two choices

[Frank Merton]

There is no sin; it's a psychological trick to keep you believing. Once you realize how absurd the idea is you will be free. What there is is doing harm to others, and that is to be avoided and corrected when necessary. That is all.

[Ben Masada]

There is no sin; it's a psychological trick to keep you believing. Once you realize how absurd the idea is you will be free. What there is is doing harm to others, and that is to be avoided and corrected when necessary. That is all.

What I have told you above is that sin is a transgression of the law. Since you can't take my word for it, try to cross an intersection cross road under the red light signal and you will understand what I mean by a sin against the law.

[Frank Merton]

What law? If God made the law, can He break it? If He can't, it's above Him, if He can He isn't much of a lawgiver.

[Frank Merton]

Being stupid is not a sin. What about the poor dope who crosses the street not knowing about the law? He's just as dead.

If breaking the law is a sin, what if it is an evil law?

[Ben Masada]

What law? If God made the law, can He break it? If He can't, it's above Him, if He can He isn't much of a lawgiver.

The Law is not given for God to break it but for you to keep it. God does not need laws. We do.

[Frank Merton]

The Law is not given for God to break it but for you to keep it. God does not need laws. We do.

Ah don't answer then, just invent slogans. You have no comprehension of my question, do you?

[Ben Masada]

Ah don't answer then, just invent slogans. You have no comprehension of my question, do you?

No offense meant Frank, but your question does not make sense to be given a different answer. How could God break a law that was not for Him to keep but for us?

[Frank Merton]

What I asked you is the first question of ethics, and you don't understand it. You have no business pontificating about God's law.

[Ben Masada]

What I asked you is the first question of ethics, and you don't understand it. You have no business pontificating about God's law.

Are you sure? In fact, God's Law is my business. It was given to the Jews and no one better than a Jew would classify.

[Mr Walker]

One way to approach the question of the existence of God (an omnipotent, omnibeneficient, caring being) is to ask what sort of universe we would expect if He were its creator, and compare that to what we find.

Of course god is not necessarily either the creator of the universe; nor omniscient omnipotent or omnibeneficient. I mean really where is the logic pr likelihood in that sort of theology.?

That one form of god is a fairly recent concept, begining in judaism some 5000 or so years ago, and continuing in christianity and in islam. But many people know of god, or know god, without thinking of it as a being with any of these qualities. And that is how humans saw god (s) for most of huma history. it is impossible for a real physical entity to be any of those things except possibly, if it chooses, omni beficient; because that quality is a choice available to all sentient beings.

[Frank Merton]

When you redefine God that way we are all God, indeed, everything sentient is God. That kinda defeats the idea.

[Mr Walker]

There is no sin; it's a psychological trick to keep you believing. Once you realize how absurd the idea is you will be free. What there is is doing harm to others, and that is to be avoided and corrected when necessary. That is all.

There is no psychological trickery about humans failing to fulfil their potential, or to fail to follow human rules and laws. To fail at this, because we chose not to try, is the true sin of humanity.

But of course we may never reach our full potential; yet aiming for a bullseye we will get closer, than if we never practice aiming for the bull at all. The purpose of any law, is that of the bulls eye or other mark in archery; to give us a target at which to aim Without the laws we have no goal/ target or point of aim. We can never improve our accuracy in following the laws, or in improving our potential, if we have no mark set to aim at; which we may fall short of, but which gives us a measuring stick, a goal and a purpose in anything..

[Ben Masada]

Of course god is not necessarily either the creator of the universe; nor omniscient omnipotent or omnibeneficient. I mean really where is the logic pr likelihood in that sort of theology.?

That one form of god is a fairly recent concept, begining in judaism some 5000 or so years ago, and continuing in christianity and in islam. But many people know of god, or know god, without thinking of it as a being with any of these qualities. And that is how humans saw god (s) for most of huma history. it is impossible for a real physical entity to be any of those things except possibly, if it chooses, omni beficient; because that quality is a choice available to all sentient beings.

Tell me Mr. Walker, If God was not the Creator of the universe could the universe have created itself? Impossible and I am sure you know it. For the universe to have created itself, it had to exist and then it did not have to create itself because it already existed. The fact is that the universe exists and the Primal Creator is not only implied but obvious. Can you refute that proposition?

Edited October 7, 2013 by Ben Masada

[Frank Merton]

There are constructive, helpful acts and there are harmful, destructive acts. What is what depends on circumstances. We do not say a volcano killing thousands is sinning, but we do say what it is doing is, at least short-term, not helpful. We need to see human acts in the same non-judgmental way, dealing with it as we must but not getting mired in religious superstition about it,

[Leonardo]

What do you have to substantiate your doubt for the existence of God? "If that even exists" as a reference to God only conveys the opinion of a moderate atheist.

And you would be wrong. There is no dichotomy of "theist vs atheist" necessary to envisage someone who can ask the question "Does God exist?" without being either.

If God does not exist who gave origin to the universe considering that it could not have created itself? Would you care to answer that question?

Just as you might believe God is eternal, others might also believe the universe is eternal. Neither belief is wrong just as neither can be proven right. The only grace (pun intended) of believing the universe is eternal is it introduces simplicity, as God no longer becomes necessary to create it.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Leonardo

[Frank Merton]

Tell me Mr. Walker, If God was not the Creator of the universe could the universe have created itself? Impossible and I am sure you know it. For the universe to have

created itself, it had to exist and then it did not have to create itself because it already existed. The fact is that the universe exists and the Primal Creator is not only implied but obvious. Can you refute that proposition?

What created God? If nothing can create itself, what created God?

[Leonardo]

The Biblical definition does not state that sin is a transgression of God's Law but of the law period.

Semantics. According to the bible the only Law was God's law - handed down to humanity. The only reference the bible makes to a law which might not be considered of divine origin, are passages such as Matthew 22:21 "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

But in none of these passages is any non-compliance with the "rendering unto Caesar" identified with "sin". That is reserved for trangresssions against God's law (the Will of God).

[Frank Merton]

I asked what if the law (if transgression of any law is a sin) is an evil law? What if the law says I must report to the authorities any Jews hiding in my neighborhood?

[Leonardo]

Tell me Mr. Walker, If God was not the Creator of the universe could the universe have created itself? Impossible and I am sure you know it. For the universe to have created itself, it had to exist and then it did not have to create itself because it already existed. The fact is that the universe exists and the Primal Creator is not only implied but obvious. Can you refute that proposition?

That proposition assumes that something which exists, must be created. It also assumes that something which exists (the Primal Creator), was not created. The two fundamental assumptions of that proposition are contradictory and mutually exclusive. It is not a logical proposition and therefore is refuted by that.

[Ben Masada]

There are constructive, helpful acts and there are harmful, destructive acts. What is what depends on circumstances. We do not say a volcano killing thousands is sinning, but we do say what it is doing is, at least short-term, not helpful. We need to see human acts in the same non-judgmental way, dealing with it as we must but not getting mired in religious superstition about it,

Man is responsible for not only personal active actions but also for the passive way to suffer them. Taking for example your mention above of "a volcano killing thousands". Especially now at the 21st Century our intellect has developed enough to know the damage volcano eruptions can cause to neighboring dwellers. They are natural events that can be called catastrophic only if human casualties happen. Therefore, humans suffer for being on the wrong place at the wrong time and God has nothing to do with natural events of nature. In other words: Our fault for being in there.

[Leonardo]

Man is responsible for not only personal active actions but also for the passive way to suffer them. Taking for example your mention above of "a volcano killing thousands". Especially now at the 21st Century our intellect has developed enough to know the damage volcano eruptions can cause to neighboring dwellers. They are natural events that can be called catastrophic only if human casualties happen. Therefore, humans suffer for being on the wrong place at the wrong time and God has nothing to do with natural events of nature. In other words: Our fault for being in there.

Even though the land in proximity to volcanoes is more fertile than land elsewhere, and so a much more preferable place to settle and farm? And is not the biblical imperative to "be fruitful and multiply" a command to make use of those fertile areas of land to ensure fruitfulness and maximise our potential to multiply?

Why would God make land that is dangerous to settle, the most productive to settle if God wanted humanity to multiply and be fruitful as a primary imperative?

[Ben Masada]

And you would be wrong. There is no dichotomy of "theist vs atheist" necessary to envisage someone who can ask the question "Does God exist?" without being either.

Just as you might believe God is eternal, others might also believe the universe is eternal. Neither belief is wrong just as neither can be proven right. The only grace (pun intended) of believing the universe is eternal is it introduces simplicity, as God no longer becomes necessary to create it.

The words theist and atheists have been coined and I was not the one who did it. So that will take care of that issue. Now, it is only natural that one should ask if God exists or not but to assert that God does not exist is an atheistic foolish assertion. At least the concept of probability could be mentioned.

Matter cannot be eternal and that's not a theory but a fact proved by everyday life. The universe is composed of matter. Matter has an age to it. Any time before that age it did not exist. Therefore the universe had a beginning and could not be eternal. Let us assume you are a 40 years old person. Where were you 45 years ago? You did not exist. That's a crude example that the universe could not be eternal.

[Leonardo]

The words theist and atheists have been coined and I was not the one who did it. So that will take care of that issue. Now, it is only natural that one should ask if God exists or not but to assert that God does not exist is an atheistic foolish assertion. At least the concept of probability could be mentioned.

You do not see the point I am making. There are not only theists and atheists in this world. And I never asserted "God does not exist", I merely posited God might not exist.

Matter cannot be eternal and that's not a theory but a fact proved by everyday life. The universe is composed of matter. Matter has an age to it. Any time before that age it did not exist. Therefore the universe had a beginning and could not be eternal. Let us assume you are a 40 years old person. Where were you 45 years ago? You did not exist. That's a crude example that the universe could not be eternal.

Proton decay has never been experimentally observed, therefore protons are - at least until shown otherwise - eternal. Science's various theories of Grand Unification demand that proton decay must occur, but the inability to show this happens is a serious issue for those Theories.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Leonardo

[Ben Masada]

What created God? If nothing can create itself, what created God?

If there was a creator for the Creator the Creator would not be the Creator but a creature. Since you cannot elongate this chain indefinitely, there must have been the Creator Who gave origin to all Creation. And by the way, He has never ceased creating as Einstein in response to a question if he believed in the Creator, his answer was that all his life was trying to catch the Creator at His work of Creation. He meant by that the continuous involvement of the Creator in the expansion of the universe. That's from his book, "Out of My Later Years."

Edited October 7, 2013 by Ben Masada

[Frank Merton]

You don't get it do you? The question is rhetorical. If you assert the Universe had to have a creator, then I have every right to assert the creator also had to have a creator.