Is suicide always a sin?

[DionysianSmile]

Do you mean Ethical Suicide Parlors?

Hehe a suicide hostess definitely sounds better than the inhumanity of a telephone booth.

Here's my thought.... maybe there is no such thing as "sin"? I think people judge things to be right and wrong but what is exactly entailed in the idea of sin? It's seems that in most uses it has to do with a god's judgment of a person's actions (or at least appears to purport to do so in a way). Being an atheist I have trouble grasping that there is something such as sin. Sorry to derail, but I'd like deeper insight into these terms. Of course this begs other questions such as if there is sin how do we know what things a god might consider a sin, why a god would choose an action as sinful, does the idea of sin predicate itself on the concept of an afterlife. If some of the arguers don't believe that there is an afterlife then it's going to polarize the discussion to no avail.

 

[Bubbles]

Hehe a suicide hostess definitely sounds better than the inhumanity of a telephone booth.

Here's my thought.... maybe there is no such thing as "sin"? I think people judge things to be right and wrong but what is exactly entailed in the idea of sin? It's seems that in most uses it has to do with a god's judgment of a person's actions (or at least appears to purport to do so in a way). Being an atheist I have trouble grasping that there is something such as sin. Sorry to derail, but I'd like deeper insight into these terms. Of course this begs other questions such as if there is sin how do we know what things a god might consider a sin, why a god would choose an action as sinful, does the idea of sin predicate itself on the concept of an afterlife. If some of the arguers don't believe that there is an afterlife then it's going to polarize the discussion to no avail.

I guess the term 'sin' should have been defined earlier. Can it be defined in such a way that a materialist could allow its existence? I don't think so. I think this for two reasons:

1) The idea of sin requires (at least, I believe it does) the idea of an objective good. Otherwise, you can have guilt (someone else disagreeing with an actiuon of mine) or shame (me disagreeing with an action of mine), but I don't think either is sin. Sin is that for which guilt and shame are appropriate (I'm not on a topic where a discussion of forgiveness and redemption is called for). Can a materialist believe in an objective good?

2) Sin requires free will. I do not think that an action is sinful if the will did not assent. Can a materialist believe in free will?

I'll see if I can get closer to something useful. Perhaps we can think of 'sin' as being the moral equivalent of error on the intellectual level. Error is a belief that is not in accordance with reality. Sin is a choice that is not in accordance with reality.

As to how we would know what a sin is, I would offer a few thoughts:

Morallity can be seen in two ways. The first is as a series of rules. Each rules has situations when it is basically valid and basically invalid and a prescribed action. The second is to understand goodness as a unified principle. The rules would be nothing but the application of the principle to specific situations. How do we know what is and is not in accordance with reality? An insight into the nature of what is real. That insight, of course, is not guarranteed to be write (much like my insights into how words are spelled) .

Can their be sin without the afterlife? I think so. In fact, there are some who argue that the afterlife negates morality (on the belief that it is mere pragmatism if we cannot do the worst possible things and get away with it perfectly).

I do thik that sin requires an object law (in the broad sense), but I do not think it requires that we ever come to trial!

Anyway, just my thoughts. Take them or leave them as you will. . .

 

[Bubbles]

Why would anyone desire free will unless they wanted the option to make the wrong choice?

The fact is that anyone who desires free will, ENJOYS sin and doesn't regret it.
As such, there is no real way for them to repent, and thus no way for them to go to heaven.

How could anyone desire free will if they didn't already have it?

The question, seen from a religious perspective, would perhaps be: Why would anyone want someone else to have free will? You will, forgive me if I try to use as an analogy a movie that I have not (and by the grace of god will not) see: The Stepford Wives. You can see a certain attraction in replacing something free with something that you control. The wife never gets a headache, puts on a few pounds, tries to pass of brocolli as something intended for human consumption, etc. The cat never claws the couch. The kids never talk back or fail to do their chores. However, even if it is more difficult to articulate, I think we all see why we wouldn't want that. We (or at least I) really do want to be in the types of relationships that only a free (or, in the case of a pet, whatever mode of being animals have) being can have. Is it strange to say that God gave us free will because he desired the kind of relationship that he could only have with us if we were free (even though that meant the possibility of making terrible choices).

Can we not be quite happy to be free, not because we want to make wrong choices, but because we want to make right choices? Because it allows us the possibility of being in a particular kind of relationship with God and with each other?

 

[Navigator]

Greetings The Cats Venm


Congratulations! You've discovered communism.



In theory at least, too bad it doesn't work (darn human nature).

I discovered no thing. It is really just a matter of seeing the complain and offering ways to aleviate complaint.
As far as communism goes...as in what I describe = "Communism" It has yet to be truely tried then.
The countries which have and do go under the banner of communism, have not (as far as I am aware) actually put the process to practice.
Just like those who go under the banner of 'religion'
Without the actuality of putting the theory to practice, there is no way to measure if it will be successful or not.
Russian Communism imo, was really only a harsher (less concealled) form of Capitalism and class system.


While some people will buy into it, many (most?) will just coast on what they are given. The betterment of humankind simply isn't enough motivation. We are lazy at heart.

Totally a comment without scientific backing. IMO, the human condition is naturally curious and likes to give to a worthy endevour.
Individuals collectively like to be seen contributing rather than resting on their laurals...


I think most people know how to be ‘good’ and live right. Unfortunately when it comes to actually doing it, we often fail. That is why Christianity is so popular. You don’t have to BE good, you just have to be aware of your faults, say you’re sorry afterwards, and *poof*, eternal happiness is your reward.

That’s what free will is all about after all – the freedom to sin.

"Sin" is a morality issue which religion has added to it's list of things one 'should' or 'shouldn't' do with their personal 'free will'
Like the 'sin' of suicide.

What happens on the other side is pure projection and indeed (regardless of religious doctrine) is purely a personal thing to believe.
Back on this side, if you burn someone's house down, you can go to your religion of choice and fess up and be forgiven, but Ethically the buck doesn't stop there.

In the case of the society I was invisioning, the risk of having your house burned down by someone is small. This is because the reasons one might have for burning it down have also diminished.
It is also because, in that system, no one actually owns any particular house - they have the use of it for as long as they wish, and could move on to another, in some other country of place.
Therefore any potential arsonist actually commits a 'sin' against society rather than merely an individual.
As 'punishment' the offender could be required to spend a few years learning the skills associated with house building - plumbing electrics and all other things involved.
Thus, the offender would learn skills which will benefit society as a whole.

 

[Navigator]

A god that expects his follower to continue his or her life regardless of how miserable it is is an unfeeling or perhaps sadistic god that does not deserve to be worshipped.

Any god concept in which worship is required or otherwise demanded, is no god at all.

It is just a concept which traditionally is passed down through the ages, and as a concept is limiting, and even destructive.

No thing 'deserves' to be worshiped. Worship is really only a concept developed through belief in guilt and belief in unworthiness.
The worth of an individual can be measured in their positive contribution to humanity, and Ethically.
This worth of an individual can be misplaced, if indeed those who 'follow' the worthy person, also enthrone that one as being something they themsleves can never attain or equal, thus 'worship' the person or the memory of the person.
This 'worship' often distracts the worshipers from having to be like the one they have pedestalled.
"We are not worthy" is really a statement reflecting in reality "we worship you rather than live as you did"
I am thinking this in regards to common everyday Ethically motivated persons, such as Albert Einstein.
Most of us may not be his equal as far as 'brain power' however, this is no reason to pedestal such persons.

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

Whether one believes in immortality or not, Practical Ethics are not out of the range of normal human beings, and need not be motivated by human god concepts/demands in order to manifest.

"The ideals which have always shone before me and filled me with the joy of living are goodness, beauty, and truth.
To make a goal of comfort or happiness has never appealed to me; a system of ethics built on this basis would be sufficient only for a herd of cattle."

There is more depth of meaning in this quote than I care to elaborate upon at this time.
However, suffice to say, Albert is aware of Ethics based upon concepts of the joy of living in goodness, beauty and truth.
This is something which is not dependant upon outside influence, or god concepts.
It is rather how we choose (free will) to see things and how we choose to react to those things, and that the Ethics are a personal motivation/reaction rather than enforced through law or through religious god concepts.

 

[Bubbles]

A system of ethics based on 'concepts of the joy of living in goodness, beauty and truth' is a worthy thing, but what are goodness, beauty, and truth? Doesn't that just sweep metaphysical questions under the rug and pretend that they have been answered?

By the way, if you say that God gains nothing from being worshipped, I fully agree. I will say, however, that (I will assume here that Christianity is true, because the argument is easiest if I speak of one particular religion, the argument depends on it being true, and I am a Christian (might as well chear for the team that you're on) I gain a great deal by praising God. If God is worthy of such praise, then in doing so I am coming into conformity with reality. By that logic, God does not 'demand' praise for his sake, but for mine.

Of course things deserve to be worshipped. I should reverence truth, goodness, excellence wherever I find it. Now, worship should never replace action. I shouldn't admire saints so that I don't have to become one. I should admire saints AND become one!

 

[Navigator]

A system of ethics based on 'concepts of the joy of living in goodness, beauty and truth' is a worthy thing, but what are goodness, beauty, and truth? Doesn't that just sweep under the rug and pretend that they have been answered?

What do beauty goodness and truth have to do with metaphysical questions?
I think that was Alberts reasoning. As I said:

However, suffice to say, Albert is aware of Ethics based upon concepts of the joy of living in goodness, beauty and truth.
This is something which is not dependant upon outside influence, or god concepts.
It is rather how we choose (free will) to see things and how we choose to react to those things, and that the Ethics are a personal motivation/reaction rather than enforced through law or through religious god concepts.

I gain a great deal by praising God. If God is worthy of such praise, then in doing so I am coming into conformity with reality. By that logic, God does not 'demand' praise for his sake, but for mine.

If this is the only way you can be Ethical, then it is dependant upon forces outside yourself, and you worship this god in oder to connect with a natural ability latent within (Ethics).
Therefore your worship of an outside god-concept to instigate this natural ability is flawed, due to the fact that you would not consider it possible without worshiping.

However, others can and do behave Ehtically without the 'need' to worship a god.
They just 'do it'

Of course things deserve to be worshipped. I should reverence truth, goodness, excellence wherever I find it.

The danger in this reasoning is that you can be limitted as to what you percieved as being 'worthy' and it is never about worshiping truth goodness and excellence, for this can lead to not seeing these things in yourself, because you are worshiping them in other people or objects.
If you see these things in yourself, do you 'worship' them?
Yet you see them outside yourself and give worship to them.

This is inconsistent.

Now, worship should never replace action. I shouldn't admire saints so that I don't have to become one. I should admire saints AND become one!

Why limit truth goodness and excellence to 'saints'?
That is religious dogmatism, not truth.

The danger is that you will emulate only those things outside yourself which are endorced by your religion only (as with 'saints') or "Masters" -

Whatever god concept you worship, is not God,
It is more likely a very poor shadow of the real thing.

A human invention.

 

[The Cats Venm]

How could anyone desire free will if they didn't already have it?

They couldn't and because they couldn't, they would be eternally happy. Sounds like a preferable situation to me.

My point is, why would someone value free will (as many claim too), unless it was because they saw value in doing things that free will allows of them (i.e. making the wrong choice or sinning)?

Is it strange to say that God gave us free will because he desired the kind of relationship that he could only have with us if we were free (even though that meant the possibility of making terrible choices).

Can we not be quite happy to be free, not because we want to make wrong choices, but because we want to make right choices? Because it allows us the possibility of being in a particular kind of relationship with God and with each other?

So basically, what you're saying is that having the possability of bad choices (sin) is important, valuble and neccessary in order for your (and anyone elses) good choices to feel special and have value.

Taken a little further this means that god knew that there would be people he would have to make suffer eternal torment, just so that he could have a special relationship with those that chose to believe in him (despite him giving them every good reason not to).

 

[The Cats Venm]

I discovered no thing. It is really just a matter of seeing the complain and offering ways to aleviate complaint.
As far as communism goes...as in what I describe = "Communism" It has yet to be truely tried then.
The countries which have and do go under the banner of communism, have not (as far as I am aware) actually put the process to practice.
Just like those who go under the banner of 'religion'
Without the actuality of putting the theory to practice, there is no way to measure if it will be successful or not.
Russian Communism imo, was really only a harsher (less concealled) form of Capitalism and class system.

My point was simply that your idea of providing everyone with the neccesities of life so that their energy could be devoted to bettering mankind, sounded to me a lot like communism (in theory).

I agree that Russia didn't have true communism.

I think I remember hearing about a small town that tried 'true' communism and that it actuallly worked. I doubt that it could work on a large or world wide scale though (just my opinion).

Totally a comment without scientific backing. IMO, the human condition is naturally curious and likes to give to a worthy endevour.
Individuals collectively like to be seen contributing rather than resting on their laurals...

You are right. It was mearly a statement of opinion based on my personal observation, as is your statement.

I do think that most people want and try to be good (though their views of good might differ), but without suffucient motivation (survival, money, recognition) they fail in their attempts. Look at new years resolutions, people often set lofty, noble goals and a really committed at first, but somewhere along the line they loose their motivation and drop back into old habits.

When I say that most people are lasy, I am not trying to insult them or pass judgment. I am just reflecting on what I have seen in my life.

In the case of the society I was invisioning, the risk of having your house burned down by someone is small. This is because the reasons one might have for burning it down have also diminished.
It is also because, in that system, no one actually owns any particular house - they have the use of it for as long as they wish, and could move on to another, in some other country of place.
Therefore any potential arsonist actually commits a 'sin' against society rather than merely an individual.
As 'punishment' the offender could be required to spend a few years learning the skills associated with house building - plumbing electrics and all other things involved.
Thus, the offender would learn skills which will benefit society as a whole.

Yes, It all sounds good - in theory.

But how do you know the complex motivations of those who commit crimes? Would simply providing them with the neccesities of life actually do a lot to curp their criminal ways? What about people who commit crime to rebel against a world they consider boring? People who get pleasure from working agaist society?

And of those criminals who still persist, how would teaching them skills make them change their views about criminal behavior?

Also, how do you determine what is neccesary for people to live? Is a tiny box of a house sufficient shelter, or does a bigger house provide something that a small one can't?

Would their be any rewards for those who did good work (more than was asked of them)? I heard that one of the problems with Russias attempt a communism was that no one (or at least very few) strived to anything more than that which was required of them.

What about people who choose to just coast, If the costs of this plan were to exceed what it is producing, how would you get them to pull their weight?


It think the world you're envisioning sounds lovely, and I would love to live there, but I don't think it would work without a fundamental shift it the way humans behave.

 

[Navigator]

It think the world you're envisioning sounds lovely, and I would love to live there, but I don't think it would work without a fundamental shift it the way humans behave.

Of course.
A bridge of practical ideas would have to be built...but it is not impossible

What about people who choose to just coast, If the costs of this plan were to exceed what it is producing, how would you get them to pull their weight?

Explain to them that because of inactivity and commitment (personal energy resource into this collective undertaking) that food will be short this winter, and they miss out.

Seriously, this would have to be included in the overall bridge plan.
It could be accomplised with minimum disturbance to the flow of the system of things right now.
Who builds the roads the homes the power stations etc? The People do. The reward system is being overhauled 'tis all.
Rather than force taxes to upkeep, the upkeep is naturally done by those who do these things best.
Also. there are many countries who suffer crime and unemployment, which still produce surplus to requirement, even with one chunk of it's citizens either unproductive, or uncooperative.



Would their be any rewards for those who did good work (more than was asked of them)? I heard that one of the problems with Russias attempt a communism was that no one (or at least very few) strived to anything more than that which was required of them.

The rewards are food clothing and shelter (medical things inclusive.)
It is not really reward but recognition that the are everyone's birthright.
And also the recognition that in being born, you signify that you are willing to contribute to this system.
The idea of reward will fade. It will be more like a happy duty.


Also, how do you determine what is neccesary for people to live? Is a tiny box of a house sufficient shelter, or does a bigger house provide something that a small one can't?

Hmmm....Where would you like to live and what new skill would you like to learn?
Food shelter and clothing of reasonably good standard are all that most people require, as far as basic happiness goes.
Don;t limit things to how they should all look - allow for artistic flair and the fact that a house is not now needed to be lived in for the rest of your life - you are free to move on and find another house totally different - a bush hut here, a castle there....imagine.
While there, look after it as your own. Leave it as, or better than you found it



But how do you know the complex motivations of those who commit crimes? Would simply providing them with the neccesities of life actually do a lot to curp their criminal ways? What about people who commit crime to rebel against a world they consider boring? People who get pleasure from working agaist society?

Basic crime is a social disorder due to individuals thinking they have the raw end of the deal.
They allow themselve to become societies victims, and then set about taking it out on the thing they blame for their misfortune.
So in a way, providing people with the necessities will for the fiorst part, show them that they are respect merely for being born.
There is no real reason for ennui other than having nothing to do. What do the bord want to do?
For example, in this system, you might wish to learn the skills involved in total house building.
This might take five or ten years...maybe less...deepens on the individual.
Same individual might them want to learn farming, or whatever.
Not having to maintain a skill in only one area for most of ones life (just to pay the bill) signifies a chance that variation will also releive bordom.
People who get pleasure from working against society do so believing that society is their major problem, so any kind of strike against society gives them a pleasurable feeling of achivement.
It is achivement thus which really gives pleasure.


And of those criminals who still persist, how would teaching them skills make them change their views about criminal behavior?

There are exceptions to the rules, as the saying goes...like our two famous loonies who worked together in this suicide by volluntary being eaten situation.
In general, most individuals will change their views when the nature of their complaint changes.
That is to say. most crims are grumbling about getting a raw deal. Who would grumble if FC&S were given as part of the birthright of one and all?
Ultimately they cost society a lot already, and this is without any significant inroads into rehab success.
Who but humanity can create and explore and develope ethics which can free us from the burdens of our self imposed victimhood?

I say that the sensible can at least make the first steps and initiatives.

What about people who choose to just coast, If the costs of this plan were to exceed what it is producing, how would you get them to pull their weight?

We must remember that everything humans use for materials are freely avaiable from the Earth.
It is just the system of rewards and earning the right to life etc...which has placed a price on everything.
In reality, what energy does an individual have, which isnt provided freely from a natural event?
It is humans who have chosen to be the middle-men and put a price on this free energy.

 

[LostAngeles]

Why would anyone desire free will unless they wanted the option to make the wrong choice?

The fact is that anyone who desires free will, ENJOYS sin and doesn't regret it.
As such, there is no real way for them to repent, and thus no way for them to go to heaven.

Who's to say they don't want the option because they enjoy repenting? Some people enjoy being spanked for folding the laundry wrong, don't they?

I desire free will because it does give me the option to make a wrong choice. I also have the option to make that choice right.

Does that mean I enjoy sin or just the regular ups and downs of life?

 

[Bubbles]

So basically, what you're saying is that having the possability of bad choices (sin) is important, valuble and neccessary in order for your (and anyone elses) good choices to feel special and have value.

Taken a little further this means that god knew that there would be people he would have to make suffer eternal torment, just so that he could have a special relationship with those that chose to believe in him (despite him giving them every good reason not to).

You know, I wouldn't mind being accused of saying terrible things IF I ACTUALLY SAID THEM!!! It's like accusing Hitler of being a bad speaker. Can't you find things that he actually is guilty of? Its like T-Ball, people!

I am saying that there is a type of relationship that only free beings can have with one another. Of course, free beings are free not to be in relationship to one another. To use a very bad analogy, the easiest way to prevent divorce is to prevent marriage. Should we do so?

Heaven does not need hell. Because heaven cannot exist without freedom, it requires the possibility of hell. I assure you that there would be no decrease to the joy of heaven if hell was empty (spatial analogy).

If you want to talk about my beliefs as to heaven and hell (specifically what leads one to each) you may ask. Do not presume to know.

 

[Bubbles]

A system of ethics based on 'concepts of the joy of living in goodness, beauty and truth' is a worthy thing, but what are goodness, beauty, and truth? Doesn't that just sweep under the rug and pretend that they have been answered?

What do beauty goodness and truth have to do with metaphysical questions?
I think that was Alberts reasoning. As I said:



I gain a great deal by praising God. If God is worthy of such praise, then in doing so I am coming into conformity with reality. By that logic, God does not 'demand' praise for his sake, but for mine.

If this is the only way you can be Ethical, then it is dependant upon forces outside yourself, and you worship this god in oder to connect with a natural ability latent within (Ethics).
Therefore your worship of an outside god-concept to instigate this natural ability is flawed, due to the fact that you would not consider it possible without worshiping.

However, others can and do behave Ehtically without the 'need' to worship a god.
They just 'do it'

Of course things deserve to be worshipped. I should reverence truth, goodness, excellence wherever I find it.

The danger in this reasoning is that you can be limitted as to what you percieved as being 'worthy' and it is never about worshiping truth goodness and excellence, for this can lead to not seeing these things in yourself, because you are worshiping them in other people or objects.
If you see these things in yourself, do you 'worship' them?
Yet you see them outside yourself and give worship to them.

This is inconsistent.

Now, worship should never replace action. I shouldn't admire saints so that I don't have to become one. I should admire saints AND become one!

Why limit truth goodness and excellence to 'saints'?
That is religious dogmatism, not truth.

The danger is that you will emulate only those things outside yourself which are endorced by your religion only (as with 'saints') or "Masters" -

Whatever god concept you worship, is not God,
It is more likely a very poor shadow of the real thing.

A human invention.

I do so enjoy the condescending arrogance of those who confuse their opinions with facts. . .

Also, am I so bad a writer that what I say can't be understood with reasonable effort?

 

[Navigator]

I do so enjoy the condescending arrogance of those who confuse their opinions with facts. . .

That is an interesting statement.
I assume that you regard my reply as being condescending arrogance?
Well you have buttonswhich can be pushed, but I did not creat those buttons, and just because your 'truth' is not my 'truth' doen't make your 'truth' free from being able to be labbled as 'condesending arrogance' or 'a confusion of opinion with truth'

The only difference I can see, is that your 'truth' feels offended enough to point the finger of accusation at my 'truth' and call it names untruthfully.

Whereas, my 'truth' does not need to do this thing.
This is because my 'truth' is less insecure.

Show me a god concept/organisation/personality which requires or otherwise demands worship, and I will show you a false idol.

That you seem offended by this, is niether here nor their, as I did not offer opinion in order to offend anyone.

 

[The Cats Venm]

You know, I wouldn't mind being accused of saying terrible things IF I ACTUALLY SAID THEM!!!

I'm sorry if I offended you, or misrepresented your position. That was not my intention. I just wanted to find out if my understanding of your statements was correct (and perhaps lead you to a situation that would cause you to analyse them).

Heaven does not need hell. Because heaven cannot exist without freedom, it requires the possibility of hell. I assure you that there would be no decrease to the joy of heaven if hell was empty (spatial analogy).

If you want to talk about my beliefs as to heaven and hell (specifically what leads one to each) you may ask. Do not presume to know.

What I said was:
"So basically, what you're saying is that having the possibility of bad choices (sin) is important, valuable and necessary in order for your (and anyone else’s) good choices to feel special and have value."

As sin leads to hell, and good choices lead to heaven, how does this statement differ in principle to your second sentence? Do you object to the 'feel special and have value' part? Is there some simple change that would make it fit your views?

Then I said:
"Taken a little further this means that god knew that there would be people he would have to make suffer eternal torment, just so that he could have a special relationship with those that chose to believe in him (despite him giving them every good reason not to)."

First, do you believe that anyone has gone to hell? If so then presumably god would have known that as well (because he is all-knowing) even before he created anything.

Next, do you believe that those in hell suffer eternal torment? That is what I had heard, maybe you believe something else?

Then, the 'special relationship' I mention is the one you keep bringing up:

"I am saying that there is a type of relationship that only free beings can have with one another. Of course, free beings are free not to be in relationship to one another."

And do people not get in this relationship with god by believing in him?

The comment in brackets is just my opinion. was that what you objected to?

 

[crocodile deathroll]

Is Lupus Suicide?

I would like to point out a form of involuntary suicide. If our behavior is biologically determined by the chemical state of the neurons in our brains, then why wouldn't the body's own cells anywhere in the human body attacking any of the body's cells like with Lupus be also classified as a form of suicide?

Lupus is a chronic, autoimmune disease which causes inflammation of various parts of the body, especially the skin, joints, blood and kidneys. The body's immune system normally makes proteins called antibodies to protect the body against viruses, bacteria and other foreign materials. These foreign materials are called antigens. In an autoimmune disorder such as lupus, the immune system loses its ability to tell the difference between foreign substances (antigens) and its own cells and tissues. The immune system then makes antibodies directed against "self." These antibodies, called "auto-antibodies," react with the "self" antigens to form immune complexes. The immune complexes build up in the tissues and can cause inflammation, injury to tissues, and pain.

If suicide was a sin then why did "god" create this insidious disease?

CDR

 

[Radrook]

Re: Is Lupus Suicide?

I would like to point out a form of involuntary suicide. If our behavior is biologically determined by the chemical state of the neurons in our brains, then why wouldn't the body's own cells anywhere in the human body attacking any of the body's cells like with Lupus be also classified as a form of suicide?

If suicide was a sin then why did "god" create this insidious disease?

CDR

The malfunctioning of the human body is a consequence of imperfection brought about by mankind's request to try going it on its own.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Re: Re: Is Lupus Suicide?

The malfunctioning of the human body is a consequence of imperfection brought about by mankind's request to try going it on its own.

So in your worldview, because a distant ancestor wanted to "do it on their own", all subsequent humans suffer through God's passivity?

Apart from this giving a picture of a god with a very weird sense of justice, how do you conciliate this with the NT message of a forgiving god?

Hans

 

[Doctor X]

Hans:

You cannot.

By his argument, his deity is Evil.

--J.D.