How many of the 7 deadly sins does God do and is that ok with Christians?

The notion of education build on active distrust and disrespect between the teacher and the student is absurd.

And sure, people learn even in an educational environment full of egotistical power games and contempt. The question is, what is it that they learn. Power games and contempt. Not sure how conducive that is to devotional service.


And still, beating a person doesn't make them a good devotee.
A man convinced against his will is a man unconvinced still.


And you still haven't taught him how to come to terms with his innate limited nature.



But frankly, I'm not sure there's any point in talking to you about this. You appear determined to unilaterally impose yourself as a teacher - and then teach how it is wrong to desire followers (and subordinates).
"The school of hard knocks" - that's actually all about submitting to the bully ...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The notion of establishing a teacher-student relationship ... or indeed any relationship .... through the endeavors of just one person is also absurd.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Moral law and then later, the seven deadly sins of the Catholic Church, were designed to optimize the group, in terms of cohesion and resources. The seven deadly sins were not designed to optimize the individual, in the sense of the modern "me" generation. The historical past was very volatile, deprived, and violent and the group needed to stick together to move forward. They needed to avoid pitfalls which drain the group and made it vulnerable.

If we look at gluttony, modern science has proven that being obese will cause health problems, which then passes on expense to the group via higher health care costs for all. How did those religious hayseeds know this without science? One is not allowed to let the obese die of preventable diseases, even if we told them so and warned them. This law would limit group expense, but it would still impact group cohesion since all hands are needed on deck in volatile times. The group optimized solution was moderation, since this allows some pleasure, minimizes group expense, maintains warmth instead of coldness, and maintains the population.

In terms of the individual, apart from the group, many people like to pig out all day long and the social sin of gluttony puts sands in the gears of impulse. They have pleasure but guilty pleasure which is like ice cream without sprinkles. If they don't like the guilt, they may need to rationalize it away by discrediting God and the sin as backwards and unjust. In America, culture we will spend more on criminals than their victims due to the rationalization away of sin.

You can go through each deadly sin and see how the group will suffer, even if the individual is feeling optimized in the short term. I might enjoy a good session of lust, every now and then. But that blind impulse could result in me getting AIDS since I am not thinking before acting. In modern times, the high level of social expense is a result of liberalism making sin acceptable, where behavior does not optimize the group but rather it divides and parasites the group with added expense. This is why the leaders of liberalism will lie, cheat and steal and they get away with it, even though this just cost the group an enormous sum.

In a sinless culture, where the whole group is united and optimized, there is a growing pool of resources, allowing all to advance. In the old testament days, Israel was a small country yet was very united and prosperous due to group optimization. Larger cultures with more "sin" collapse when the parasite of sin becomes larger than the host such that the group dissociates.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not really. I see the world and everything in it as evolving perfection.

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

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

The thing is, we already follow what we think are ideal men. Or the ideals of men.

Any philosophy or theology or other set of laws and rules that all of us follow have been invented or thought up by men and women. You cannot say that your ideal is not man made as it definitely is and you already follow that ideal be it religious, political or a combination. As well as your own internal ideals which likely match something your learned from others.

See it?

Regards
DL

 

Wellwisher

And you conclusion as to God sinning or not?

Regards
DL

 

Yet you keep attempting it.

Moreover, you appear to favor the approach where one party unilaterally declares a relationship and the nature of it, and then expects the other person to do all the work.

 

big difference between pointing out the problems of an argument and establishing a teacher-student relationship

 

Gods Wrath would be justified, for it is his playground/sandbox/house we are all living in, and thus his rules. That, and his "wrath" has been satisfied by the blood of Christ, spilt for us so that we may be spared and enter unto heaven. All who so believe that Christ died to absolve us of our sins are granted entry, with very little exception

False - God does not destroy those who do not know Him or accept Him; rather, He pines for them, desiring they would know Him and His Son and accept the heavenly reward. He does not punish those that do not; however, until one knows God, one cannot enter Heaven. There are multiple beliefs on what happens to those that do not know/accept God, ranging from rebirth and purgatory to Hell and even total Death (as in, the spirit withers and you as a consciousness cease to exist)

It is thru God's will alone that any action can be done, for it is thru His will we are given Life. Yes, this includes both GOOD and BAD, as both play a role in His ultimate plan. Plus, I have seen prayers answered, not always in the way you would expect.

Pride itself is not a Sin per say - it is being Prideful to a fault, and not knowing Hubris, that will lead you to your downfall. In my own opinion, this one is more of a warning than a true "sin".

*tilt* I am confused... whom did God covet and/or lust? And do not confuse "lust" and "love" - you can love someone without feeling any lust.

Uhm... what? God created Man and saw that he was alone, and thus created Woman from Man's own flesh and bone. I fail to see where you would think God envied anything here?

I dunno... God must be a glutton for punishment, since he keeps all us crazy mortals around.

 

So even when God sins with wrath, you justify it, even if it is by exonerating him from having his own son brutally murdered when there was no need to. Good morals friend. Not.

That would mean that you justify your own when you use it too. Right?
Or do you use a double standard and condemn yours while exonerating his?

-----------------------------------

"False - God does not destroy those who do not know Him or accept Him;"

You say this then show how he either tortures or kills those who do not accept him. That is pure greed for all the accolades possible.

-------------------------------

You say that God wills all evil actions. I agree. That makes him quite evil so why would you adore one whom you admit does evil?

------------------------------

Though shall place no God's above me is a great show of pride and envy.

-------------------------------

"*tilt* I am confused... whom did God covet and/or lust?".

Mary. Another man's woman. Then God became a deadbeat dad. Not quite a good moral example that.

Regards
DL

 

Only in secular books on critical thinking.

In real life - in the actual experience of real people, even if it is from an online conversation - things are usually taken a lot more personally.

One thing I've learned over the years is that it is all too easy to underestimate the delicacy and size of people's egos, and to underestimate how easily people feel threatened by all kinds of things, including by critical thinking.

Philosophical types of people are prone to such underestimations. Which is probably one factor why people in general dislike philosophy.

Hey, even you don't like it when a problem in your argument is pointed out!

 

So now I can confidently remind you to stop pissing on me while positing as a teacher?

 

So if you own somebody or that someone is completely dependent upon you for food/clothing/housing, you are completely justified in making up rules with no explanation about the reasons behind them and can wield violence and even death upon those you control? Apparently, Larry and Carri Williams shouldn't have been guilty of murder (unjustified killing) since it was their home and the killing was "justified". MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

Oh, wait, the Williams are subordinate to Washington state, so it's Washington state that makes the meta-rules and doles out the meta-punishments. And from there we can climb up the ranks to the federal government, etc. Since God has nothing above Him, He makes rules-to-rule-all-rules and deals out the punishments-to-usurp-all-punishments (in mysterious ways and for unexplained reasons). MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

Screw all that BS about "basic human rights" and "empathy" and "the Golden Rule". Slaves and small children should just shut up and take their whippings until they're dead or a higher power in the totem pole deigns to impose a conflicting meta-ruling. Good morals are apparently not "good" because they result in better overall outcomes or reduce suffering or take into account intent, but because God either deems them "good" or is silent on the matter (thus letting those next, or next-next, etc. in power to determine the "goodness"). Explaining why a rule is "good" by pointing out the benefits of the rule is just unnecessary window-dressing. The suffering of the less-powerful is negligible. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

Tyrants are only evil when a greater power/force take them down, but until that time they are morally GOOD no matter what they do. What the Williams did was good and justified up until the more powerful Washington state deemed what they did was bad. The Williams are probably praying for God to weigh in and overturn Washington state's ruling. The Williams may have already "heard" from God and are just waiting to naturally leave this world and go to heaven. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

That's how what's "good" is determined, right?

Why do some people pray to God to help save a loved one's life if He already has an "ultimate plan" in place? I can understand praying to God in order to determine what the prayer (the one who prays) should decide to do, but I don't get the ones that beg for God to alter His predetermined plan for the prayer's benefit.

Oh, and I've seen the meme about the answer to prayers sometimes being "NO" (or, "Wait for it"), so technically speaking there is no way a prayer can go "unanswered" anyway.

I agree with you on this one. It's confusing that "greed", "lust", "gluttony", and "envy" can all have similar connotations to each other in the English language depending on framing.

Wasn't there something about God being a jealous God and not allowing to have any other gods above Him...? Meh.

 

There you go! You should be free to allow yourself the luxury of a wounded ego, while the rest of us should be robust and magnanimous no matter what!

I suspect you're not as advanced as your otherwise self-assured tone of having insight into God's will would give reason to believe.

 

It's more that your standards of advancement (namely the ability to discuss things without having recourse to chastisement) are fanciful since not even you can be obedient to it.
Actually it's a cliche of saintliness : to be an ambivalent personality who simply smiles and says vague things so as not to offend the world view of anyone. Needless to say, you can't justify such an idea through scripture or through the example of the lives of great personalities who have successfully raised the bar on the standard of
religious practice in the lives of tens of thousands of people who otherwise had no previous higher mode of existence than adopting solutions to problems that are more painful and entangling than the problems themselves.

Iow all you are doing is advocating an impractical standard of saintliness popular amongst people who want to relegate them to uselessness ... even though you find it impossible to stabilize on the said platform.
Usually people try to get around this by saying they are not such great saints (despite the absence of any Great saints behaving in such A useless manner) so they have a legitimate excuse for not behaving in such a way that is plainly useless.

 

Strawman.

Shame on you.

 

One thing that apparently just won't go into your head is that there is something wrong with unilaterally imposing oneself as a teacher.
You yourself see how much you resent it when it is done to you - when someone imposes themselves as a teacher on you. You feel pissed on.
But when you do it to others, you seem to think others should accept it and welcome it as the best thing that has ever happened to them.

I've never spoken out against chastisement per se. That I have done so is just your fanciful imagination; in fact, several liberals here have me on their blacklist because of my selective approval of chastisement.

But I sometimes speak out against imposing oneself as a teacher.
You seem to be so strongly attached to your particular didactic model that you seem to be unable to even conceive of there being other ways of doing things.

 

Once again, if there exists a manner to discuss ideas without imposing one's self, we don't see it in your actions.
:shrug:

 

I am reflecting your approach back to you. And you don't like it. That ought to give you an idea of how other people may experience your approach.

It appears that your primary intention is that things be done your way, and not that people learn what you have to teach them.

The simple fact of the matter - and you can now personally attest to it - is that teaching people in a way that hurts their feelings, challenges their worldview usually leads to people _not_ learning whatever it is that the teacher wishes to teach them.

In order for people to learn, to even just acknowledge a flaw in their reasoning, it is necessary that they be in a mental state where they are able and willing to do so. For the most part, this means they must feel safe and comfortable enough.

Many people, including theists for their evangelizing, use a direct, confrontational approach. Yet such an approach has a poor track record - while it indeed forces people to comply, it also makes them afraid and unwilling, and more likely to give up.

As an alternative, an approach like motivational interviewing is more effective, more realistic, in that it is less threatening and focuses on what the other person is currently capable of, not what they should be capable of. Of course, it also requires more effort and goodwill on the part of the counselor. But anyone who truly wishes that other people would change in a particular way, is willing to invest that.


I have so far given you the credit that you know better, that your approach is superior. This is why I used your apporach. Even if to me, it seemed mostly unproductive. But I've nevertheless given you the credit. You and many other theists.

But, as you can see, it's an approach that just doesn't produce the results you desire - ie., that other people would change. It certainly satisfies your desire that things be done your way, but beyond that, it's not productive.

 

As non-theists, we are entitled to have sky-high expectations for theists, esp. those theists who claim to be God's representatives.

 

once again, if you demand this as the standard, we don't see it exemplified in your actions
:shrug: