Is God able to sin?

[sferrari17]

So, I was reading the atheist/agnosticism board, and one of the topics brought this question up. 

Is God incapable of sinning, or does he merely choose not to?

Maybe the real question is, does it make a difference either way?

[Acumen]

So, I was reading the atheist/agnosticism board, and one of the topics brought this question up. 

Is God incapable of sinning, or does he merely choose not to?

Maybe the real question is, does it make a difference either way?

Philosophically, I lean toward the point that God cannot sin, rather than He simply chooses not to sin.  The OT says that God "does not" lie.  And the NT goes further and says that it's impossible for God to lie.

My conclusion is that God cannot sin.  If God chose to do something, it is automatically a good act based upon His perfection. 

[sferrari17]

That's kinda what I thought as well.  However, just for the sake of argument, let's say that he can sin, but chooses not to.  Does that have any significance?

[Acumen]

That's kinda what I thought as well.  However, just for the sake of argument, let's say that he can sin, but chooses not to.  Does that have any significance?

Yes, such an ability strips Him of His perfection, and it forces Him to deal with an external moral criteria.  Hence the platonic question, "is goodness loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because the gods love it."  I tend to go with the latter because such a moral criteria is within God's being and nature, not external to it. 

[sferrari17]

Very good point.  It only makes since that something is good because it is like god.  Because he is a good god, he can't be anything other than good, because he can't be something other than himself.

[jacknky]

I don't think it matters. if theists decide their god can sin then their god can sin. if they decide their god can't sin then their god can't sin. Gods are intellectual constructs that humans create. It's fun to argue those different conceptions though, isn't it?

[Acumen]

I don't think it matters. if theists decide their god can sin then their god can sin. if they decide their god can't sin then their god can't sin. Gods are intellectual constructs that humans create. It's fun to argue those different conceptions though, isn't it?

Oh but it does matter if God can sin on many different theological levels - some of which are fairly important in terms of reliability, human salvation, and divine perfection.  If God can sin, then He isn't perfect.  If He isn't perfect, then He can fail.  If He can fail, the it questions how dependable He is, if He can be trusted, if He is worthy of sacrificial love, and if we are simply better off without Him.

Concerning intellectual constructs, I'm not sure what your point is.  Everything we conceptualize is an intellectual construct. 

[jacknky]

"If He can fail, the it questions how dependable He is, if He can be trusted, if He is worthy of sacrificial love, and if we are simply better off without Him.

Concerning intellectual constructs, I'm not sure what your point is.  Everything we conceptualize is an intellectual construct."

So, and I don't mean this as facetitiously as it sounds but I don't know how else to make the point, you Christians decide the nature of God and then believe it. i say that because there is nothing in the natural world to indicate the true nature of god so we are left with total mental conceptions. I think you should conceive of God as trustworthy.

In this sense I mean that religious conceptions are totally created in our minds. There is nothing in the natural world to tell us. That's one of the unique aspects of religion. It requires no justification in the natural world. Religious belief can be anything the mind conceives. In the rest of the world we are generally required to label conjecture clearly as conjecture and even then attempts are made to "prove" the conjecture. Darwin and others develop[ed the Theory of Evolution but they have found a lot on natural indicators that the theory is essentially correct.

But not in the faith world. In the faith world we can conceive of anything and it doesn't have to be justified in the real world. These conceptions can be believed so strongly it is almost impossible for the believer to tell belief from fact.

I remember a few years back there was a cult that believed there was a flying saucer on the other side of a comet approaching the earth. These folks believed that so strongly they killed themselves to free their souls to join the saucer. I realize most Christians aren't that gullible and while that is an extreme example of belief the principle is the same. In fact, that cult's faith was indeed very strong, strong enough to give up their lives, strong enough not to be able to distinguish belief from fact.

My point is that there are dangers when faith is ungrounded in the real world.

[sferrari17]

It is far more dangerous to ground all your beliefs in the 'real world'.

[jacknky]

"It is far more dangerous to ground all your beliefs in the 'real world'."

Okkaayyy...

care to tell me how?

[sferrari17]

if you place your faith in yourself and in things as you perceive them, you will ultimately fail. 

[jacknky]

"if you place your faith in yourself and in things as you perceive them, you will ultimately fail."

And you know this how?

"Fail" is such a black-and-white term. We all "fail" in that things don't always work out the way we plan or would like. But if we learn from our failures have we really failed? If you constantly sit in a room and never attempt anything is that success? You won't "fail" but have you grown?

And of course we ALL place our "faith" in our perception and ourselves. Theists willingly give up some of their reason to a Holy Book but it is their own perception that allows them to prioritize faith over reason. I grant you that doing so too much can stunt their ability to reason but that's another discussion.

[jacknky]

"So, this notion that we have mentally constructed this concept of a God not based upon anything in nature is a load of garbage, from our perspective, because we experience Him in nature everyday."

I understand, except for the "garbage" part.

[jacknky]

"I would love to hear one thing that I believe in that is not based on reason."

That you can "prove" the existence of the supernatural.

Now, you need to understand when I say "reason" I'm assuming a "reason" based on observation of the external world, not simply what we can conceive within our minds. I realize your proof is "reasonable" if we accept your assumption but those are very, very big and unverifiable assumptions.

[Acumen]

"So, this notion that we have mentally constructed this concept of a God not based upon anything in nature is a load of garbage, from our perspective, because we experience Him in nature everyday."

I understand, except for the "garbage" part.

Everyday we hear people tell us that our experiences aren't real.  You have no idea what I, or any other Christian, experience on a daily basis.  You take your limited experiences not based in anything truly spiritual, and you extrapolate that since you did not experience the divine in any way, then neither can anyone else.  That's the garbage part I'm speaking of, Jack.

[jacknky]

"Everyday we hear people tell us that our experiences aren't real.  You have no idea what I, or any other Christian, experience on a daily basis.  You take your limited experiences not based in anything truly spiritual, and you extrapolate that since you did not experience the divine in any way, then neither can anyone else.  That's the garbage part I'm speaking of, Jack."

I try to explain what's real to me just as you try to explain what's real to you. It's my understanding that's what dialogue is about. Am I wrong?

Does labeling belief statements as "garbage" improve dialogue?

Is this particular board intended to be a place for debate and questioning, not simply agreement and validation between Christians?

You are, as is true with most paradoxes, both right and wrong about my limited experiences of the "divine". I am a fellow human being and share much of the human experience with believers. I feel pain, I suffer, I fear death and long for certainty. I seek truth and wisdom, to me a truer definition of "spiritual" than the easy acceptance of the supernatural. It is most certainly not because I don't wrestle with these human issues that I don't agree with your conclusions, just as other believers in the divine may not totally agree with you either.

Perhaps we could think of it as an inquiry or practice to learn to speak to those we disagree with in a respectful way. I'm trying although, like you, I slip up sometimes. I try not to be personal in my musings about the nature of belief and non-belief. I also realize that my expressions of non-belief can seem hostile sometimes to some believers and for that I apologize. I'm trying to find more neutral language but I can only go so far because it is what it is.

Peace.

[Acumen]

"Everyday we hear people tell us that our experiences aren't real.  You have no idea what I, or any other Christian, experience on a daily basis.  You take your limited experiences not based in anything truly spiritual, and you extrapolate that since you did not experience the divine in any way, then neither can anyone else.  That's the garbage part I'm speaking of, Jack."

I try to explain what's real to me just as you try to explain what's real to you. It's my understanding that's what dialogue is about. Am I wrong?

That's not what you're doing.  You're trying to explain what is real for everyone, not just yourself.  I'm not saying you're wrong because there is always a chance people are mistaken, but keep in mind you are not just using your limited experience as a reservoir of truth, but you are using your lack of experience with the divine to counter the experience of others with the divine.  I would come up with a nice analogy for this point, but I'm just feeling too lazy right now. 

Does labeling belief statements as "garbage" improve dialogue?

You're right, I shouldn't have.  I apologize.

Is this particular board intended to be a place for debate and questioning, not simply agreement and validation between Christians?

Yes, it is.  However, it is one thing to debate interpretations of scripture based upon exegesis and quite another to doubt the experiences of another based upon one's lack of such experiences.

You are, as is true with most paradoxes, both right and wrong about my limited experiences of the "divine". I am a fellow human being and share much of the human experience with believers. I feel pain, I suffer, I fear death and long for certainty. I seek truth and wisdom, to me a truer definition of "spiritual" than the easy acceptance of the supernatural. It is most certainly not because I don't wrestle with these human issues that I don't agree with your conclusions, just as other believers in the divine may not totally agree with you either.

We will undoubtedly disagree about what is spiritual.  Spiritual, for Christians, is an involvement or participation in the divine.  As long as you haven't had this experience, it will be difficult for you to reject the legitimacy of ours'.

Perhaps we could think of it as an inquiry or practice to learn to speak to those we disagree with in a respectful way. I'm trying although, like you, I slip up sometimes. I try not to be personal in my musings about the nature of belief and non-belief. I also realize that my expressions of non-belief can seem hostile sometimes to some believers and for that I apologize. I'm trying to find more neutral language but I can only go so far because it is what it is.

Peace.

I agree.  The purpose of this forum is civil discussion with mutual respect for each other.  Civility is key.  And although some of us slip from time to time, this forum will never amount to anything important if posters continue to post in a rude or disrespectful manner.

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"That's not what you're doing.  You're trying to explain what is real for everyone, not just yourself."

This seems a fine point. Like just everyone else here, I do extrapolate my knowledge, experience and values to the world around me. Would you please show me a poster who doesn't? And if we didn't ground our discussion in the world around us I think the discussion would be totally empty intellectual rhetoric and mental machinations.

"You're right, I shouldn't have.  I apologize."

Thank you. I know your goal is not necessarily to impress me but I find apologies more hopeful than the most well-thought out arguments.

Quote
Is this particular board intended to be a place for debate and questioning, not simply agreement and validation between Christians?

Yes, it is.  However, it is one thing to debate interpretations of scripture based upon exegesis and quite another to doubt the experiences of another based upon one's lack of such experiences.

The description of this board reads "A place to challenge, critique, and debate the merits of Christianity." If the intent is to limit discussion to Christian exegesis then I wish the description would be changed so the rest of us could understand that.

We will undoubtedly disagree about what is spiritual.  Spiritual, for Christians, is an involvement or participation in the divine.  As long as you haven't had this experience, it will be difficult for you to reject the legitimacy of ours'.

I understand the Christian version of "spiritual". I also understand that nothing is real if we haven't experienced it. But we do have many shared experiences as human beings and I would hope that gives us enough commonality to swap ideas. Perhaps a role of non-believers is to challenge the faith of believers. Is not unchallenged faith shallow?

[Acumen]

Acumen,
"That's not what you're doing.  You're trying to explain what is real for everyone, not just yourself."

This seems a fine point. Like just everyone else here, I do extrapolate my knowledge, experience and values to the world around me. Would you please show me a poster who doesn't? And if we didn't ground our discussion in the world around us I think the discussion would be totally empty intellectual rhetoric and mental machinations.

Right, I understand that.  I just see an inconsistency when a relativist extrapolates from their limited experiences what is true for others.  I do it all the time, but then again, I'm not a relativist.

Quote
Is this particular board intended to be a place for debate and questioning, not simply agreement and validation between Christians?

Yes, it is.  However, it is one thing to debate interpretations of scripture based upon exegesis and quite another to doubt the experiences of another based upon one's lack of such experiences.

The description of this board reads "A place to challenge, critique, and debate the merits of Christianity." If the intent is to limit discussion to Christian exegesis then I wish the description would be changed so the rest of us could understand that.

I'm sure you know that the heading of this board is correct, and that this isn't place limited to Christian exegesis.  My only point is that, at least with Christian exegesis, there is something to debate.  We can debate the meaning of words, historical and textual context, and an author's intent.  However, when it comes to using one's lack of experience to judge the presence of someone else's experience, it sort of ends the debate rather immediately.

[jacknky]

"I just see an inconsistency when a relativist extrapolates from their limited experiences what is true for others.  I do it all the time, but then again, I'm not a relativist."

I'm a relative relativist which means there are some absolutes. For example, I think it's absolutely true that everything changes including religious beliefs.

I'm sure you know that the heading of this board is correct, and that this isn't place limited to Christian exegesis.  My only point is that, at least with Christian exegesis, there is something to debate.  We can debate the meaning of words, historical and textual context, and an author's intent.  However, when it comes to using one's lack of experience to judge the presence of someone else's experience, it sort of ends the debate rather immediately.

Methinks I am being pidgeon-holed a bit here as one who "lacks experience" in Christian spirituality in order to shut me up. Perhaps a truer statement might be that I lack experience coming to the same conclusions you have as I have wrestled with these issues all my too-long life, perhaps more than some for whom the conclusions come easily. Even among believers "spirituality" takes many forms and I submit that coming to conclusions other than those perpetuated by mainstream Christian organizations are valid, at least for discussion.

Or is your belief so narrow it can only be discussed and explained to those in complete agreement? I personally don't have much sympathy as I am constantly having to explain and defend my beliefs to theist doubters. justifying oneself comes with the territory for those who stray from the mainstream.

Perhaps explaining would be a good exercise for mainstream believers as well. Again, how deep can the un-questioned and un-examined belief be? If unquestioned agreement of assumptions is what one is after then why come here? Go to Sunday School and validate one another.