’ve have V on the brain today. Despite the ‘gunpowder, treason, and plot’ swirling ’round my mind all day, I didn’t expect this marvelous story to actually influence my day much. Until I got into a comment thread. I had a very respectable dialogue on Christianity with a Christian who was actually willing to listen and appreciate my views. In the end we agreed to disagree in the most polite terms and went our merry ways. It was extremely refreshing.

I pity dah fool who don't pray fo' fo'giv'ness!

I pity dah fool who don’t pray fo’ fo’giv’ness!

During the dialogue, however, I came upon a revelation. The original topic began regarding people who have never experienced Christianity and what their fate is in the Christian doctrine. The evolved into God’s wants of us in terms of Christianity, and his reward/punishment system for us. The analogy was presented by my discussion companion of a doctor. We humans are ‘infected’ with the virus of sin. God is the doctor specialist who can cure us of this virus if we only go to the office and visit him, and do as he prescribes us. I did admit it was a pretty good analogy…

Except that God is the one who created the virus and infected us in the first place. God allows the existence of the virus of sin, allows us to be vulnerable to that virus (all while having the omnipotent power to destroy the virus of sin, or make us immune to it.) God then develops the cure of salvation for the virus of sin. So God says to himself, “What do?” His decision? Infect his creation with the virus, and then hold the cure over their heads.

Sound familiar? If you haven’t seen V for Vendetta, then I will give you a little plot summary. The current government of England is practically dictatorial, and declares divine inspiration is backing its government. Said government came to power after several very deadly outbreaks of what is later called a biological terrorist attack. The biological attacks, on an elementary school, a subway station, and a water treatment plant, kill over 80,000, and coincidentally happen around the time of the elections. The now-dictator wins the election, and lo and behold, not a month later, a cure to the biological virus is found and mass produced for all. Turns out *SPOILERS* the now-dictator and his lackies developed the virus and the cure themselves (which ends up being the origin of V himself). Once the virus and cure were both in their hands, they debated how best to use both to gain power. One lacky suggests that, to gain the most guaranteed and easily withheld power, they should be used on their own people, not as an act of war against another country. And it works.

You see the parallel now? Let me put it in steps:

  1. Government/God creates virus/sin.
  2. Government/God creates cure/salvation.
  3. Government/God releases virus/sin upon its subjects.
  4. Government/God offers cure/salvation from virus/sin, for a price – total compliance, obedience, and submission.
  5. (And lets not forget the incredibly ridiculous punishments for disobedience…)
Eeny meany miney mo!

Eeny meany miney mo!

What makes the God example worse is that He not only creates the capacity for sin, creates the saving grace from sin, but creates His subjects, we human beings, with the capacity to contract the virus of sin in the first place. All while having the omnipotent power to prevent ALL of it. I know there are people who find comfort in the Christian God and His ways, basically because they think they’re on His good side. I just don’t get it.

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “V vs. God: An Analogy on Sin

  1. So, I’m wondering here… is it sensible to think that God is evil and good? If that were true, would there be any advantage to being on a bad side if believing there to be a good side?

    • I don’t think I understand your question. The issue is not about God being good and evil at the same time, but being the origin of both good and evil, and being selective in how He addresses each.

      The Christian God (not the general concept of god, mind you, just the Christian interpretation of God) is supposed to be the origin of all things. He is the origin of the concept of choice, or free will. In allowing choice to exist, He allows the options from which one can choose from to exist, ergo good and evil. Without the options from which to choose, choice itself would have no meaning. If this is not the case, then evil is something which exists alongside God as an equal opposite, thereby removing the quality of omnipotence which God is supposed to have according to Christian doctrine.

  2. I never read it that God promoted choice. I read it that God promoted obedience to one law and yet the ability to create perhaps any other desired law — having dominion. My Christian understanding is that the serpent chose to disobey the one law that required obedience and then brought the temptation to the divine beings that were Adam and Eve so that they also disobeyed.

    • I’m not saying He promoted choice, I’m saying He created. God created the serpent, the being which becomes the serpent, and so being the omnipotent creator, knew that in His creation was the capacity of choice. God, in His all-power, had the ability from the beginning of creation, during the 7 days if you will, to eliminate any possibility of choice, thereby eliminating the options from which to choose. If there is no choice, there is no way for the options to exist. There would be no need for laws and rules and regulations, because there were be no option to do otherwise. In allowing the option for disobedience, God inadvertently creates deviation from obedience, aka sin.

  3. Rana –

    Your analogy suggests that your god created sin as though sin were some sort of mind-control device that can be infused into a person’s thoughts such that he has no choice but to commit wrongful acts, thereby taking away a person’s freewill. Do you suppose this is really what your Christian friend was intending to suggest to you when using his viral analogy?

    I think the anwer lies in asking the question ‘How is sin created?’

    If ‘sin’ is defined as the act of breaking a law, who would you say is responsible for committing/creating a lawless act?…the government who established the law, or the citizen who made a freewill decision to violate the law?

    And are you also suggesting that it is rediculous for the government to punish those who disrespect the laws it has established? If so, please explain why you feel this is rediculous.

    • Geddy, the issue is far more foundational than breaking or obeying law. God has the power and capacity to remove the possibility of disobedience against His law. God could remove oyr ability to choose. If no one has the capacity to choose disobedience, to choose to break the law, than the concept of breaking the law no longer exists. Ergo, if choice did not exist, if the ability to choose sin didn’t exist, sin itself would not exist because it could not manifest. God is only power, according to Christianity, which can eliminate the option of sin, or could eliminated the ability of.choice, thereby never allowing sin to manifest from the beginning. If you have no option which is considered a breaking of the law, or have no capacity to act on the option, then the option ceases to exist as an option at all.

    • Also also, after a second reading of your post, it is not my god I am discussing, it is my perspective on the Christian God. My personal interpretation of a creator deity has nothing to do with this conversation.

      • Agreed. If freewill is eliminated, sin no longer has any power over mankind. But then…we would all be nothing more than robots…doing whatever we are programmed to do.

        Since we obviously have freewill, and therefore the ability to sin, do you not suppose that this Christian god, in his infinite wisdom and intelligence, places a higher value on freewill obedience (i.e. love) than he does on forced obedience (compulsion)?

        For example, which do you prefer: 1) A husband who chose to love you and forsake all others, or 2) a husband who “loves” you simply because there weren’t any other women from which to choose?

        And do you suppose that love can exist at all where freewill does not exist?

        • Let me start by saying it would not merely be a situation of evil not having power over mankind, but evil ceasing to exist at all. If evil cannot be manifested through action or even thought, again if it is not physically or spiritually possible to act in evil or think in evil, then can we say evil exists at all? I don’t think we can. The ability to choose evil, to act or think on evil, is what makes evil exist. Without the ability to choose, the choices become moot and cease to be.

          Yes, we would have no free will, and so would be predictable creatures with only instinctual drives. If you look at the non-biblical Christian texts of the saints, and how they describe the dynamic of angels, I feel that this is precisely what we would be. Unquestioning, obedient servants and worshipers of God. So looking at this, we can say that the only reason we are preferred by God is BECAUSE we can choose, BECAUSE we can act and think on evil. It is because we can turn from God that makes us who we are according to Christianity, and this is what makes us more interesting to God than the other beasts and the angels.

          This creates for a confusing problem with the creation story. Angels were not created with the ability to choose, or at least that is how their description comes off to me. Yet Lucifer, in his jealousy against man, actually commits evil, he chooses to disobey God, and so falls and becomes Satan. How does Lucifer obtain this ability to choose to disobey? If angels do have the ability to choose, and all but Lucifer have been eternally good in their choice to love and obey God, what is so appealing about man, a creature who chose to turn from God like Lucifer did, that man is put on a higher pedestal than the angels? If God wants obedience and love, and He receives this from the angels unquestioningly, why dwell on us? To me, this is a demonstration of God’s interest in evil itself, in the struggle between good and evil. God has what He desires from us in the angels, and yet He makes it a point to reward or punish us for our choices.

          So, you ask if God wants free will obedience or forced obedience. Through this deduction, it is obvious He wants free will obedience. The issue I see here is that, again, it makes God into a selective, judgmental being, who puts His own want for free will obedience over His supposed unconditional love for all His creatures. He can’t hate sin, because sin is what allows Him to play His game of free will obedience with us. Additionally, the way God is portrayed and described by Christianity, one moment in God’s presence would convince any man to drop to his knees in praise and awe. Even with our ability to choose, coming face to face with the actual God is supposed to be enough for us to understand and fall to Him. Even if this is not the case, and man can still turn away while staring into the essence of God, why can that not be the moment of choice? Why a lifetime of back and forth, on the edge of a knife, wondering if we’re being good enough, obedient enough, for God? To me the only explanation to this Christian God image is that God is playing a game with us to entertain Himself.

          And mind you, as always, this is simply how I view Christianity, and not how I view the actual concept of god itself. That is a completely different conversation. 🙂

          • Again, I agree. If the Christian creator did not issue freewill to ANY of his creatures, then evil could not exist because there would be no life capable of violating his will/laws. However, I say again, because we have freewill, it is obvious that the Christian’s god values voluntary submission (love) over robots. Just because you may not share this same value is irrelevant…he apparently values his values more than he values your values.
            Of course, having read the Christian standard of the biblical text four times, you are no doubt already aware that 2 Peter 2:4 indicates that angels are indeed freewill beings. And so, that would bring us to your question as to why the Christian god created man in addition to the angels. The truest answer to give is to say that the biblical text doesn’t provide an answer because its writers didn’t deem it necessary to its message. But if we were to speculate, it would appear obvious that, since angels are reported in the biblical text to live in heaven, which is where the Christian god also lives, angels have a clear knowledge of the deity. In other words, they live in their god’s presence and so they know that he is. Man on the other hand, does not live in the deity’s presence and so is presented with the option of faith….a belief in the unseen. Now one could say that this is a cruel game to play on man, but apparently, having a clear knowledge of the god doesn’t by itself produce a love for the god, as demonstrated by the rebellious angels. And there is no shortage of Christians in the world, so hearing the biblical account is clearly sufficient to produce the kind of faith which results in obedience and love for the Christian’s god. You and I may not accept written documents as being a rational method of communicating with man, but there’s no question that it has been a highly effective tool for disseminating knowledge of the Christian god. Even the atheist Ashley claims to have knowledge of the Christian scriptures.
            Regarding the Christian god possessing an unconditional love for all mankind, what scripture do you derive this from? I was not able to find it.
            Regarding the Christian god being selective and judgmental, if he exists, then that is his nature. Every human form of government has a judiciary system to discriminate between the innocent and the guilty and I don’t think that you have ever complained of this, have you? Why then do you complain that a divine ruler would deliver a righteous judgment to each of his subjects?
            Regarding the Christian god playing a game with mankind, why do you say it’s a game? That may be your limited view, but unless this god has revealed to you the intentions of his heart, how can you truly know it’s all just a game to him? Perhaps it’s no game to him at all and he has a very good reason for doing all that he does, but he isn’t compelled to share with you all of his thoughts, and you aren’t intelligent and wise enough to reach the level of his thoughts to understand them without having to be told. After all, do not the Christian scriptures say that there are some things that this god has not even revealed to his only son, Jesus, such as when the Day of Judgment will be? Who do you think you are, then, that he should reveal to you his every thought and design and intention? Indeed, you indicated that not even your own god has done that, so why do you require it of the Christian’s god?
            Based upon the millions/billions that believe and have ever believed in the Christian god, what has already been revealed in the Christian scriptures appears to be adequate to produce the kind of men this god seeks. However, you seem to require more proof/explanations than other men, but have you considered that it wouldn’t matter to you if you had them or not? For you have already created a different god out of everything that your heart desires in a god (a deity which neither your parents nor any of you ancestors has ever known or worshipped), such that the Christian god, if he truly exists, would be a grave disappointment to you. Do you really think that you could ever love such a god as the Christian’s god, even if he revealed himself to you personally? If some of the angels who saw this god didn’t love him, how would seeing him cause you to love him rather than continuing to withhold your love from him? Isn’t it his very nature as a righteous judge, who will reward the faithful and punish the wicked, that you detest? Are you certain that all this talk of unanswered questions, religious confusion and contradictions is not just incidental to the real reason you have rejected the Christian’s god?

  4. In the original creation, there is no knowledge of choice — no instinctual drive, no needs that must be identified and no problems to solve. There aren’t options. The place is guarded from awareness — impossible to imagine even. We are not the original divine beings that were. We are the creation of the fallen. We have instinctual drives. This creation came about from the fall — no mention of how long it took to create this universe is made. This universe is not the creation of God but the creation of fallen formerly divine beings. Perhaps those fallen beings came here from another planet or another universe… the bible doesn’t present any knowledge of what happened when the original creation was shut away. I don’t attempt to describe what cannot be known. The original creation is shut away from us. It can’t be described. We have our science and it fought against its creator as well. Science came from the believers not the atheists. Scientists that choose to believe that they can describe reality are forever befuddled even by this creation in matter and it can’t even be the creation of God that is described to have occurred in seven days.

  5. Geddy,

    “However, I say again, because we have freewill, it is obvious that the Christian’s god values voluntary submission (love) over robots”
    Voluntary Submission (love) et? Submit to my will or I’ll send you to hell for all of eternity. Methinks you do not understand the word “voluntary” nor do you understand the word “love”. May I suggest the English Oxford Dictionary?

    • Ashley – Since you claim to have knowledge, why don’t you do us a kindness and explain to us what love is? Perhaps you could start by explaining what greater love one can have than to voluntarily sacrifice his own life in order to save the lives of others?

      • Yes I do claim to have knowledge. It comes from a dictionary and is available to all.
        Voluntary: “Acting or done willingly, without constraint; Acting or done willingly without expectation of reward or fear of punishment.”
        Submission: The act of submitting to the power of another; The state of being submissive or compliant; meekness; The act of submitting something for consideration.
        Love: A deep, tender, ineffible feeling of affection and solicitude towards a person. An intense emtional attachment. i.e. NOT voluntary SUBMISSION.
        You cannot submit to someone’s love and you cannot submit to loving someone.
        “Perhaps you could start by explaining what greater love one can have than to voluntarily sacrifice his own life in order to save the lives of others”
        I would say that laying down my life to protect someone in my family or my friends form great harm would be a great act of love. What that’s got to do with “voluntary submission” to an omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent being, I have no idea.

        • Ashley – Would you not say that submission is an integral part of love? Can one truly love another and yet not submit himself to pleasing the object of his affections BEFORE satisfying his own personal desires?

          For example, which husband would you say is demonstrating true love for his wife:
          1. The one who quits gambling because he knows his wife is displeased by it, for she considers it a vice, OR
          2. The one who continues gambling knowing full well that it makes his wife miserable?

          Though both husbands have an intense emotional attachment to their wives, which of these husbands would you say truly loves his wife? Is it not the first one…the one that put aside his own desires and humbly submitted himself to the desires of his wife? And hasn’t the second one very selfishly put his own desires above those of his wife? And is love selfish or unselfish?

          Honestly, I was hoping that you would have presented a more insightful explanation from some rich life experiences; something truly original. But alas, you have resorted to using the dictionary to explain the most basic and universal of human emotions.

          As far as what sacrifice and love and voluntary submission have to do with the Christian’s god, I’m surprized to learn that the basic tenets of Christianity have eluded you thus far in life. That being the case, it would appear that you have your homework cut out for you…or perhaps Rana would be willing to explain it to you, if you asked her.

  6. Rana,

    Sounds like a perfectly reasonable, logical thing for an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being to do would’t you say? Oh wait no! What am I saying?!?!? LOL. Only a complete and total fool could actually believe that something like that could actually be the case.

  7. Geddy,

    Actually, now that I have re-read that statement, it would appear that you also don’t understand the word submit (from which submission is derived), nor do you understand the word robot.
    Submit: To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another; To subject to a condition or process
    Robot: (As it applies to human beings) A person who works mechanically without original thought, especially one who responds automatically to the commands of others
    Voluntary submission is identical to being a robot. Voluntarily submitting yourself to the will or authority of another is identical to one who responds automatically to the commands of others.
    So you’ve essentially just said that god prefers apples over apples. This is the danger that one can get oneself into when one does not understand the rudimentary basics of the language that they choose to communicate with. Is English your mother tongue? Or did you learn it as a second language?

    • Ashley – Really? Voluntary submission is the same as being a robot?

      Here are some further defintions from dictionary.com:
      1. Voluntary – done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one’s own accord or by FREE CHOICE.
      2. Automatic – occurring independently of volition, as certain muscular actions; INVOLUNTARY.

      Clearly, voluntary submission involves free choice, while robots submit involuntarily/automatically. Since voluntary and automatic (involuntary) are opposites, the ideas in question are not the same; one is an apple and the other an orange. Therefore, I cannot agree with your assertion, for it is incorrect…by definition.

      To illustrate, a child while he is immature, may only obey his parents due to the surety of punishment. But when the child becomes mature in his ability to reason, may choose to obey his parents out of love/respect for his parents, and not from fear of punishment. Though the penalty for disobedience remains, the child’s motives for submitting have changed. Do you not agree that this is often the case?

      For example, a child who rebels against his parents’ instructions and refuses to always wear his bike helmet when riding his bike, is likely, after taking a nasty spill and landing on his head, to voluntarily submit to his parents’ instructions. After many such missteps, the child is likely to realize, if he is wise, that his parents’ instructions are intended for his own good, to prevent him from bringing harm upon himself, and are not meant to place senseless restrictions upon his personal freedoms and pursuit of fun. And, if he is wise, will he not realize that his parents’ instructions were rooted in love such that he cannot help but to love them back by voluntarily yielding to their will?…unless of course he is a wicked child.

      • Geddy,

        I see someone decided to try and do their homework but didn’t bother to finish it. You forgot the one key word didn’t you? The word SUBMIT. You used the words “Voluntary submission” TOGETHER. I’ll post it again. Submit: To YIELD or SURRENDER (oneself) to the will or authority of another; To subject to a condition or process
        To break it down further, Surrender: To relinquish possession or control of to another because of DEMAND or COMPULSION; to GIVE UP in favour of another.
        You have just demonstrated that you do not in fact have a grasp on the meanings of rudimentary words in the English Language. The words voluntary and submission, when used together (as you have) constitute an oxymoron. The act of submission or submitting oneself to something is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of volunteering to do something. Ie. Volunteering to join the army vs submitting to the draft and being forced into the army.

        • Ashley – Let me attempt to put it another way. Perhaps this will help you in your understanding.

          When you surrender your time to respond to my posts, are you doing that because I have forced you to give up your time, or because you have volunteered to do it?

          Again, when a living person surrenders a kidney to another, in order to save a life, is the kidney relinquished voluntarily or by force?

          If the word ‘surrender’ means to give up in favor of another, why then do you say this cannot be done voluntarily. Aren’t there many things that people voluntarily give up (surrender) every day? Don’t you know anyone who voluntarily gives up/surrenders their money to help the poor and needy?

          • Wow, there is just no winning with you is there Geddy? I post the exact meaning of the word “surrender” from a dictionary, and YOU STILL completely ignore it, change the meaning to suit your own needs and argue that you were right all along. I mean, the whole essence of the word “surrender” is that something is done because of demand or compulsion, control is RELINQUISHED – i.e. involuntarily (which would be the exact opposite of voluntary) But perhaps I am assuming too much that you know the meaning of the words “demand” and “compulsion” or “relinquish”? In any event, I don’t think it really matters. I could post them here too but I am sure you’d find a way to tap dance around that too.
            But then again, I guess this is exactly what I would expect from someone who claims to have the mystery of the entire Universe all figured out.
            You’re just never, ever wrong are you Geddy?
            And if I could implore you to please change your name. The REAL Geddy Lee from Rush comes off in interviews as a soft-spoken, kind-hearted, articulate man, an incredibly talented musician. He also describes himself as a “Jewish atheist” A Jew as a race and an atheist when it comes to god and religion. There isn’t the slightest chance you’d ever catch him proclaiming to have solved the mystery of the universe. I’m practically certain he wouldn’t be arguing with a dictionary over the meaning of the words “submit”, “submission” or “surrender” either. The two of you are NOTHING alike in any regard WHATSOEVER. I would say you are polar opposites in fact.

            • Ashley – Here’s a definition of the word ‘surrender’ from dictionary.com (the World English Dictionary). Notice the use of the word VOLUNTARY!

              2. ( tr ) to relinquish or forego (an office, position, etc), esp as a voluntary concession to another: he surrendered his place to a lady .

              It is to this definition that I appeal when I say ‘voluntary submission’. That was for your benefit to make clear which definition of submission I am referring to. However, in your mad quest to be right in your own mind, you left reason and observation and understanding behind.

              Will you now admit that there is such a thing as ‘voluntary surrender’?…or will you continue to resist? Were you not able to understand the examples I gave you?

              As the song goes: ‘You can surrender without a prayer, but never really pray…pray without surrender’

          • Still can’t give it up hunh Geddy? Not matter what, you gotta be right. Did you notice the word that came right after voluntary in your definition? The word CONCESSION: To acknowledge, often reluctantly as being just, true or proper; to YIELD or grant. By the way, I just went to dictionary.com and I found no such definition, so you’ve either misquoted/made up the definition, misquoted the source or you’re lying.
            You scour the internet looking for a definition of the word submit or surrender with the word “voluntary” in it plaster it all over this post without even reading it.
            So let just say that I “surrender” or “concede” the point. What happens if I don’t “voluntarily submit (love)” god? What happens then?
            Oh, I forgot to mention this earlier – This section of a previous post: “As far as what sacrifice and love and voluntary submission have to do with the Christian’s god, I’m surprised to learn that the basic tenets of Christianity have eluded you thus far in life. That being the case, it would appear that you have your homework cut out for you…or perhaps Rana would be willing to explain it to you, if you asked her.”
            What an amazing non-answer. I asked what does MY willingness to sacrifice myself for family or friends have to do with “voluntary submission” to a god. I DID NOT ask what sacrifice has to do with god. Even if that were the question, you STILL didn’t answer that either! – you just told me to go talk to Rana. You can’t even read and/or understand a question. No wonder you can’t respond to it.

            • Ashley – I stand by my assertion that the definition I provided is in fact taken from Dictionary.com. Search for the word ‘surrender’ and on the resulting page, look for the section titled ‘World English Dictionary’ in the middle of the page. You can also do the same for the word ‘submit’ and see that the word voluntary is used there as well: ‘to subject or be voluntarily subjected’. Will you voluntarily concede, or yield, to the truth of what I have said in this regards?

              “Perhaps you could start by explaining what greater love one can have than to voluntarily sacrifice his own life in order to save the lives of others?”

              As far as what YOUR willing sacrifice has to do with serving a god, it is not YOUR sacrifice that I was referring to in the above quote. Anyone who knows anything at all about the Christian’s god, knows that it was his son who voluntarily sacrificed his own life, in the mortal form of the man Jesus, in order to save the eternal souls of others from certain death.

              To give you a brief lesson in Christianity, its premise is that the creator of all the universe is holy and just and righteous. As a result, he will require every man to give an account for his life at a predetermined time and he will then sit in judgment as to whether each man’s deeds were good or evil, according to the laws established by the deity and communicated to man. There is a problem, however, in that every man has committed some evil act, whether intentionally or unintentionally/ignorantly. Since every evil deed (lawless act) requires punishment by law, the deity has offered a way to extend mercy to the lawbreaker, and yet still fulfill the penalties required by the law, so that the law is not disrespected. Since the penalty required for breaking the law is death, the deity decided to allow one man, a man completely righteous and without sin, a man who did not deserve punishment, to voluntarily sacrifice his own life in exchange for the lives of all the lawbreakers. There is a catch, however, in that the judge requires all who would appeal to his mercy to renounce themselves and submit to a life of voluntary servitude towards the righteous man who gave up his own life to save theirs.

              And so, when I suggested you could start your explanation of love with how it relates to the Christian’s god, I was assuming your familiarity with Christianity would have clued you in that their deity is not at all the misrepresentation you have painted. In fact, according to the Christian scriptures, not only did this righteous man voluntarily sacrifice his life for those who love/d him, but also for those who hate/d him. Can there be any greater love than that?

              As far as what the Christian scriptures teach will happen when a man, such as yourself, refuses to meet the requirements for mercy, the answer should be obvious to you: The same thing as would happen in any court of law – the requirements of the law will be upheld by executing the prescribed punishment.

          • And Geddy,

            Just because I’m learning oh so much from you, may I ask what happens if I don’t “vulontarily submit” (love) god? Are there any consequences?
            And please, no need to have 700 paragraphs of rambling gibberish. A simple “yes” or “no” will do.

            • Ashley – Why are you testing me? I already answered your question in one sentence:

              “As far as what the Christian scriptures teach will happen when a man, such as yourself, refuses to meet the requirements for mercy, the answer should be obvious to you: The same thing as would happen in any court of law – the requirements of the law will be upheld by executing the prescribed punishment.”

              If you are not able to understand that, try reading the biblical source documents for yourself. Any New Testament book contains the information you seek, but the book of Romans, chapter 2: 5-11, will answer your question so that even you cannot misunderstand it without a ginormous amount of effort…

              …and then YOU can tell us whether the answer to your question is ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

          • So your answer then is “yes”. So if I don’t “voluntarily submit” or rather “refuse to meet the requirements for mercy”, I’ll get punished. That completely negates the “voluntary” part of submitting myself, because I’m doing it out of fear of being punished, which was my whole point to begin with.
            I’ve read all the “biblical source documents for myself” already. The difference between us is that you actually believe that incoherent, bronze-age nonsense. That’s why you’ve ended up as the babbling, foaming wreck that you are.

            • Ashley

              Laws cannot be laws unless they are enforced. And if obedience to them isn’t voluntary, then it would be impossible to break them…in which case there would be no need for them, for all laws are made only for those who break them.

              It is true that some persons obey laws from fear of punishment, and this is exactly what the penalty for breaking the law is intended to do…put fear into the heart of those who would be tempted to break them. If there was no fear of punishment, then those who hate the laws would not obey them. And if no one obeyed the laws, then the government would collapse, for everyone would do whatever they wished, regardless of the laws. This describes Rana’s god. Her god is a god of anarchy. He has not established his rule…everyone does whatever they want and he turns his back and looks the other way. Neither is he a just god, for such men as Jack the Ripper and Ted Bundy will enjoy all the same priviledges in the after-life as their victims…there will be no punishment for the wicked and no reward for the righteous.

              However, it is also true that many persons obey the laws because they recognize that the laws are good, and so they voluntarily submit themselves to obeying the laws. For instance, laws which prohibit drivers from running red lights are seen as being good because citizens can recognize that such laws impose order which prevents senseless injuries and death. This describes the Christian’s god. Their god is a god of order who has firmly established his rule by issuing good laws, and enforces his decrees by establishing penalties for breaking those laws. In this way, order is preseved. Honestly, you don’t really wish us to believe that your primary motivation for stopping at a red light is because you’re afraid of being punished by the government, rather than your primary motivation being a love for the law’s good purpose?

              So the question then becomes, with regards to the Christian’s god, why would fear be your motivation for obedience, instead of a love for the order that his good laws bring to ruling over mankind? And perhaps more to the point, which of his laws do you hate and why?

          • So the Geddy,

            Love=Voluntary Submission=Following Laws. Alllllllllrighty then. If that’s what love means to you, then I guess that’s what love means to you.

            • Ashley

              Do not all laws exist so that you do not harm neighbor? If, therefore, you voluntarily submit to the laws, are you not demonstrating love for your neighbor?

          • Geddy,

            I’ll repeat my previous comment. If you need to be told (or even if you need to “voluntarily submit” to laws) in order to not harm your neighbor, and that without these laws we all (including yourself) would be nothing more than pyschotic, lying, cheating, killing, raping lunatics, then good for you. If following or even “voluntarily submitting” yourself to be governed by those laws is synonomous with (or essentially means) “love” and “demonstrating love for your neighbor”, fine. If that’s the way you think, then that’s the way you think. I can’t and won’t degrade myself in such a way. I have significantly more self respect than that and I have significantly more respect than that for my fellow human beings. Now, feel free to assert that the reason I have these instincts in the first place is because god has instilled then in me. There will then be an explanation required for all the pyschos running around who get positive pleasure from cheating and raping and killing and stealing and doing the exact opposite of “loving your neighbor”.
            So while I am absolutely positive that you have an explaintion for all of that and much, much, more, I really, truly don’t care. I’ve grown tired of your pretzel logic, ad hoc reasoning, dishonesty and your amazingly fantastic claims. You can talk until you’re blue in the face as far as I am concerned. You’re never going to convince me that since you’ve accepted the Christian god, the dogma and doctrines of the Christian faith, you’ve suddenly figured out the whole mystery of the universe. I’ve listened to people who are farrrrrr more intelligent and knowledgable than you are (i.e. Lawrence Krauss, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, etc) and none of them have been able to figure out the mystery of the universe. Excuse me if I am just a little more than slightly skeptical that you have.

  8. Ashley

    You misrepresent what I’ve said. I haven’t at all suggested that EVERY man needs to live in fear of being punished, only those who would otherwise choose to break the laws. If you will obey the laws because you love them, good for you. But there’s certainly entire prisons full of men who prove that laws are necessary for any government, and society for that matter, to survive. Why does this fact escape you?

    Moreover, you have contradicted yourself. Your original assertion is that you obey laws only out of fear of being punished for breaking them. That being the case, the logical conclusion is that you must have a desire to break the laws…otherwise your fear would be irrational. Yet, here you are now saying the exact opposite…that you obey the laws, not from fear of punishment, but from an innate love for both yourself and your neighbor.

          • Yes, we figured it would take a tremendous effort from you to obey that law. Anyhow, that pretty much answers the question.

          • Yesssir, you got that one right. Everyone has to be told not to kill their neighbour (love them) because no one is as smart or moral as you.
            I was going to ask why you refer to yourself in the plural “we” but I already know it’s because you’re a delusional schizophrenic lunatic.
            Seriously though, you live in an asylum right? What kind of meds do they have you on?

            • Ashley

              I do find it interesting that when you can find nothing logical with which to defend your position, you always resort to personal attacks to veer the discussion off course and detract from the gaping holes in your arguments. I do not expect that you will truly hear what I am about to say, but, for me, the discussion is not about WHO is right, or WHO is more moral…it is about testing the arguments to determine which is closest to the truth.

              Currently, your argument that the Christian god’s laws are obeyed only out of fear of punishment, rather than love, is unsupported. You yourself indicated that you obey laws because you have an innate desire to do so, not because you fear punishment. Obviously, this contradicts your assertion that laws are only obeyed as the result of fear.

              Yet, rather than being logical and sensible to either 1) offer an explanation as to why you feel you did not contradict yourself, or 2) admit that you contradicted yourself and reassess your argument accordingly, you instead lose all composure and resort to personal attacks. If you are afraid that I will gloat or ridicule you for admitting an error, I suppose it is logical for you to fear that since that is how you treat others, but I assure you that I will not behave like that.

              Perhaps your militantism causes you to see all those who would question your beliefs as enemies, and so you are quick to treat them as such? As Rana suggested, surely you can be a ‘better man’ than this.

          • Geddy,

            You wouldn’t know what logic was if it came up and slapped you in the face. You’re talking to me about logic? This coming from someone who argues that love=voluntary submission=obeying laws. That’s some priceless stuff right there sir.
            Normal, sane people DO NOT refer to themselves as “we”. I’m sorry. There’s something mentally wrong with you. Do you honestly talk to people face-to-face like this? “Hey neighbour! How’s it going? I did a good job today of not stealing from you or killing you or any other crimes and because I did that, that means that I love you!” Is this how you talk to people? When you get on a bus, do you get the entire back quarter of it to yourself? Do you find people inching away from you once you start to talk to them? Do you even have friends or family that will talk to you, or do you only talk like this to strangers on the internet?
            I’m totally serious when I say this. I am really, really glad that we’re talking over the internet and that I don’t know who you are and especially glad, that you don’t know where I live or who I am, because you scare the shit out of me. You’re not playing with a full deck.

            • Ashley – You’ve proved my point exactly. Whenever you can’t or don’t want to answer a question, you try to change the subject so as to hide your inability to defend your position. In this case, it is obvious that you don’t want to answer the question because your fear its consequences.

*Insert your thought here*

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s