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 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.

[Rkrause]

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.

Since I have never studied the above I can't make a judgemnet on the truth of them or not. So I would study them as truth until I discover otherwise.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 42:

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

Then surely you can present an "eyewitness account" that confirms the veracity of the statement laid out in the OP.

[Rkrause]

From Post 42:

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

Then surely you can present an "eyewitness account" that confirms the veracity of the statement laid out in the OP.

Leviticus 20
New International Version (NIV)

Punishments for Sin
20 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. 3 I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4 If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, 5 I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.

6 “‘I will set my face against anyone who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by following them, and I will cut them off from their people.
7 “‘Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Lord your God. 8 Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy.
9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife —with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 “‘If a man marries his sister , the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.
18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.
19 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
22 “‘Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24 But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.� I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.
25 “‘You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those that I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’�