Biblical view-
Man was created innocent in the garden. Then there was the fall with the disobedience. This is a fall into evil and as evil we are destined to Hell if no change occurs as God is perfect and evil cannot exist in his presence. The change is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as God Son, sent as a sacrificial lamb who lived the perfect life died and rose again conquering death. If this redemption is accepted then man can change into the redeemed who is destined for another change into a being in heaven. However just because man has been redeemed does not mean he has be rid his sinful nature from the fall. This is what creates the Cosmic Battle Within. On one side of the ring is sinful nature in the other corner is the sprit that enters us at the point of redemption. Therefore the redeemed are not absolved of responsibility of sin, in fact it becomes harder.
World View-
There is nothing outside of the “box” it is just what we can sense, there is no true god. Naturalistic Philosophy implications, if man is but a material beast, having nothing beyond the evolutionary cosmic particles, then we must conclude about man that he has no purpose beyond himself and can have no meaning in life. He can have no free will, there is nothing beyond the grave and he cannot be basically good as what he is made of is the same as whatever he would call bad, so he is just as much good as bad. No free will. We are just as much human as pig, as ant, as dog.
“As far as I know we just don’t have any intrinsic instincts for evil.”- Abraham Maslow. So where does evil come from? He admits that it exists but contradicts himself in that we come from evil yet we have no “intrinsic instincts”. Maslow says less than 2% of the population will become self actualized. That is a good thing. As humans are naturally evil if they base their lives off their inner motivations they are going to do some bad things. Basic question that only biblical view can answer is “where does evil come from?”.
Pernicious lie of our society- Follow own needs, it is all about me, I am basically good so what is the harm in doing what I want.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am not her to aruge with you, but i do not see babies going around causing mass chaos. If man was intrinsictly evil, than wouldn't evil be the normal because every other intrinisct insinct is found in the majority of the population. And if evil does exist in all of us, then why did God give us a free will, a free will that would ulitmatley give in to the temptation and do what is wrong. We are not the sins of our fathers, Adam does not determine our fates, we as humans determine whether or not the sun sets tonight, we as humans have determined that it will, and so it does, if we said that it did not set, then it did not. I will be quite happy to argue this with you, just not in person because that would get quite infuriating with the hand guestures.
ReplyDeletehaha hand guestures haha that is about all that I can see to agree with you on haha. As for babies going around causing mass chaos, they would if they had the means, are babies not at the most selfish of any stage in human development???? A babies sole purpose everyday is competely self centered, they do not care what harm it causes others, so long as their needs are meet, so long story short babies help prove sin nature. I should have first clairfied Sin=Evil and Evil=Selfishnes. so with those deffinitions out of the way, shall move on the the aspect of free will and God. God gave us free will to choose adam and eve choose disobidence out of selfishness therefore choosing evil. so why did we get a free will, simple who wants robots, would you rather have a kid that is your own who chooses to love you or a robot who you program to do what you want. so that is why He gave us free will. as for it being passed on, that was a consequence of the sin, that all their childern would bear the weight of their sin, its in Genesis. And i completely disagree with you on "we as humans determine whether or not the sun sets tonight". how bout you keep the sun from setting tommrow then i will belive you, one problem you cant. now please dont use the linguistincs argument words just describe what we see obvioulsy we can change the name for things, but we cant change the things. now i guess you could shoot a nuke at the sun and blow it up but thats just dumb. but your point is the control humans have right? and in the things that give them "control" actualy loose control. continuing with the nukes, they have given governments less control than anything. and if evil doesnt come from within humans naturaly where does it come from??? cause u must admit that it exist. surely you are not that ignorant, you are a smart guy.
ReplyDeleteThere comes a point in every one of Paul's friends' lives when they have step back and think to themselves: "Paul kills every argument you even brush upon so why do I even bother with the argument in the first place?" Haha but really man, I see your argument but there are simply some things that society has taken the origin of for granted. This is true for evil which you have discussed. I personally believe that evil is an inherent human trait inescapable but able to be fought using the right resources. Society on the other hand may not always agree. Evil may simply be a part of life. Evil will always exist whenever more than one person is present and perhaps the evil comes into play when the two meet. You could say the evil is from within them from the result of differing opinions but can you expect every human you interact with to have the exact same mindset as you do? I may have proved your point haha but all I'm trying to say is that it is not always completely wrong to take up a worldly point of view for the sake of discussion and leave the personal beliefs to the private discussions
ReplyDelete"evil is an inherent human trait inescapable but able to be fought using the right resources." i agree with this statement it is what i was saying. as for what point of view i take, why would i not bring in my personal beliefs. it is imposssible not to, that seems utterly ludacris.
ReplyDelete