Ask God for Me

[Clizby WampusCat]

Really, how do you know it is a made up concept?

Ok, I should have said there is no good evidence to believe sin exists as described in the bible.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Meanwhile, the legacy of racism in our country, combined with Antifa's love of chaos, means that Minneapolis is basically on fire. Institutional sin, not at all made up.

Sin is not equal to doing morally bad things. Sin as described in the Bible is an offence against God and requires hellfire as a punishment. Sin cosmically changed creation, what is happening in Minneapolis is not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not talking about the writings that got put in the Bible but writing by early Christians that do contradict each other.

Like the Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas Collection - Translations and Resources

or how about Arius
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...1f0b6ee362e3/1523546437044/Arius-writings.pdf

Gospel of Mary Magdalene
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene

The Bible has also undergone changes in its history. The Bible you have is not the same as 1500 years ago. Also, the gospel of Marcion is a gospel of Luke that is different than the one in the bible. Marcion said his was authentic and the other Gospel of Luke was not. In fact, some scholars think the Gospel of Marcion was written earlier to the Gospel of Luke in the bible.

When the thousands of copies of manuscripts (far more than for any other document of antiquity) are compared, we can know that the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.{2}

Even if all the manuscripts in the whole world were to disappear, the New Testament is so comprehensively quoted by early church letters, essays and other extra-biblical sources that we could still reconstruct almost the entire testament.

We have a much fuller explanation of this in our article “Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?” at www.probe.org/are-the-biblical-documents-reliable

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, I should have said there is no good evidence to believe sin exists as described in the bible.

So you don't think that rape is a sin?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sin is not equal to doing morally bad things. Sin as described in the Bible is an offence against God and requires hellfire as a punishment. Sin cosmically changed creation, what is happening in Minneapolis is not.

Sin is not equal to doing morally bad things? What makes you think that? All people sin, justice is necessary, Jesus paid the price of that sin so justice is served and people then can live with a sinless, perfect God.

 

[Silmarien]

I am talking about what teachings became the "true" teachings. There were theological debates and fights going back almost to the beginning and even today. You seem to think that Christianity always had one set of beliefs and no others? My question is how do we know what beliefs are true. I don't care what traditionally they have been, but with all the contradictory beliefs out there today and throughout history how do we know what is true?

Yes, I have never in my life heard of Gnosticism, adoptionism, or Arianism, lol. In any case, I don't see how even most of the heresies paint a picture of God's character that is terribly different than orthodox Christianity, so I don't see how you can claim to not know what the Christian God is like.

If there are Christians today teaching Jesus did not die for our sins (just like in the early days) and some are saying that he did. Who can demonstrate that they are correct?

I don't see why you'd be trying to demonstrate something like that at all. Unless you're trying to demonstrate that Christianity teaches that Jesus died for our sins? You can't really erase that without erasing almost the entire New Testament.

Sin is not equal to doing morally bad things. Sin as described in the Bible is an offence against God and requires hellfire as a punishment. Sin cosmically changed creation, what is happening in Minneapolis is not.

I believe literally nothing you just posted. Seriously, there's a ton of theology on sin out there, and if you're going to say that what's going on in Minneapolis isn't about human frailty and the tendency to do harmful things, I think it's clear that you're wrong.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

When the thousands of copies of manuscripts (far more than for any other document of antiquity) are compared, we can know that the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.{2}

Even if all the manuscripts in the whole world were to disappear, the New Testament is so comprehensively quoted by early church letters, essays and other extra-biblical sources that we could still reconstruct almost the entire testament.

We have a much fuller explanation of this in our article “Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?” at www.probe.org/are-the-biblical-documents-reliable

I am not talking about this. I am talking about the other doctrines that have been believed through the centuries. Why are the ones in the bible believed and the others not? Like the ones I gave you as examples. You asked for examples and then ignored them.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

So you don't think that rape is a sin?

I think rape is morally wrong. Sin is a concept that offends a god and requires eternal punishment. It also cosmically altered creation. Rape does not do these things.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Sin is not equal to doing morally bad things? What makes you think that? All people sin, justice is necessary, Jesus paid the price of that sin so justice is served and people then can live with a sinless, perfect God.

I already said why I think sin is not equal to morally wrong things.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I already said why I think sin is not equal to morally wrong things.

And I said, why do you think that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think rape is morally wrong. Sin is a concept that offends a god and requires eternal punishment. It also cosmically altered creation. Rape does not do these things.

So? What does cosmically altered creation mean to you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not talking about this. I am talking about the other doctrines that have been believed through the centuries. Why are the ones in the bible believed and the others not? Like the ones I gave you as examples. You asked for examples and then ignored them.

The reason we have the Bible we have is due to the other Church documents that represented the earliest teachings of Jesus.

 

[Silmarien]

I think rape is morally wrong. Sin is a concept that offends a god and requires eternal punishment. It also cosmically altered creation. Rape does not do these things.

If you go with a more Eastern Orthodox analysis, sin is a spiritual illness that requires healing.

I'm not sure that the "cosmically altered Creation" part is even biblical. Anyway, I apparently don't believe in the same form of Christianity that you don't believe in, lol.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And I said, why do you think that?

Because the bible says so. The bible describes sin as offence to god, requires eternal punishment and changes the creation when Adam and Eve sinned. Morally bad things do not do these things.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

So? What does cosmically altered creation mean to you?

It brought death, weeds, frustration, pain in childbearing into the world for example.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The reason we have the Bible we have is due to the other Church documents that represented the earliest teachings of Jesus.

No, but that is another thread.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

If you go with a more Eastern Orthodox analysis, sin is a spiritual illness that requires healing.

Ok, how do you know this is true?

I'm not sure that the "cosmically altered Creation" part is even biblical. Anyway, I apparently don't believe in the same form of Christianity that you don't believe in, lol.

That is ok. But sin as described in the bible brought death, pain, weeds, frustration, pain in childbearing all supported by the bible.

 

[Silmarien]

Ok, how do you know this is true?

How do I know that Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that sin is closer to a spiritual illness? I read it in a book on Eastern Orthodoxy.

That is ok. But sin as described in the bible brought death, pain, weeds, frustration, pain in childbearing all supported by the bible.

Haha, the word "sin" doesn't even show up in Genesis 3. The Fall is certainly a key concept, but those of us who read the Garden of Eden allegorically can't turn around and point to it as a concrete event where everything fell apart. I think it's a poetic way to describe a real issue, so if your understanding of what "sin" means excludes everyone who interprets the Garden of Eden differently (and that's a lot of people), there's a problem.

 

[klutedavid]

And how do we test those beliefs?

You cannot convince a flat earth devotee that the earth is not flat. They will deny any evidence that you present to support a spherical earth.

Same goes for things as basic as definitions. For example, the definition of the word, 'species', in science the precise definition is debated. The word, 'nature', in science is also unclear.

Debates and factions are always with us.

You can present evidence, but you need to take a vote in the end and the majority rules. Pluto was once considered a planet but by vote, Pluto was considered not a planet. Yet, even though the evidence was strong, there was a percentage of scientists that voted that Pluto was a planet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You cannot convince a flat earth devotee that the earth is not flat. They will deny any evidence that you present to support a spherical earth.

Same goes for things as basic as definitions. For example, the definition of the word, 'species', in science the precise definition is debated. The word, 'nature', in science is also unclear.

Debates and factions are always with us.

You can present evidence, but you need to take a vote in the end and the majority rules. Pluto was once considered a planet but by vote, Pluto was considered not a planet. Yet, even though the evidence was strong, there was a percentage of scientists that voted that Pluto was a planet.

Due to the fact that life is the product of evolution there can be no hard definition of "species". If creationism was true then such a definition should be possible.

And Pluto was demoted because the definition of a planet was made more concise. There really was not much of a choice. It fails as a planet by more than one category. In the sciences changes are usually due to improvements in the sciences, not by votes.