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?

[Rkrause]

From Post 29:

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

And we should accept the Bible as authoritative because?

Do you trust every book you read simply 'cause it was printed?

Still waiting.

It depends is the book declared fiction or non-fiction? I can trust a fiction book but non-fiction books I do more research into. For example I have a complete History Book of WW2 written in 1948 with huge errors in it. So I do research and find the truth. Just has I have researched the Bible and find the principles to be true.

[Flail]

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

I don't find this odd at all...

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.

I'm going to have to call this projecting.
I do see some value in some of the teachings of the Bible though even though it is not real.

The definition of evidence changes because of our human bias.

We need to leave our bias out of the equation when evaluating evidence.

ev·i·dence   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

Evidence should be seen in that way but it never is because we are humans. All humans process information within their own "filters".

I disagree with the bolded. Some people are more able to look at things without their bias getting in the way than others. For example, someone defending their god, their afterlife and their purpose for being here will have a lot more bias than someone generally looking for answers.

You have a dog in this race, I don't. You have a need to defend your Holy Book. I'm open to the Bible god being true, but it needs to be shown as true before I can make that acceptance.

You can claim like others have, that I hate god, or I hate religion, but that will not make it true.

So I submit once again that you are most likely projecting due to the bias you must have in order to have a place to go when you die.

I have never claimed you hate God or otherwise. I am trying to point out that trust starts somewhere and that trust starts in the Word of God. True until proven otherwise may help.

I believe it would be more accurate for you to claim such trust: starts for you in the alleged/purported word of a certain God legend as reported by anonymous first century authors who were later claimed to have been inspired by a particular supernatural being, and recorded in the book called the Bible which was promulgated approximately 400 years after the fact and for which there is no confirmation or verification, the truth of which is disputed by countless millions of people who have not been indoctrinated by Christian doctrine.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 37:

...
I can trust a fiction book but non-fiction books I do more research into.

I think that about sums it up - "I can trust a fiction book..".

...
Just has I have researched the Bible and find the principles to be true.

I don't doubt one may find "the principles" to be true, given the subjective and / or conflicting passages presented within the Bible.

I seek to determine why we should consider the notion presented in the OP to be true.

Thusfar, you seem to indicate the only reason to conclude it to be true is because one "feels" it to be true. By this token, one who "feels" it to be untrue is equally justified. With off-setting "truths" then, which do we know to be truth?

So we see the claim presented in the OP is, ostensibly, now only a "principle", not a fact. With this in mind, I contend the rational conclusion to be had is that the original claimant has not presented truth.

[Rkrause]

From Post 37:

...
I can trust a fiction book but non-fiction books I do more research into.

I think that about sums it up - "I can trust a fiction book..".

...
Just has I have researched the Bible and find the principles to be true.

I don't doubt one may find "the principles" to be true, given the subjective and / or conflicting passages presented within the Bible.

I seek to determine why we should consider the notion presented in the OP to be true.

Thusfar, you seem to indicate the only reason to conclude it to be true is because one "feels" it to be true. By this token, one who "feels" it to be untrue is equally justified. With off-setting "truths" then, which do we know to be truth?

So we see the claim presented in the OP is, ostensibly, now only a "principle", not a fact. With this in mind, I contend the rational conclusion to be had is that the original claimant has not presented truth.

I can't claim the facts of the Bible are true because of the differences in eye witness accounts but the events of which they are witness to did occur.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 40:

I can't claim the facts of the Bible are true because of the differences in eye witness accounts but the events of which they are witness to did occur.

"I can't claim the facts of the Bible are true, but they're true."

When one confuses fact with the inability to show it's indeed a fact, I contend the observer should rightly conclude that where one claims fact while admitting an inability to show such is indeed a fact, they've lost any credibility as relates to fact.

[Rkrause]

From Post 40:

I can't claim the facts of the Bible are true because of the differences in eye witness accounts but the events of which they are witness to did occur.

"I can't claim the facts of the Bible are true, but they're true."

When one confuses fact with the inability to show it's indeed a fact, I contend the observer should rightly conclude that where one claims fact while admitting an inability to show such is indeed a fact, they've lost any credibility as relates to fact.

Facts of eye witness accounts can be different but the events occured none the less.

[Flail]

From Post 40:

I can't claim the facts of the Bible are true because of the differences in eye witness accounts but the events of which they are witness to did occur.

"I can't claim the facts of the Bible are true, but they're true."

When one confuses fact with the inability to show it's indeed a fact, I contend the observer should rightly conclude that where one claims fact while admitting an inability to show such is indeed a fact, they've lost any credibility as relates to fact.

Facts of eye witness accounts can be different but the events occured none the less.

It is common knowledge in the legal profession that eye witness accounts are typically inaccurate and suspect. The human inability to keep any story straight for more than an hour or two has often been demonstrated. So I guess we agree on how nebulous it would be to claim facts from anonymous first century legends.

But you are claiming 'facts' and are further claiming you have 'knowledge' of these facts. My dictionary defines the word 'fact' as something that is indisputably the case. In debate if you are claiming knowledge of something that is indisputably the case, you must demonstrate or prove the basis for such fact claims.

It is a fact that you 'believe' Biblical accounts; and it is a fact that I disbelieve them. I can't prove my claim that your beliefs are false and you can't prove your claim that my non-beliefs are false. All God claims are therefore non-falseifiable, rendering all claims as to the existence or non-existence of God meaningless. But I do think it clear that your beliefs are based upon unverifiable source material that contains numerous reports of supernatural occurrences against nature which are utterly preposterous.

[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.

Oddly enough the apple and elephant both exist

I don't find this odd at all...

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.

I'm going to have to call this projecting.
I do see some value in some of the teachings of the Bible though even though it is not real.

The definition of evidence changes because of our human bias.

We need to leave our bias out of the equation when evaluating evidence.

ev·i·dence   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

Evidence should be seen in that way but it never is because we are humans. All humans process information within their own "filters".

I disagree with the bolded. Some people are more able to look at things without their bias getting in the way than others. For example, someone defending their god, their afterlife and their purpose for being here will have a lot more bias than someone generally looking for answers.

You have a dog in this race, I don't. You have a need to defend your Holy Book. I'm open to the Bible god being true, but it needs to be shown as true before I can make that acceptance.

You can claim like others have, that I hate god, or I hate religion, but that will not make it true.

So I submit once again that you are most likely projecting due to the bias you must have in order to have a place to go when you die.

I have never claimed you hate God or otherwise. I am trying to point out that trust starts somewhere and that trust starts in the Word of God. True until proven otherwise may help.

I didn't say that you claimed I hated god, but others have (I just wanted to cut that one off ahead of time in case it was going to be enacted).

Now, on to true until proven otherwise. I would like to check for consistency here. I assume the below are true as well until they are shown not to be true:

Havamal
Eddas
The Akilathirattu Ammanai
The Arul Nool
Bon Kangyur and Tengyur
Vinaya Pitaka
Sutta Pitaka
The Donghak Scripture
The Songs of Yongdam
The Sermons of Master Haeweol
The Sermons of Revered Teacher Euiam
Letter of Baruch
Nag Hammadi library and other Gnostic texts
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great Price
Writings of Ellen White
The Principia Discordia
Qur'an
Hadith
Sunnah
I can go on, and on and on...

[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

I don't find this odd at all...

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.

I'm going to have to call this projecting.
I do see some value in some of the teachings of the Bible though even though it is not real.

The definition of evidence changes because of our human bias.

We need to leave our bias out of the equation when evaluating evidence.

ev·i·dence   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

Evidence should be seen in that way but it never is because we are humans. All humans process information within their own "filters".

I disagree with the bolded. Some people are more able to look at things without their bias getting in the way than others. For example, someone defending their god, their afterlife and their purpose for being here will have a lot more bias than someone generally looking for answers.

You have a dog in this race, I don't. You have a need to defend your Holy Book. I'm open to the Bible god being true, but it needs to be shown as true before I can make that acceptance.

You can claim like others have, that I hate god, or I hate religion, but that will not make it true.

So I submit once again that you are most likely projecting due to the bias you must have in order to have a place to go when you die.

I have never claimed you hate God or otherwise. I am trying to point out that trust starts somewhere and that trust starts in the Word of God. True until proven otherwise may help.

I didn't say that you claimed I hated god, but others have (I just wanted to cut that one off ahead of time in case it was going to be enacted).

Now, on to true until proven otherwise. I would like to check for consistency here. I assume the below are true as well until they are shown not to be true:

Havamal
Eddas
The Akilathirattu Ammanai
The Arul Nool
Bon Kangyur and Tengyur
Vinaya Pitaka
Sutta Pitaka
The Donghak Scripture
The Songs of Yongdam
The Sermons of Master Haeweol
The Sermons of Revered Teacher Euiam
Letter of Baruch
Nag Hammadi library and other Gnostic texts
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great Price
Writings of Ellen White
The Principia Discordia
Qur'an
Hadith
Sunnah
I can go on, and on and on...

True but on this thread we are discussing the Bible.

[Clownboat]

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

I don't find this odd at all...

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.

I'm going to have to call this projecting.
I do see some value in some of the teachings of the Bible though even though it is not real.

The definition of evidence changes because of our human bias.

We need to leave our bias out of the equation when evaluating evidence.

ev·i·dence   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

Evidence should be seen in that way but it never is because we are humans. All humans process information within their own "filters".

I disagree with the bolded. Some people are more able to look at things without their bias getting in the way than others. For example, someone defending their god, their afterlife and their purpose for being here will have a lot more bias than someone generally looking for answers.

You have a dog in this race, I don't. You have a need to defend your Holy Book. I'm open to the Bible god being true, but it needs to be shown as true before I can make that acceptance.

You can claim like others have, that I hate god, or I hate religion, but that will not make it true.

So I submit once again that you are most likely projecting due to the bias you must have in order to have a place to go when you die.

I have never claimed you hate God or otherwise. I am trying to point out that trust starts somewhere and that trust starts in the Word of God. True until proven otherwise may help.

I didn't say that you claimed I hated god, but others have (I just wanted to cut that one off ahead of time in case it was going to be enacted).

Now, on to true until proven otherwise. I would like to check for consistency here. I assume the below are true as well until they are shown not to be true:

Havamal
Eddas
The Akilathirattu Ammanai
The Arul Nool
Bon Kangyur and Tengyur
Vinaya Pitaka
Sutta Pitaka
The Donghak Scripture
The Songs of Yongdam
The Sermons of Master Haeweol
The Sermons of Revered Teacher Euiam
Letter of Baruch
Nag Hammadi library and other Gnostic texts
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great Price
Writings of Ellen White
The Principia Discordia
Qur'an
Hadith
Sunnah
I can go on, and on and on...

True but on this thread we are discussing the Bible.

Does that mean that you are arguing from a position that the Bible is just as true as the rest of these works? If so, you are being consistent. If not, I would love to know why the Bible is true and the above are not.