| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2008 02:46:08 PM · #1726 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I am intrigued however on why you feel the mention of what the Bible clearly states (none are without sin), is akin to intellectual violence and insulting. To me it is simply a statement of fact - regardless of the term (ie. unfortunate or immoral acts). |
It's not a statement of fact. It's an assertion that you believe to be fact, and the idea that everyone is sinful enough to require repentance is insulting. It's also borderline blasphemous to effectively declare that even the newborn creation of an infallible, omnipotent deity should be so flawed. |
This is a prime example of me being misquoted. I wrote that it is a fact that the bible says "none are without sin" not that I believe or claim that "none are without sin". The bible does say it. That is a fact. Not an assertion. |
I call BS. You said, and I quote, "To me it is simply a statement of fact." It's not. It's a demeaning assertion made by the very human author(s) of an ancient text. |
The BS is from your continued misuse and misrepresentation. I wrote and I quote "the mention of what the Bible clearly states (none are without sin)". It is a fact that the Bible states that. It is not an assertion. It is fact.
Are you here claiming that the bible does not state that "none are without sin"? No? Then it is a fact that the bible says "none are without sin". Furthermore, are you claiming that you are without sin? Or maybe you choose to use a different term to mean the same thing?
Please anyone here who is without biblically defined sin - post up so that I may know the pressence I am in. Anyone here who has never uttered an untruth, born false witness, coveted a neighbor's wife or possessions, had an ill thought or did a shameful/remorseful deed. Please post up.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2008 03:18:50 PM · #1727 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I am intrigued however on why you feel the mention of what the Bible clearly states (none are without sin), is akin to intellectual violence and insulting. To me it is simply a statement of fact - regardless of the term (ie. unfortunate or immoral acts). |
It's not a statement of fact. It's an assertion that you believe to be fact, and the idea that everyone is sinful enough to require repentance is insulting. It's also borderline blasphemous to effectively declare that even the newborn creation of an infallible, omnipotent deity should be so flawed. |
This is a prime example of me being misquoted. I wrote that it is a fact that the bible says "none are without sin" not that I believe or claim that "none are without sin". The bible does say it. That is a fact. Not an assertion. |
I call BS. You said, and I quote, "To me it is simply a statement of fact." It's not. It's a demeaning assertion made by the very human author(s) of an ancient text. |
The BS is from your continued misuse and misrepresentation. I wrote and I quote "the mention of what the Bible clearly states (none are without sin)". It is a fact that the Bible states that. It is not an assertion. It is fact.
Are you here claiming that the bible does not state that "none are without sin"? No? Then it is a fact that the bible says "none are without sin". Furthermore, are you claiming that you are without sin? Or maybe you choose to use a different term to mean the same thing?
Please anyone here who is without biblically defined sin - post up so that I may know the pressence I am in. Anyone here who has never uttered an untruth, born false witness, coveted a neighbor's wife or possessions, had an ill thought or did a shameful/remorseful deed. Please post up. |
You've misquoted yourself. This is what you posted:
Originally posted by Flash:
I am intrigued however on why you feel the mention of what the Bible clearly states (none are without sin), is akin to intellectual violence and insulting. To me it is simply a statement of fact - regardless of the term (ie. unfortunate or immoral acts). |
The confusion comes from the portion of your statement I bolded. To which "it" are you referring as fact? The statement in the bible or the fact that the statement in question is contained in its pages?
If the latter, you are correct. If the former, in order for you to be correct, the individual in question would have to buy into the whole Bible/Sin/Redemption/Forgiveness thing. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 03:21:02 PM · #1728 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Are you here claiming that the bible does not state that "none are without sin"? No? Then it is a fact that the bible says "none are without sin." |
Nice try, but your intent was readily apparent to all who read it, and the assertion (whether made by you or the bible) is still insulting. It's also a fact that the bible says snakes and bushes can talk, that plants and fruit existed before there was a sun or pollinators, that long hair on men is abhorrent, that a house can have leprosy, that men can sell their daughters as slaves, that dry skeletons can come back to life, and that women are sexual property transferrable to relatives. I hold them all in equal (dis)regard.
Originally posted by Flash:
Please anyone here who is without biblically defined sin - post up so that I may know the pressence I am in. Anyone here who has never uttered an untruth, born false witness, coveted a neighbor's wife or possessions, had an ill thought or did a shameful/remorseful deed. Please post up. |
Any three month old baby would fit that description.
Message edited by author 2008-12-15 15:23:32. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 03:24:12 PM · #1729 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The BS is from your continued misuse and misrepresentation. I wrote and I quote "the mention of what the Bible clearly states (none are without sin)". It is a fact that the Bible states that. It is not an assertion. It is fact. |
scalvert is not denying that the Bible states “none are without sin”. scalvert is denying that the Biblical concept of sin as a real thing apart from its Biblical definition. You’re confusing the two.
Originally posted by Flash:
Are you here claiming that the bible does not state that "none are without sin"? |
No. He’s not. See above.
Originally posted by Flash:
No? Then it is a fact that the bible says "none are without sin". Furthermore, are you claiming that you are without sin? Or maybe you choose to use a different term to mean the same thing? |
(If I may, scalvert.) My understanding is that while scalvert may believe there are actions which could be defined as anti-social or detrimental to society, he doesn’t believe those actions are watched and counted by supernatural beings. So, no, scalvert doesn’t believe he has sinned in a way that has supernatural consequences, but he does believe there are particular behaviors, which you may define as sin, which may have present and temporal consequences. Again, you’re confusing the two.
Originally posted by Flash:
Please anyone here who is without biblically defined sin - post up so that I may know the pressence I am in. Anyone here who has never uttered an untruth, born false witness, coveted a neighbor's wife or possessions, had an ill thought or did a shameful/remorseful deed. Please post up. |
I have committed acts which you may hold a sins and I would call anti-social behavior, but, no, I don’t believe that I have sinned in a way which would be counted by or offend a supernatural being as I do not believe such supernatural beings exist. Do you understand the difference?
|
|
|
|
12/15/2008 03:33:31 PM · #1730 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Please anyone here who is without biblically defined sin - post up so that I may know the pressence I am in. Anyone here who has never uttered an untruth, born false witness, coveted a neighbor's wife or possessions, had an ill thought or did a shameful/remorseful deed. Please post up. |
Any three month old baby would fit that description. |
Are 3 month old babies posting here? If not, then I guess you should read my question. Again my point. You for whatever reason, want to reply to something other than what I wrote. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 03:34:46 PM · #1731 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Please anyone here who is without biblically defined sin - post up so that I may know the pressence I am in. Anyone here who has never uttered an untruth, born false witness, coveted a neighbor's wife or possessions, had an ill thought or did a shameful/remorseful deed. Please post up. |
Any three month old baby would fit that description. |
Are 3 month old babies posting here? If not, then I guess you should read my question. Again my point. You for whatever reason, want to reply to something other than what I wrote. |
And you write something other than what you mean.
At best, a draw. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 03:36:26 PM · #1732 |
| Just goes to show how far this thread has devolved. You're basically arguing over a crumb on the floor when the cake is about to topple over onto you. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 03:37:49 PM · #1733 |
| It's no longer about the issue, it's about who's right. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 03:38:51 PM · #1734 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
It's no longer about the issue, it's about who's right. |
Like two children on the playground. You're arguing to hear yourselves speak.
But, by all means. Continue. At least it gives me something to read while I sip coffee.
Message edited by author 2008-12-15 15:39:38. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 03:40:27 PM · #1735 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Please anyone here who is without biblically defined sin - post up so that I may know the pressence I am in. Anyone here who has never uttered an untruth, born false witness, coveted a neighbor's wife or possessions, had an ill thought or did a shameful/remorseful deed. Please post up. |
Any three month old baby would fit that description. |
Are 3 month old babies posting here? |
You noted the bible's declaration that "none are without sin." If a 3 month old baby is without biblically defined sin (as you seem to acknowledge), then that assertion must be false.
EDIT- Would you like cream and sugar with that, Edward?
Message edited by author 2008-12-15 15:41:45. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 03:42:14 PM · #1736 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Flash:
The BS is from your continued misuse and misrepresentation. I wrote and I quote "the mention of what the Bible clearly states (none are without sin)". It is a fact that the Bible states that. It is not an assertion. It is fact. |
scalvert is not denying that the Bible states “none are without sin”. scalvert is denying that the Biblical concept of sin as a real thing apart from its Biblical definition. You’re confusing the two.
Originally posted by Flash:
Are you here claiming that the bible does not state that "none are without sin"? |
No. He’s not. See above.
Originally posted by Flash:
No? Then it is a fact that the bible says "none are without sin". Furthermore, are you claiming that you are without sin? Or maybe you choose to use a different term to mean the same thing? |
(If I may, scalvert.) My understanding is that while scalvert may believe there are actions which could be defined as anti-social or detrimental to society, he doesn’t believe those actions are watched and counted by supernatural beings. So, no, scalvert doesn’t believe he has sinned in a way that has supernatural consequences, but he does believe there are particular behaviors, which you may define as sin, which may have present and temporal consequences. Again, you’re confusing the two.
Originally posted by Flash:
Please anyone here who is without biblically defined sin - post up so that I may know the pressence I am in. Anyone here who has never uttered an untruth, born false witness, coveted a neighbor's wife or possessions, had an ill thought or did a shameful/remorseful deed. Please post up. |
I have committed acts which you may hold a sins and I would call anti-social behavior, but, no, I don’t believe that I have sinned in a way which would be counted by or offend a supernatural being as I do not believe such supernatural beings exist. Do you understand the difference? |
I have zero problems with your post. Yes I understand the difference. This discussion began with Mousie being offended that I used the term sin and instead defined his "sins" as "unfortunate or immoral acts". Mousie does not believe in sin. That is fine by me. But the Bible defines some actions as sinful. Most posters here are familiar with either the 10 commandments from the Old Testamant or the 2 comandments from the New Testamant. Failure to abide by these rules results in what the bible defines as sin. You or Scalvert or Mousie can call man's behaviorial shortcomings whatever you want, it still does not change what the bible says is sinful. You may choose to ignore, repudiate, mock, disparage, or argue against what the Bible says, but that in no way changes what it says. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 03:53:21 PM · #1737 |
...and you still don't seem to recognize that some people find your statement offensive, as YOU are stating your belief* as a fact.
* that all are born into sin / are born sinners
(PS - IF humans are born sinners, THEN a 3 month old would qualify) |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 04:06:50 PM · #1738 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You or Scalvert or Mousie can call man's behaviorial shortcomings whatever you want, it still does not change what the bible says is sinful. You may choose to ignore, repudiate, mock, disparage, or argue against what the Bible says, but that in no way changes what it says. |
Exactly. And you may choose to ignore, repudiate, mock, disparage, or argue against what the Koran says, but that in no way changes what it says. It doesn’t really matter to you what the Koran says about your own behavior if you don’t hold the Koran as holding any special knowledge. And if someone claims your behaviors are “bad” because the Koran says they’re “bad” â€Â¦ how much credence would you give them? |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 04:08:02 PM · #1739 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
...and you still don't seem to recognize that some people find your statement offensive, as YOU are stating your belief* as a fact.
* that all are born into sin / are born sinners
(PS - IF humans are born sinners, THEN a 3 month old would qualify) |
1. It is not my statement (none are without sin). It is the Bibles statement.
2. Why would you find it offensive? Either you agree with it of you don't. If you don't agree with it, who cares what the bible says is a sin. My opinion is that some here get a bit testy when faced with some behaviorial truths. Call it whatever you want, but if you are free from the acts of anger/lust/envy/pride/etc. - please post here - as I would like to know how you avoid the temptations.
3. Various denominations treat "original" sin in different manners. Some use the "age of reason" while others claim a direct lineage to eve's disobedience in the Garden. My post had nothing to do with the intent ot intrepretation of the concept of "original sin" and specifically limited my post to those who post here (likely negating any 3 month olds). |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 04:19:08 PM · #1740 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
...and you still don't seem to recognize that some people find your statement offensive, as YOU are stating your belief* as a fact.
* that all are born into sin / are born sinners
(PS - IF humans are born sinners, THEN a 3 month old would qualify) |
1. It is not my statement (none are without sin). It is the Bibles statement.
2. Why would you find it offensive? Either you agree with it of you don't. If you don't agree with it, who cares what the bible says is a sin. My opinion is that some here get a bit testy when faced with some behaviorial truths. Call it whatever you want, but if you are free from the acts of anger/lust/envy/pride/etc. - please post here - as I would like to know how you avoid the temptations.
3. Various denominations treat "original" sin in different manners. Some use the "age of reason" while others claim a direct lineage to eve's disobedience in the Garden. My post had nothing to do with the intent ot intrepretation of the concept of "original sin" and specifically limited my post to those who post here (likely negating any 3 month olds). |
I am without sin. There. I said it. I don't care if you disagree with me either, but I do care that you feel you have the right to judge me or my actions (calling them a sin, which, by your definition, is immoral). The problem isn't with what you call it, it is with your belief that you can judge the actions at all. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 04:19:17 PM · #1741 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
...and you still don't seem to recognize that some people find your statement offensive, as YOU are stating your belief* as a fact.
* that all are born into sin / are born sinners
(PS - IF humans are born sinners, THEN a 3 month old would qualify) |
1. It is not my statement (none are without sin). It is the Bibles statement.
2. Why would you find it offensive? Either you agree with it of you don't. If you don't agree with it, who cares what the bible says is a sin. My opinion is that some here get a bit testy when faced with some behaviorial truths. Call it whatever you want, but if you are free from the acts of anger/lust/envy/pride/etc. - please post here - as I would like to know how you avoid the temptations.
3. Various denominations treat "original" sin in different manners. Some use the "age of reason" while others claim a direct lineage to eve's disobedience in the Garden. My post had nothing to do with the intent ot intrepretation of the concept of "original sin" and specifically limited my post to those who post here (likely negating any 3 month olds). |
What's offensive is when people like yourself start wagging your finger in peoples' faces informing them that they are sinners because your bible says so.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2008 04:22:17 PM · #1742 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Flash:
You or Scalvert or Mousie can call man's behaviorial shortcomings whatever you want, it still does not change what the bible says is sinful. You may choose to ignore, repudiate, mock, disparage, or argue against what the Bible says, but that in no way changes what it says. |
Exactly. And you may choose to ignore, repudiate, mock, disparage, or argue against what the Koran says, but that in no way changes what it says. It doesn’t really matter to you what the Koran says about your own behavior if you don’t hold the Koran as holding any special knowledge. And if someone claims your behaviors are “bad” because the Koran says they’re “bad” â€Â¦ how much credence would you give them? |
It doesn't matter how much credence I would give them - what I wouldn't do is claim that the Koran doesn't say what it says. I wouldn't argue that because such and such was written by so and so, that the Koran's listing of acts displeasing to Allah is not what the Koran says. The Koran says what it says, just like the Bible says what it says. My argument to Mousie was two fold. 1) so what if the Bible lists a behavior as a sin, everyone has some behavior that the bible lists as a sin. 2) just because the Bible lists some behavior as sinful, does not equate to damnation.
You just like I can choose to believe or not believe - The Torah, The Bible, The Koran, or any other Holy book. So what. Our belief or unbelief does not change those works. IF one is avoiding the Bible due to a philosophical difference on same sex sex, then my position is that it is not a very good reason. There may be some good reason to avoid scripture, but your sinful nature is not it.
Later. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 04:47:26 PM · #1743 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You just like I can choose to believe or not believe - The Torah, The Bible, The Koran, or any other Holy book. So what. Our belief or unbelief does not change those works.IF one is avoiding the Bible due to a philosophical difference on same sex sex, then my position is that it is not a very good reason. There may be some good reason to avoid scripture, but your sinful nature is not it. |
Where you get yourself into trouble is with this last part.
IF you do not happen to believe in God or the Bible, yet you have morals and scruples, and abide by them, it's insulting on many levels to have someone state in a condescending manner that you can believe what you want, but your avoidance of these edicts doesn't make you any less sinful.
Guess what?
If you live within moral constraints as accepted by the society you've agreed to follow, then you're NOT a sinner.
This person may not be saved according to your beliefs, but neither may you call them a sinner as you ARE forcing your belief system on them, and you have NO right to do so.
BTW, I think that you'll find that more gay people avoid Biblical encounters more due to the people involved than the writings themselves.
I can give you a fairly comprehensive list of people, scholars and clergy among them, who will be happy to refute the standard Bible-thumping abuse of scripture for their own ends that fundamentalists use.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2008 04:53:38 PM · #1744 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I wrote that it is a fact that the bible says "none are without sin" not that I believe or claim that "none are without sin." |
Originally posted by Flash:
1) so what if the Bible lists a behavior as a sin, everyone has some behavior that the bible lists as a sin. |
You just said exactly what you tried to claim you didn't say, and I've already demonstrated that it's an absurd statement.
Message edited by author 2008-12-15 16:55:32. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 05:06:39 PM · #1745 |
I'm a bit surprised at some of the statements here. I might have come in on the middle of a conversation, but did Dahkota claim to be "without sin"? For real? Forget the Bible, use your own moral code. Are you saying you perfectly follow your own code of conduct? I find that highly dubious. And Jeb says all you have to do is follow the moral constraints of society, but how can anybody even claim to accomplish that?
I think the idea that none of us perfectly follow a moral code (forgetting the Bible) should be self-evident and obvious. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 05:24:54 PM · #1746 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the idea that none of us perfectly follow a moral code (forgetting the Bible) should be self-evident and obvious. |
Would you agree that newborns are without sin? How about a young child left comatose for years? What about someone with severe mental impairment, completely unable to process greed or desire? I think it's self-evident and obvious that not everyone is even capable of breaking the 10 commandments, so the absolute claim is necessarily false, and any assumption based on that claim goes out the window. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 05:28:51 PM · #1747 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the idea that none of us perfectly follow a moral code (forgetting the Bible) should be self-evident and obvious. |
Would you agree that newborns are without sin? How about a young child left comatose for years? What about someone with severe mental impairment, completely unable to process greed or desire? I think it's self-evident and obvious that not everyone is even capable of breaking the 10 commandments, so the absolute claim is necessarily false, and any assumption based on that claim goes out the window. |
Those are good questions. It may be they are without sin. However, I don't see Dahkota or Jeb fitting that definition. Perhaps the claim is not as absolute as you think. Obviously those you qualify as possibly being without sin could not comprehend the statement "all have sinned" (or some similar declaration). The statement then becomes self-selecting. If you can understand it, you most likely fit it. If you can't understand it, it may not pertain to you. |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 05:43:43 PM · #1748 |
aaaaaaaand we're back to defining words :)
Jason, you say that you're "a bit surprised at some of the statements here". You try to use the word sin (a religious term) interchangeably with the word moral. Then tell us to 'forget the bible'.
Hmmmmmmm. Catch 22?
eta - correct. the term just does not apply. how can one be a 'sinner', when they don't even believe in such a concept?
Message edited by author 2008-12-15 17:46:49.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2008 05:47:04 PM · #1749 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...If you can understand it, you most likely fit it. If you can't understand it, it may not pertain to you. |
Yes, but if there's even one person that it doesn't pertain to, then the statement itself is false. It's a "fortune cookie" claim, where the parameters are generalized enough for most people to think of something that fits, so it must be "universal." |
|
|
|
12/15/2008 06:04:33 PM · #1750 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...If you can understand it, you most likely fit it. If you can't understand it, it may not pertain to you. |
Yes, but if there's even one person that it doesn't pertain to, then the statement itself is false. It's a "fortune cookie" claim, where the parameters are generalized enough for most people to think of something that fits, so it must be "universal." |
Under those conditions there are lots of statements we use every day that become "false".
The sun rises in the east.
Water freezes at 32 degrees.
Going back to my specific question, I wanted to know if Dahkota and Jeb managed to perfectly follow their own moral code? It's a reasonable question. No need for your obfuscation.
Ross, I get your point. If you want to use "sin" to mean failing to meet up to the specific moral code of Christianity then likely we are all still "sinners" but it may not matter to some people. I'm trying to generalize here. Sin, in essence, means "to miss the mark". I'm just pointing out we all miss the mark of our own codes. It's universal. Nobody can really claim ignorance (with the exception of Shannon's innocents) because nobody meets their own standard.
Message edited by author 2008-12-15 18:06:20. |
|
