Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8872 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-17-2018 2:21 PM
222 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK, ringo, Son of Man, Stile, Tanypteryx, vimesey (8 members, 214 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,152 Year: 16,975/29,783 Month: 963/1,956 Week: 466/331 Day: 49/76 Hour: 1/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Author Topic:   Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1278
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 151 of 166 (842573)
11-03-2018 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
10-29-2018 5:11 AM


Adam was created as he was. Perishable
Romans 8:20

quote:

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.


https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/8-20.htm

Here is Barnes notes

quote:

But by reason - By him διά dia. It is the appointment of God, who has chosen to place his people in this condition; and who for wise purposes retains them in it.


Vanity is another word for death, right?

quote:

Ecclesiastes 1-12 English Standard Version (ESV)

All Is Vanity

1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2 Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

3 What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?

4 A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains forever.

5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens to the place where it rises.

6 The wind blows to the south
and goes around to the north;

around and around goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.

7 All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;

to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.

8 All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;

the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.

9 What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

10 Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?

It has been already
in the ages before us.

11 There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance

of later things yet to be
among those who come after.


1 Cor 15 again

King James

quote:

It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.


Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 10-29-2018 5:11 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Phat, posted 11-03-2018 1:13 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 11-04-2018 5:18 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11431
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 152 of 166 (842574)
11-03-2018 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by LamarkNewAge
11-03-2018 12:54 AM


Re: Adam was created as he was. Perishable
Vanity is another word for death, right?

Not according to Google Dictionary:
van·i·ty ˈvanədē
noun
noun vanity plural noun vanities
excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements.
denoting a person or company that publishes works at the author's expense.
conceit narcissism self-love self-admiration self-absorption self-regard egotism pride arrogance boastfulness cockiness swagger rodomontade big-headedness vainglory
the quality of being worthless or futile.
futility uselessness pointlessness worthlessness fruitlessness
a dressing table.
a bathroom unit consisting of a washbasin typically set into a counter with a cabinet beneath.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-03-2018 12:54 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14490
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 153 of 166 (842579)
11-03-2018 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
11-02-2018 6:55 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
quote:

And i'll say again that the Fundamentalist Movement which was a reaction to nineteenthy-century Modernism/Liberalism goes back only that far but bible inerrancy is one of the "fundamentals" of the faith that they sought to affirm that does go back to the beginning.

And I will point out again that a statement produced in the 1970’s is not good evidence that it did.

You have yet to address the point that the disagreements between Mark and Luke/Acts indicates that the author of Luke and Acts did not accept Mark as inerrant.

quote:

That is what the Chicago Statement says, in Article XVI: "WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history. WE DENY that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism." [This latter statement is what is implied in equating it with the Fundamentalist Movement as you are doing.]

They can deny all they like. It doesn’t offer much help for your case.

So, are you actually going to produce evidence? Or at least deal with the evidence to the contrary ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 11-02-2018 6:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 154 of 166 (842590)
11-03-2018 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
11-02-2018 6:55 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
JonF's reply in Message 149 that "Unsupported affirmations are not evidence" is all that need be said for the most part, but I'll respond anyway.

The weakness of your offered arguments are startling. Saying things along the lines of "I affirm this" or "I unequivocally believe that" or "People I think reliable believe the same thing, and they must have good reasons" is not evidence or support or even a valid argument. Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections is a baseless belief until you offer evidence or support or at least rational argumentation. You've done none of that.

Faith writes:

I'm merely pointing out that you're wrong to say that, "Bible inerrancy is a principle that goes back to the earliest times." It doesn't. At most it goes back to the latter half of the 19th century.

And i'll say again that the Fundamentalist Movement which was a reaction to nineteenthy-century Modernism/Liberalism goes back only that far but bible inerrancy is one of the "fundamentals" of the faith that they sought to affirm that does go back to the beginning.

When you make statements like this I'll keep it short and just keep repeating the same thing JonF said: Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.

That is what the Chicago Statement says, in Article XVI: "WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history. WE DENY that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism." [This latter statement is what is implied in equating it with the Fundamentalist Movement as you are doing.]

Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.

Even Martin Luther argued that Bible passages must be tested to determine whether they were the true word of God, see, for example, Reformers Did Not Affirm Inerrancy.

It is disputed however, and the signers of the Chicago Statement are Reformed Theologians who would know Luther's writings well. I tried to find out more about this but this computer is very slow and my eyes give out rapidly so I'm going to have to content myself with simply affirming the authoritative status of the Statement signers. I would suggest that perhaps Luther was mostly referring to the Apocrypha which were accepted by Roman Catholicism, and saying that they don't meet the tests. But that is just a guess and in any case I'm sticking with the Chicago Statement.

Encountering problems that prevent you from making a valid response does not suddenly turn an empty argument into a good one, so I'll just repeat that unsupported affirmations are not evidence.

Faith writes:

Yes, the writers of the document do not provide the kind of support that you would desire,...

They don't provide support for their affirmations that anyone would desire, not just me. In particular they provide no support for Biblical inerrancy, they just declare it.

That is what a statement does, it declares.

Yes, indubitably. You're citing affirmations when you need evidence. The premise of your thread declares that Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections, but you're not even trying to overcome any objections. You need evidence but all you're offering is unsupported affirmations, and unsupported affirmations are not evidence.

The Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation section describes a multiplicity of ways that the inerrant Bible is errant. It calls the Bible a "human production" written from the perspective of the author.

But inspired by God.

They provide no support that the authors were inspired by God, nor even describe what the effects of being "inspired by God" mean, nor even that there is any such thing as "inspired by God."

It does declare it, however. Under that title you refer to, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation the first sentence is "Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnesses authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant."

Yes, we know "it does declare." That's a significant part of the problem, that all it does is declare. Why are you not getting this? You declare that you're right, I declare that you're wrong, and now it's time to move on to the evidence. But all you're offering is unsupported affirmations, and unsupported affirmations are not evidence.

Faith writes:

They are very very clear that it is all inspired by God without overriding the writer's personality and culture etc.

Repeating what you're ignoring, they called the Bible a "human production." There is no claim, let alone any support for this claim they didn't make, that their human errant qualities were removed while engaged in this "human production."

What the CSBI says in Article VIII is "WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom he had chosen and prepared. WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities." That is, He guided their writing without overriding their own personalities.

Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.

When precision was not a goal it was "no error not to have achieved it." It also says:

quote:
Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

In other words, the Bible is inerrant not by modern standards but by whatever they want to claim were the standards of nearly 2000 years ago.

Something like that, but I'd say "by standards they recognize in the scripture itself."

Why are you quoting and responding to something I said two messages ago? Why aren't you responding to what I just said?

Where are these standards that appear in scripture itself?

I'm not going to comment on your misreading of the errors of transmission...

The only one misreading anything is you. Why do I have a feeling your going to comment anyway?

...except to reiterate that God does not promise that copies and translations will be error-free, only the original autographs,...

Where does God make this promise about copies, translations and original autographs? Is it in the Bible full of fabulousness that was written by men? Or is it just something you're making up? Oh, pardon me, I mean "affirming". Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.

...and that nevertheless the thousands of MSS of copies and translations we possess are shown by textual criticism to refer back to an inerrant original.

Yet another unsupported claim.

Article X of the CSBI says "WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy." In the section Transmission and Translation the inerrancy of the original is established by the discipline or science of "textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.

In other words the inspiration of the original authographs can be established by textual criticism applied to the copies.

It is noted that you so affirm.

You go on and on claiming you didn't misread anything but proving that you did and I'm not going to say more about that.

Of course you're not going to support your assertions. You never do. I explained how you were misreading things while you've explained nothing.

It is not synonymous with the particular theological movement called Fundamentalism.

I never said it was. I've merely repeated what history says, that Biblical inerrancy was simply one component of the fundamentalist movement. It came into being at the same time as the fundamentalist movement. That doesn't make it synonymous with fundamentalism. You are rebutting a silly claim, twice now, that you made up yourself.

Well but it did NOT "come into being" at that time, it was treated by the opponents of the modernist/liberal revisionism as long pre-existing that revisionism. That was the whole point of spelling out the "fundamentals," to state what had been accepted FROM THE BEGINNING as fundamental to the faith, and that includes Bible inerrancy. You did misread all this.

I didn't misread it at all. It's an empty affirmation. The misreading is by you, who somehow concluded I was saying fundamentalism was synonymous with Biblical inerrancy.

As for Science I'll just say again, God blessed the West with true science among many other blessings, because of the West's adherence to Biblical Christianity. It doesn't matter whether the scientist is an atheist or a believer, the science is a gift from God to the Christian west. We're losing all that now though because of the erosion of Christianity in the west over the last century or so.

You're declaring without evidence. These are just some weird ideas you happen to believe.

Your claiming that I'm personally taking credit for knowledge of God's will just shows your abysmal ignorance of the true history of western civilization, which is all I'm referring to, not something special to me personally.

You explained why God is disproportionately generous in blessing atheistic scientists with the greatest insights. If this isn't your personal idea of God's view then show us where it came from. And you're ignoring the actual point. God could have blessed right-minded Bible believers like yourself with these insights as easily as atheists, so why did he give more of these insights to unbelieving atheists? Would it not have been "for the sake of whole nation" (your words) just as much had it come from a believer instead of an atheist?

No, I'm afraid you are wrong. St. Augustine wanted things both ways. In Chapter 18 of On Grace and Free Will he criticizes those who believe that "faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works," then goes on to argue that both faith and works are necessary for salvation.

Yes, works that are the fruit of faith can be said to be "necessary' to salvation" because both must be evident. But because this is so often misconstrued Justification by Faith Alone is emphasized to show its absolute preeminence.

I just finished quoting St. Augustine saying that's not true.

Works FOLLOW Faith and are necessary to salvation in the sense that if they don't follow then we can conclude there was no faith.

I understand what you're saying, but you offer no evidence this is so. It's just something you believe. Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.

ALSO affirming stuff that is now rejected in current theology. No, it isn't that I've read that much of Augustine, but I have listened to some presentations and discussions of his work that make this point.

You listened to discussions and presentations making this point, but supported by what? Did they, like you, just make the point and move on? Or did they provide support for their point? If the latter then what did they say?

They quoted Augustine on a variety of topics, showing that in one place he was very consistently in tune with what the later Reformers affirmed, and in other places he appeared to say something else.

Yes, and where are these places where St. Augustine was inconsistent? You have the entire Internet at your fingertips, seek and ye shall find. Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.

In other threads you've argued that your faith is based on evidence, but in this thread you're arguing that declaring what you believe is sufficient to rise over all objections.

I could not have become a believer without what I took to be solid evidence,...

The evidence of your contributions here is that almost everything you believe is without evidence. Rationalizations, misconstruals, delusion, trusting other people's claims that somebody somewhere has the evidence, sure. But actual evidence? No.

...though I'd say that it was just about all witness evidence.

In other words, you believe hearsay, what someone somewhere said or was said to have said. But actual evidence? No.

I believed what many believable honest people said.

I take it that you're affirming that these people were believable and honest?

And then I had some supernatural experiences of my own, and God answered my prayers and that too is evidence.

And we should just trust what you say and be convinced, and then go off and evangelize for the Lord, telling people who ask for evidence that someone on the Internet told us so.

The death penalty is certainly good, it is justice where applied correctly.

Let the record show that the person supposedly blessed with divine grace praises the death penalty, while the spiritual but religiously bereft person thinks the death penalty bad.

Yes let the record show it, do.

Okay, sure, let the record show that the religious are for death and the unreligious are for life.

Stoning was the method of the times in which the Law was given, before there was any kind of seat of government, before there were courts and sitting judges.

Now you're blessing stoning without any due process?

Of course there was due process. The leaders would have heard the case, Moses in the beginning, along with other elders, there would have been witnesses, two being the minimum required by the Law, there were simply no formal institutions at the time as we have now, no jail cells, etc.

You just finished saying they had stoning "before there was any kind of seat of government, before there were courts and sitting judges," and now you're contradicting yourself by saying there were elders and witnesses being heard and so forth, which sure sounds like a court with sitting judges, whether you want to instead call them elders or not. Due process doesn't turn murder into something else.

The method of murder, even murder supposedly justified by a legal process, is not important. What's important is that it is murder.

That is insane. The death penalty is justice, not murder.

Due process doesn't turn murder into something else. You religious people sure are enthusiastic about taking lives.

And it is considered to have been an especially effective means of enacting the death penalty because it involved the entire community in the act in order to impress upon all of them the importance of the law and the dire consequences of disobeying it.

It is most enlightening to discover that the most religious are also the most in favor of killing people.

Rather, most intellectually astute in understanding the difference between crime and justice, and most in favor of justice and Law and protection of society against criminal influences.

No one, least of all me, has said anything against having law enforcement and a criminal justice system. We're just for life, not death.

You've never been able to support your "original observations."

I disagree, but I also no longer care whether you consider my arguments supported or not. In any case my geological (and biological, too) observations ARE original, which is the ONLY point I was making.

Yes, I know it was the only point you were making. And you've never been able to support your "original observations." What you have been able to do is demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of anything from the real world that you think contradicts your religious beliefs.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 11-02-2018 6:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 11-04-2018 5:15 PM Percy has responded

    
Paboss
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: 10-01-2017


Message 155 of 166 (842623)
11-04-2018 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
11-02-2018 6:55 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
Faith writes:

As for Science I'll just say again, God blessed the West with true science among many other blessings, because of the West's adherence to Biblical Christianity. It doesn't matter whether the scientist is an atheist or a believer, the science is a gift from God to the Christian west.

And Allah blessed the Middle East with Maths, because of the Middle East's adherence to Islam. Funny thing, both Science and Maths, have helped us to better understand reality and realise these gods are nowhere part of the equation.

Faith writes:

I could not have become a believer without what I took to be solid evidence, though I'd say that it was just about all witness evidence. I believed what many believable honest people said. And then I had some supernatural experiences of my own, and God answered my prayers and that too is evidence.

I understand this paragraph as you saying that you were already convinced and then had some supernatural experiences that confirmed your belief. But what were those experiences and what about it led you to the conclusions you arrived at?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 11-02-2018 6:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30041
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 156 of 166 (842672)
11-04-2018 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Percy
11-03-2018 11:34 AM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
Okay, sure, let the record show that the religious are for death and the unreligious are for life.

Such a problem you have distinguishing between the innocent and the guilty. Seems unfortunately to be a common mental aberration these days.

Rather, most intellectually astute in understanding the difference between crime and justice, and most in favor of justice and Law and protection of society against criminal influences.

No one, least of all me, has said anything against having law enforcement and a criminal justice system. We're just for life, not death.

Gosh, I thought Due Process simply meant giving a fair hearing to the defendant's case. It promises nothing about the outcome. Letting him live if he's found guilty of a capital offense would of course be a miscarriage of justice but that seems to be what you want, like all those others today who think murderers should not be put to death.

My evidence is what legitimate authoritative Church leaders determine to be the truth.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 11-03-2018 11:34 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 11-05-2018 3:02 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30041
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 157 of 166 (842673)
11-04-2018 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by LamarkNewAge
11-03-2018 12:54 AM


Re: Adam was created as he was. Perishable
I just don't know what you are arguing and your style makes it hard for me to follow you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-03-2018 12:54 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-04-2018 7:16 PM Faith has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1278
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 158 of 166 (842675)
11-04-2018 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
11-04-2018 5:18 PM


Re: Adam was created as he was. Perishable
I was arguing for a (very real) possibility that Paul actually felt Adam was created, from the beginning, as mortal.

The Romans 5:12 (literal death from sin) issue might not mean exactly what it sounds like.

I base that on the rest of Paul's comments on creation and death, plus the fact that he was a little metaphorical when he made his points.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 11-04-2018 5:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Paboss, posted 11-05-2018 2:24 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 11-06-2018 2:59 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Paboss
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: 10-01-2017


(2)
Message 159 of 166 (842681)
11-05-2018 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by LamarkNewAge
11-04-2018 7:16 PM


Re: Adam was created as he was. Perishable
LNA writes:

I was arguing for a (very real) possibility that Paul actually felt Adam was created, from the beginning, as mortal.

The book of Genesis agrees with you. If you look at the story of Adam and Eve, when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they didn't die nor became mortal. What happened to them was the exact thing the snake said. God kicked them off Eden so that they wouldn't eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. This means they weren't immortal, but if they had eaten from the Tree of Life they would have become. Hence, they were created mortal.

Maybe that's how Paul and the people of his time saw this story, but as time went on the meaning was altered to suit a different audience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-04-2018 7:16 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 160 of 166 (842708)
11-05-2018 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
11-04-2018 5:15 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
Faith writes:

Okay, sure, let the record show that the religious are for death and the unreligious are for life.

Such a problem you have distinguishing between the innocent and the guilty.

Why do you make absurd responses like this? It isn't an issue of innocence or guilt. It's an issue of life or death. To be incredibly clear this time, when considering an appropriate sentence for the guilty it is the religious who most strongly favor including consideration of the death penalty.

Seems unfortunately to be a common mental aberration these days.

What's your mental aberration again?

Rather, most intellectually astute in understanding the difference between crime and justice, and most in favor of justice and Law and protection of society against criminal influences.

No one, least of all me, has said anything against having law enforcement and a criminal justice system. We're just for life, not death.

Gosh, I thought Due Process simply meant giving a fair hearing to the defendant's case. It promises nothing about the outcome.

Who said anything about guaranteeing the verdict from a fair hearing? We're not talking about the verdict but the punishment. You're for death, we're for life. Get it straight.

Letting him live if he's found guilty of a capital offense would of course be a miscarriage of justice but that seems to be what you want, like all those others today who think murderers should not be put to death.

In 20 states there is no such thing as capital offense, and it should be true for all 50 states and the federal government, too. Murder is wrong. There is no justification for committing murder.

My evidence is what legitimate authoritative Church leaders determine to be the truth.

I don't think, "I'm just going to believe what they tell me," is much of an argument.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 11-04-2018 5:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 11-06-2018 2:56 PM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30041
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 161 of 166 (842731)
11-06-2018 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
11-05-2018 3:02 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
Okay, sure, let the record show that the religious are for death and the unreligious are for life.

Such a problem you have distinguishing between the innocent and the guilty.

Why do you make absurd responses like this? It isn't an issue of innocence or guilt. It's an issue of life or death. To be incredibly clear this time, when considering an appropriate sentence for the guilty it is the religious who most strongly favor including consideration of the death penalty.

Maybe so, but Catholics are big on objecting to the death penalty so you might take that into account here. In any case there's nothing absurd about pointing out that you want to spare the life of a murderer and call the death penalty murder instead, and I might point out further that you are all in favor of killing the innocent unborn while making the murderer into a victim of murder. Does seem to me like you have a problem distinguishing between innocence and guilt here.

In 20 states there is no such thing as capital offense, and it should be true for all 50 states and the federal government, too. Murder is wrong. There is no justification for committing murder.

See, there you are calling justice murder, that's what's absurd, and again I'll contrast that with your willingness to kill the innocent unborn child whose only crime is existing. Of course I disagree with your opinion in general: those 20 states are in the wrong, because the death penalty for murderers is justice and should remain in force.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 11-05-2018 3:02 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Percy, posted 11-06-2018 6:27 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30041
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 162 of 166 (842732)
11-06-2018 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by LamarkNewAge
11-04-2018 7:16 PM


Re: Adam was created as he was. Perishable
I was arguing for a (very real) possibility that Paul actually felt Adam was created, from the beginning, as mortal.

The Romans 5:12 (literal death from sin) issue might not mean exactly what it sounds like.

I base that on the rest of Paul's comments on creation and death, plus the fact that he was a little metaphorical when he made his points.

I'm impressed, LNA, you really are able to make a succinct statement of your point. Please do it more often.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-04-2018 7:16 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 163 of 166 (842743)
11-06-2018 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
11-06-2018 2:56 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
Faith writes:

Okay, sure, let the record show that the religious are for death and the unreligious are for life.
Such a problem you have distinguishing between the innocent and the guilty.

Why do you make absurd responses like this? It isn't an issue of innocence or guilt. It's an issue of life or death. To be incredibly clear this time, when considering an appropriate sentence for the guilty it is the religious who most strongly favor including consideration of the death penalty.

Maybe so, but Catholics are big on objecting to the death penalty so you might take that into account here.

By "religious" I meant the religious people in this discussion, which means evangelicals. So to be more clear this time, it's evangelicals who most strongly favor including consideration of the death penalty.

In any case there's nothing absurd about pointing out that you want to spare the life of a murderer...

I want to spare all lives everywhere.

...and call the death penalty murder instead,...

I'm not hung up on vocabulary. Capital punishment is the taking of a human life. That is wrong.

...and I might point out further that you are all in favor of killing the innocent unborn...

I'm not sure who you're referring to by "all", your love of ambiguity is showing again, but I think we "all" have a variety of views. One common view is that it is a women's right to choose what she does with her body. Speaking just for myself, as I said in Message 34 of Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion, I've never reached any conclusions about when human life begins.

...while making the murderer into a victim of murder.

Like I said, I'm not hung up on vocabulary. It is still the taking of a human life, which is wrong.

Does seem to me like you have a problem distinguishing between innocence and guilt here.

Does seem to me like you have a problem building valid arguments.

In 20 states there is no such thing as capital offense, and it should be true for all 50 states and the federal government, too. Murder is wrong. There is no justification for committing murder.

See, there you are calling justice murder,...

You repeatedly make the same point, so I can only repeat the rebuttal. I'm not hung up on vocabulary. The taking of a human life is wrong. 20 states agree, and it should be 50 and the federal government, too. A true follower of Jesus would agree, too.

...that's what's absurd, and again I'll contrast that with your willingness to kill the innocent unborn child whose only crime is existing.

You already said this, forcing me to repeat my rebuttal. I believe it is a women's right to choose what she does with her body. As I said in Message 34 of Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion, I've never reached any conclusions about when human life begins.

Of course I disagree with your opinion in general: those 20 states are in the wrong, because the death penalty for murderers is justice and should remain in force.

Of course you believe this, because evangelicals like guns and death and war. But a life for a life is the message of the Old Testament God, not the message of Jesus. Forgiveness and mercy is the message of Jesus. You might want to take a look at Would Jesus Support the Death Penalty?:

quote:
Would Jesus Christ oppose the death penalty if he were present today? According to a recent Barna poll, most Americans think so. Only five percent of Americans believe Jesus would support the government’s ability to execute the worst criminals. This includes 2 percent of Catholics, 8 percent of Protestants, and 10 percent of all practicing Christians.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 11-06-2018 2:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 11-08-2018 6:00 PM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30041
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 164 of 166 (842825)
11-08-2018 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Percy
11-06-2018 6:27 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
The taking of an INNOCENT human life is wrong, it's murder; the execution of a murderer is just.

Gen 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

abe: Oh and it's a really big mistake to pit Jesus against the Old Testament since He IS the God of the Old Testament incarnate

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Percy, posted 11-06-2018 6:27 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 11-08-2018 7:39 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 166 by ringo, posted 11-09-2018 11:36 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 165 of 166 (842837)
11-08-2018 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Faith
11-08-2018 6:00 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
Faith writes:

The taking of an INNOCENT human life is wrong, it's murder; the execution of a murderer is just.

Yes, we understand very clearly that evangelicals are a vengeful bunch. But the fact remains that the taking of a human life is wrong, no matter what that person has done.

Gen 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

abe: Oh and it's a really big mistake to pit Jesus against the Old Testament since He IS the God of the Old Testament incarnate

I quoted Would Jesus Support the Death Penalty? giving the tiny percentages who believe Jesus would support capital punishment. You're in a distinct minority.

What's more, the Jesus and God of the Bible are fictional characters upon which Christianity built further fictions like the trinity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 11-08-2018 6:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018