God and Sin

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 18 here:

...
I suspect that comment stems from ignorance of the concept of sin against God and its consequences.
...

For debate:

Please show a god considers anything to be a "sin".

Are those who claim to possess such knowledge, but are incapable of showing such to be anything more than their own personal beliefs, guilty of any "ignorance" in this regard?

[Goat]

Mark Twain was actually a pseudonym, so the man in question never actually wrote anything.

Joey. C'mon. His real name was Samuel Clemons. Using a pen name does not do away with your actual existence. It would probably be more accurate to say that Samuel Clemons never wrote anything. At the end of the day, they are the same person.

I have it on good authority that William Shakespeare never wrote anything. All the plays he wrote were written by someone by the same name.

[Clownboat]

Please prove to me that the Roman empire existed.

Okay. We have ruins, relics, and writings from that period--not just in Rome but in all the countries Rome conquered. Even the Bible speaks of the Roman Empire. The early church fathers speak of it. The evidence is overwhelming. There can be no doubt that the Roman Empire existed.

What's your point?

All this evidence is too old and we can't verify who wrote the history so it can't be trusted. That is all your opinions based on other peoples opinions.

See how that works in regard to the Bible? You pick and choose what to belive in and so do I.

BTW, I do believe the roman empire existed but I can't prove it.

If something is considered to be evidence, what difference does it make if that evidence is minutes old or 1,000's of years old?

I think that the problem lies in your thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you think that a scripture in the Bible is the same kind of evidence as Roman coins or Rome being mentioned by outside sources. If so, our definition of evidence is quite different.

Personally, that seems like comparing an apple to an elephant.

[kayky]

I have it on good authority that William Shakespeare never wrote anything. All the plays he wrote were written by someone by the same name.

Blasphemy!

[kayky]

All this evidence is too old and we can't verify who wrote the history so it can't be trusted. That is all your opinions based on other peoples opinions.

It doesn't matter what specific person wrote anything. It can be dated to that period. I am not claiming the accuracy of any document. But when you put all the evidence together, there is no doubt the Roman Empire existed.

See how that works in regard to the Bible?

No. No one is claiming that Israel didn't exist.

u pick and choose what to belive in and so do I.

A belief system should be based on experience, reason, and actual knowledge.

BTW, I do believe the roman empire existed but I can't prove it.

There's no need to. The professionals have already done a good job of it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 13:

Please prove to me that the Roman empire existed.

When I go to claimin' it did, I will.

Now that we've gotten that diversion behind us, care to explain why we should think you and / or your holy book should be considered authoritative in regards to this OP?

[JoeyKnothead]

When the power goes out and technology fails who's knowledge do we use to survive?

The electrician's!

[Rkrause]

Please prove to me that the Roman empire existed.

Okay. We have ruins, relics, and writings from that period--not just in Rome but in all the countries Rome conquered. Even the Bible speaks of the Roman Empire. The early church fathers speak of it. The evidence is overwhelming. There can be no doubt that the Roman Empire existed.

What's your point?

All this evidence is too old and we can't verify who wrote the history so it can't be trusted. That is all your opinions based on other peoples opinions.

See how that works in regard to the Bible? You pick and choose what to belive in and so do I.

BTW, I do believe the roman empire existed but I can't prove it.

If something is considered to be evidence, what difference does it make if that evidence is minutes old or 1,000's of years old?

I think that the problem lies in your thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you think that a scripture in the Bible is the same kind of evidence as Roman coins or Rome being mentioned by outside sources. If so, our definition of evidence is quite different.

Personally, that seems like comparing an apple to an elephant.

Oddly enough the apple and elephant both exist

My point is this. People "reason" through their own bias. People will form an idea and look for "evidence" to support not what the truth is but what they want the truth to be. Everyone does this. When discussing the Bible it doesn't matter if it is real or not but rather what it says.

The definition of evidence changes because of our human bias.

[Rkrause]

When the power goes out and technology fails who's knowledge do we use to survive?

The electrician's!

Way off topic but this is a great movie and this is what I was thinking about when I wrote that.



It's a movie called Threads produced in 1984, by far the best movie about post nuclear war I have ever seen. Watch the whole thing.

[Rkrause]

From Post 13:

Please prove to me that the Roman empire existed.

When I go to claimin' it did, I will.

Now that we've gotten that diversion behind us, care to explain why we should think you and / or your holy book should be considered authoritative in regards to this OP?

Because the Bible talks about a god and what that god stated concerning your question.

[Goat]

From Post 13:

Please prove to me that the Roman empire existed.

When I go to claimin' it did, I will.

Now that we've gotten that diversion behind us, care to explain why we should think you and / or your holy book should be considered authoritative in regards to this OP?

Because the Bible talks about a god and what that god stated concerning your question.

And?? How does show that the bible tells the truth? What do you have to independently verify the claims of about God that the bible makes?