It looks like you are proving there is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent god who can prevent evil.
Speak for yourself. Sin is a theological concept. I have never sinned.
Ignorance and the Bible
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
Speak for yourself. Sin is a theological concept. I have never sinned.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
If a person believes in a creator of the dichotomic Universe, then they should also believe that people can't choose to be good if there is no such thing as evil. If people are to be given a choice, then they must have at least two options.
FWIW, I don't believe in evil as a force. Evil is simply the absence of good like cold is the absence of heat or darkness the absence of light.
Based Chad
Was it me?
they are immoral.
Jesus kingdom is not of this earth.
John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world...
Based Chad
Was it me?
but poor behavior is secular and it's why we have laws.
And if God is omnipotent but not omnibenevolent I'm not sure what the role of "worship" plays.
The problem of evil tends to be an issue for those espousing a God with specific features (like that he "loves" us) so it may land in the weeds when talking to folks who prefer a vague, nearly meaningless version of God who has no necessary interaction with us.
I tried asking Cy what "sin" was earlier. He wouldn't answer.
Good, now we're both admitting that justice does not dominate and prevail in the world.
There is no definition of a good moral action without a belief in an unchanging objective moral code, based on the idea of absolute good and evil.
You cannot say what is objectively good and moral without invoking a moral law that exists independently of human opinion.
If humans were robots, we could be programmed to always adhere to an objective moral law. Since we were born with free will, we have to have the ability to choose our actions.
"Sin" (dictionary.com)
1. transgression of divine law.
2. deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action.
I don’t buy evil, either. It has this connotation that a Satan or Satan-like figure is involved.
There are very bad people and very good people and everything in between. We all hold a couple things in common. We’re born and we die. That’s pretty much it.
No such thing.
Agreed. Another human-defined, human-centric topic.
Meaningless in this discussion.
I never thought justice would always prevail. Depending on one’s opinion on what defines justice, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. Whether it dominates is anyone’s guess.
There is no such thing as an unchanging moral code. Our views of morality are much different than they were when the Gospels were written. And even more so with the OT. They are different from culture to culture, as well. Humans define morality, not some hidden deity. Not only do humans, as a group, define morality, individuals have their own views. Gay marriage and sex being the first that comes to mind.
Your god, through his churches, has changed his mind even in our times. Interracial marriage, gay marriage. Not so unchanging, is it?
Yep, sin is a theological concept. I have never sinned.
Bingo
Based Chad
Was it me?
so when people say "sin" substitute "bad thing".....
and you won't be so dumb anymore.
The Talmudic reference which seems to suggest Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier doesn't indicate whether it was consensual or non-consensual. I make no value judgement about it.
The only one who immediately leaped to a value judgment about Mary being a slut is you.
I would have no problem telling a Christian the Talmudic tradition about Jesus, and considering context and literary evidence, that it might at least be in the realm of possibility.
Your favorite atheist scholar Bart Ehrman says there's nothing anywhere in the New Testament that says a Christian has to believe in a virgin birth, and Ehrman goes on to say most of his Christian friends don't believe the virgin birth story is literally true.
Based Chad
Was it me?
for some.
not for others.
yeah. the OT is ridiculous and racist.
they're not that different.
stealing, violence, fraud,
universal.
So why don't you go take this over to some Catholic forum?
You demand that anyone who questions the OT take it up with Jews. So I say if you want to have a go at Catholicism then take it up with the Catholics.
This is hypocrisy. Or you are exactly like the people you excoriate for bitching about the OT
Were Roman soldiers stationed in Galilee, specifically Nazareth? Nope, no evidence of that.
Based Chad
Was it me?
because you like making distinctions without a difference to separate yourself from "religious people"?
yes. that's why.
Based Chad
Was it me?
Judge a thing by it's fruits, fruit.
if avoiding "sin" makes people also commit fewer "crimes", isn't that a good thing?
if avoiding "sin" makes people also commit fewer "crimes", isn't that a good thing?
Yes, I am convinced atheists believe in moral relativism, even when they are reticent to admit it.
I never said anything about a diety. I am agnostic about the origin of human conscience. I don't think Darwinian evolutionary biology explains it.
You can't say murder, theft, rape are objectively and absolutely wrong unless you subscribe to an unchanging moral law which isn't subject to human opinion and popular consensus.
Taking a scientific approach to life, murder and rape may sometimes be necessary. Male lions will kill the cubs of rivals. Male deer will overpower and force female deer to copulate. We don't call it murder or rape because we intuitively know human conscience is in some respect separate from the scientific world.
Spartans abandoned weak babies, and Vikings practiced female infanticide because the community would only benefit from the strong, and by having more males.
The Nazis defined moral value as eliminating inferior races and disabled people, because they were a threat to a healthy and robust Aryan population.
I am pretty sure human conscience in mentally healthy adults either perceives absolute right and wrong, or can ultimately be persuaded of it. When people are slowly persuaded through moral argument that human sacrifice, infanticide, slavery are wrong, those societies never go back to it at the institutional scale. That's not a coincidence.
So you believe there is something other than what you can verify objectively. That's faith. Doesn't sound agnostic. You have faith.
Now you see my point!!! Excellent. How can God be the author of an Unchanging Moral Law if God himself does not follow any moral laws per se?
God in the OT supports genocide. God in the NT does not.
THAT is what I've been pointing out all along. God clearly CHANGES. How can that be?
Why isn't it subject to these things? Sounds like more special pleading.