Let's Talk About Sin

[Vol8188]

In order to participate in a debate one must first be able to deliberate, discuss, and/or dispute various facts and opposing points of view.

As pointed out previously (and correctly), you have done none of the above but rather would prefer to mock and post quips.

Props to OrangeCrush and Roustabout for taking the time to address legitimate questions and alternate points of view with reasoned, factual, and diplomatic responses. I, for one, have enjoyed reading much of the content in this thread.

You're impressed at their ability to ask "why is murder wrong"?

And to justify gods actions by stating "morality comes from god, therefore god cannot be immoral"? I'm not impressed.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

You're impressed at their ability to ask "why is murder wrong"?

And to justify gods actions by stating "morality comes from god, therefore god cannot be immoral"? I'm not impressed.

:whistling: Waiting for you to make a point in this thread which by on all accounts you apparently cannot do so.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You're impressed at their ability to ask "why is murder wrong"?

And to justify gods actions by stating "morality comes from god, therefore god cannot be immoral"? I'm not impressed.

It's telling that you misstated and misrepresented my points the first time. It's an indictment that you just repeated the infraction after I pointed it out the first time.

 

[Vol8188]

It's telling that you misstated and misrepresented my points the first time. It's an indictment that you just repeated the infraction after I pointed it out the first time.

Please clarify then. Where am I mistaken?

 

[Vol8188]

:whistling: Waiting for you to make a point in this thread which by on all accounts you apparently cannot do so.

I told orange crush that my personal code of morality did not allow me to worship a god who kills children as a punishment for their fathers sins, nor does my personal code allow me to worship a would order Jacob to kill every man woman and child.

That's all the point that is needed.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Please clarify then. Where am I mistaken?

Really? I would invite you to reread the thread(s). I graciously gave you too much time as it is. If you didn't understand the first time, a repeat will do you little good.

(For the record, you indicated the first time around that you got it. You actually responded that in light of my responses, your actions were immature and childish. I guess you woke up on the other side of the bed today.)

 

[Vol8188]

Really? I would invite you to reread the thread(s). I graciously gave you too much time as it is. If you didn't understand the first time, a repeat will do you little good.

(For the record, you indicated the first time around that you got it. You actually responded that in light of my responses, your actions were immature and childish. I guess you woke up on the other side of the bed today.)

I don't disagree with any of that. Some of my responses to you were. But I still don't see where I am incorrect.

 

[Roustabout]

You're impressed at their ability to ask "why is murder wrong"?

And to justify gods actions by stating "morality comes from god, therefore god cannot be immoral"? I'm not impressed.

8188, to put it politely, you are misrepresenting the explanations that have been provided. On more than one occassion, I have addressed the divine command theory. Whether you know it or not, you are invoking the eurypthro dilemma, which has been shown to be a false dichotomy. Therefore, to put it more bluntly, you are lying about our answers. You are wilfully ignoring the numerous responses to this question, all the while refusing to deal with the ontological moral implications, and shamelessly trespassing on theistic ground to wag your finger in our face. The emperor is nekid!

I'm certain you won't even look at this, much less give it the study it deserves. But for any who sincerely seek answers to these questions.....Stand to Reason | Euthyphro's Dilemma

 

[Behr]

In order to participate in a debate one must first be able to deliberate, discuss, and/or dispute various facts and opposing points of view.

As pointed out previously (and correctly), you have done none of the above but rather would prefer to mock and post quips.

Props to OrangeCrush and Roustabout for taking the time to address legitimate questions and alternate points of view with reasoned, factual, and diplomatic responses. I, for one, have enjoyed reading much of the content in this thread.

Seconded.

 

[GhostVol]

I've been lurking this thread with extreme interest since it's beginning and will state right up front that I'm an atheist. It seems to me that the inherent problem is inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible. And that is the root of all the problems. Is it the literal word of god or isn't it? I've seen others defend some of this as problems with translation and that parts should be considered metaphorical. The problem with this is that if ANY part of the bible can be considered metaphorical then ALL of it can be considered metaphorical. And that if translation is an issue in ANY part then it should be considered when discussing any OTHER part.

Outside of the issue of translation or metaphorical interpretation are the downright inconsistencies that are present. Take Proverbs 26:4-5 for instance. 4 says NOT to do something, then, in the next verse tells you to DO it. So which is it? Stuff like this drives me batty.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I've been lurking this thread with extreme interest since it's beginning and will state right up front that I'm an atheist. It seems to me that the inherent problem is inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible. And that is the root of all the problems. Is it the literal word of god or isn't it? I've seen others defend some of this as problems with translation and that parts should be considered metaphorical. The problem with this is that if ANY part of the bible can be considered metaphorical then ALL of it can be considered metaphorical. And that if translation is an issue in ANY part then it should be considered when discussing any OTHER part.

One long fallacy of the excluded middle?

Of course some of it can be metaphorical and some of it won't be. It is a collection of books, written in multiple literary forms. There is an entire field of study called hermeneutics that define how to interpret literature (not just the Bible), especially when interpreting literature that was written at another time and to another culture. Just because you haven't studied hermeneutics doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and just because you don't know how to distinguish doesn't mean no one can.

No one here is claiming that the translations are inerrant-- just the original autographs. We have thousands of manuscripts to compare and test what the originals actually said. We have the study of hermeneutics, languages, customs, etc to help us interpret the manuscripts. Not one supposed contradiction effects any major doctrine.

Outside of the issue of translation or metaphorical interpretation are the downright inconsistencies that are present. Take Proverbs 26:4-5 for instance. 4 says NOT to do something, then, in the next verse tells you to DO it. So which is it? Stuff like this drives me batty.

That was a Semitic literary style of playing on words in either parallel or contrast. It was used for emphasis. The original audience would not have seen it as a contradiction, but a reinforcement of the concepts being taught. It was roughly equivalent to an exclamation point.

The two verses together basically said (forcefully):

"When talking to a fool, don't be a fool. But when talking to a fool, point out that they are a fool."

I humbly thank you for bringing this up. It is a beautiful section of scripture for this thread.

:hi:

 

[rjd970]

OC, were you raised Christian? Just wondering.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

That was a Semitic literary style of playing on words in either parallel or contrast. It was used for emphasis. The original audience would not have seen it as a contradiction, but a reinforcement of the concepts being taught. It was roughly equivalent to an exclamation point.

The two verses together basically said (forcefully):

"When talking to a fool, don't be a fool. But when talking to a fool, point out that they are a fool."

I humbly thank you for bringing this up. It is a beautiful section of scripture for this thread.

:hi:

I agree with OC in that you could not have picked a more appropriate piece of scripture to denote what has (in certain situations) been taking place in this thread. And it is also a good example, for believers or non-believers, to illustrate the vast wisdom that is included in the Bible.

To add to the previous comments... fools do not like to deal with facts so instead revert to folly (which has been demonstrated in this thread). As such, one should avoid the temptation to stoop to their level else you may appear as foolish as he is (i.e. responding according to his folly). However, there are times when a fool's comments must be addressed in order to expose the foolishness of his comment (i.e. answering him according to his folly) so that he... and possibly others... can see the foolishness of said comment and will hopefully recognize the difference between foolishness and wisdom (there have also been numerous examples in this thread where this has been done).

 

[Orange_Crush]

OC, were you raised Christian? Just wondering.

I was raised non-Christian until I was a teenager. Then my alcoholic step-father got Jesus and began beating the crap out of me in His name, instead of no name. I got Jesus in the form of a very legalistic fire and brimstone manner but it never stuck-- didn't want anything to do with it.

Then I began spiritually searching and found my way to a deism/pantheism/universalist spirituality. My rational search led me back to Christianity and a relationship with Jesus Christ, as opposed to a religion.

Edit: I guess I should also add that in the end it was a step of faith. Due to a lot going on in my life at the time, I cried out to Him and basically said: "If you are there, I need you to let me know. If you are there, I'll give you control but I need to know you."

He let me know He was there and my life has become a process of giving Him control.

Edit 2:

I guess I should also say that my step-father also saw transformation and through our shared faith we experienced much healing, forgiveness and became very close.

 

[gcbvol]

Thanks for sharing your personal experience, OC. I have appreciated many of your detailed posts in this thread. I find your experience of interest as my own is in many ways the opposite, as I believe was mentioned in another thread. I was raised Christian but identify as an agnostic atheist today. My journey to current belief began with a cry out to God that went unanswered. So even though your experience was opposite mine, it still resonates with me.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Thanks for sharing your personal experience, OC. I have appreciated many of your detailed posts in this thread. I find your experience of interest as my own is in many ways the opposite, as I believe was mentioned in another thread. I was raised Christian but identify as an agnostic atheist today. My journey to current belief began with a cry out to God that went unanswered. So even though your experience was opposite mine, it still resonates with me.

I hope that it comes across in no way condescending for me to say that I will pray for you-- that that call will be answered? Thank you for sharing.

:hi:

 

[GhostVol]

One long fallacy of the excluded middle?

Of course some of it can be metaphorical and some of it won't be. It is a collection of books, written in multiple literary forms. There is an entire field of study called hermeneutics that define how to interpret literature (not just the Bible), especially when interpreting literature that was written at another time and to another culture. Just because you haven't studied hermeneutics doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and just because you don't know how to distinguish doesn't mean no one can.

No one here is claiming that the translations are inerrant-- just the original autographs. We have thousands of manuscripts to compare and test what the originals actually said. We have the study of hermeneutics, languages, customs, etc to help us interpret the manuscripts. Not one supposed contradiction effects any major doctrine.



That was a Semitic literary style of playing on words in either parallel or contrast. It was used for emphasis. The original audience would not have seen it as a contradiction, but a reinforcement of the concepts being taught. It was roughly equivalent to an exclamation point.

The two verses together basically said (forcefully):

"When talking to a fool, don't be a fool. But when talking to a fool, point out that they are a fool."

I humbly thank you for bringing this up. It is a beautiful section of scripture for this thread.

:hi:

In allowing for the possibility of errancy you are implying that an omnipotent being allowed the corruption of his word in order to do..... What? Wouldn't you, as god, want to make sure that nothing, and I mean NOTHING, got changed?

And as for the example I used there was no "hidden intent". I simply pulled the shortest example I could think of off the top of my head. I would wager a large sum of money that the Bible is the only exposition to Christianity that a significant number of Christians have ever had. They do not have the benefit of your not insignificant study into the literary styles that were popular at the time. As such, they have two separate and distinct contradictory verses to deal with. And yet, somehow it creates no problem for them. The lack of questioning this bugs me.....

As far as contradictions go, why can't the Gospels all get what is inarguably the greatest story of all time straight? Matthew and Mark directly contradict each other in that the stone was rolled away from the tomb or not. This would seem to me to be a rather significant story point in that if the stone were rolled away prior to the arrival of anyone else it could be indicative of simple grave robbery (something not unheard of at that time) or a direct attempt to deceive by removing the body and claiming heavenly ascension. If the stone were still there and the tomb empty it would be much more significant indicating that the inhabitant of the tomb manage to ascend without the benefit of an opening. And yet, these two stories are in direct conflict with each other. And, somehow again, two things that are in direct conflict with each other are unswervingly accepted as truth. How can this be?

 

[Roustabout]

As far as contradictions go, why can't the Gospels all get what is inarguably the greatest story of all time straight? Matthew and Mark directly contradict each other in that the stone was rolled away from the tomb or not. This would seem to me to be a rather significant story point in that if the stone were rolled away prior to the arrival of anyone else it could be indicative of simple grave robbery (something not unheard of at that time) or a direct attempt to deceive by removing the body and claiming heavenly ascension. If the stone were still there and the tomb empty it would be much more significant indicating that the inhabitant of the tomb manage to ascend without the benefit of an opening. And yet, these two stories are in direct conflict with each other. And, somehow again, two things that are in direct conflict with each other are unswervingly accepted as truth. How can this be?

Can you state the alleged contradiction? I'm not following you here.

 

[GhostVol]

Can you state the alleged contradiction? I'm not following you here.

In Matthew 28 the stone was not rolled away as others approached the tomb. An angel did so while in their presence. In Mark 16 the stone had already been rolled away when others showed up.

 

[Orange_Crush]

In allowing for the possibility of errancy you are implying that an omnipotent being allowed the corruption of his word in order to do..... What? Wouldn't you, as god, want to make sure that nothing, and I mean NOTHING, got changed?

I always get a kick out of the questions that begin (basically), "If you were an all-powerful, all-knowing, divine being that transcends time and space, wouldn't you...?"

It implies that we understand the purposes and intents of that transcendent Being. In seeking to deny Him, it basically claims to be Him.

And as for the example I used there was no "hidden intent". I simply pulled the shortest example I could think of off the top of my head. I would wager a large sum of money that the Bible is the only exposition to Christianity that a significant number of Christians have ever had. They do not have the benefit of your not insignificant study into the literary styles that were popular at the time. As such, they have two separate and distinct contradictory verses to deal with. And yet, somehow it creates no problem for them. The lack of questioning this bugs me.....

(1) They exercise faith.

(2) They define what they don't understand by what they do understand about the Bible. Every evolutionary biologist that I have ever talked to does exactly the same thing. In one way or another, they tell me, "Well, I trust what I can't explain because of what I can explain, and what I do know."

(3) As a pastor, I can't tell you how many people come to me with these questions and bigger ones. They ask. You may not be asked by nearly as many, but I wouldn't expect you would be.

As far as contradictions go, why can't the Gospels all get what is inarguably the greatest story of all time straight? Matthew and Mark directly contradict each other in that the stone was rolled away from the tomb or not.

This would seem to me to be a rather significant story point in that if the stone were rolled away prior to the arrival of anyone else it could be indicative of simple grave robbery (something not unheard of at that time) or a direct attempt to deceive by removing the body and claiming heavenly ascension. If the stone were still there and the tomb empty it would be much more significant indicating that the inhabitant of the tomb manage to ascend without the benefit of an opening. And yet, these two stories are in direct conflict with each other. And, somehow again, two things that are in direct conflict with each other are unswervingly accepted as truth. How can this be?

That's interesting, my chronological Bible has a seamless timeline of those events that do not contradict. Not being a smart... just throwing it out there.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

In Matthew 28 the stone was not rolled away as others approached the tomb. An angel did so while in their presence. In Mark 16 the stone had already been rolled away when others showed up.

Matthew 28: Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.

Mark 16: When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large.

So, you consider that a contradiction? One says that the stone was rolled away, and the other tells how it was rolled away? That does not constitute a contradiction. It constitutes two separate accounts of the same events.

 

[Roustabout]

In Matthew 28 the stone was not rolled away as others approached the tomb. An angel did so while in their presence. In Mark 16 the stone had already been rolled away when others showed up.

Gotcha. The apparent contradiction in this case has to do with timing of the events as presented. Luke's Gospel account flows with Mark's in this regard. Often, when presenting testimony a witness may insert information that happened prior to clarify.

Example: John arrived at the building and found the door open. The gaurd had unlocked the door. John entered and found Bill inside the building.

The part in blue is something that happened before John arrived. In this case, you might conclude that the gaurd unlocked the door in John's presence, when in fact the person testifying was simply offering additional information to explain how the door was unlocked in the first place.

In this case 'how' the stone was moved. Only Matthew's Gospel offers an explanation as to how the stone was moved.

 

[GhostVol]

Matthew 28: Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.

Mark 16: When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large.

So, you consider that a contradiction? One says that the stone was rolled away, and the other tells how it was rolled away? That does not constitute a contradiction. It constitutes two separate accounts of the same events.

According to Matthew the women went to the tomb and an angel came to roll back the stone. In Mark the stone had already been rolled away when they got there. Yes, I consider this to be a contradiction. Don't you?

 

[Septic]

I'll just leave this here.

Discuss.

 

[Orange_Crush]

According to Matthew the women went to the tomb and an angel came to roll back the stone. In Mark the stone had already been rolled away when they got there. Yes, I consider this to be a contradiction. Don't you?

No. I seriously do not. The text gives me no reason to think there is a contradiction. Here is the Matt 28 section, with additional timeline inserted from Mark.

Matthew 28: Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. Mary and the girls show up and see the angel. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.

It flows pretty naturally there doesn't it? Let's look at it from the other perspective.

Mark 16: When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” Now, what they didn't know was that an angel had shown up to roll the stone away, 4And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large.

Flows pretty well, doesn't it?