Sin

Dude,(or Dudette, I don't know.)Any way, your post is right there where you left it. I didn't feel like packin the whole thing around with me so I only quoted what I quoted to illustrate that your "warrants" , in my mind, did not really support your claims.
Sorry for speakin my own language, some times I get lazy. Look, if anybody is interested in what you have written then it is a simple matter to clik back and forth between posts. Provided, of course that the author has replied to the correct post.Lets be clear. I'm not sure quoting would lead to understand but reading might.
Thats why I read your post. It didn't work.Again I apologize for not writing clearly. My intention was to communicate to you that, having read your entire post, I disagree with your conclusion. That statement is highly deceptive and inaccurate.The way I quoted you? Look, If I in fact quoted you out of context it would be easily discerned by everyone here. Not to say I've never done this, just that in this case I did not.In a discussion between you and I, you know what you said and I know what I said and it's all right here for any one to read.
I don't feel the need to clutter my posts with every word you wrote in your post.
That being said, I'm lookin forward to futher discussion. Oh, I'm not questioning your version of the history of the "bible" so much as your conclusions as to the "intent" of the writers.The history of the "bible" summed up in Hill Billyese:
It's a collection of writings, selected from a larger collection of writings that are likely based on a collection of oral histories and such. During most of this history most folks couldn't read or write.Now what could this have to do with the intent of the writers?At this time I have no more time, so please do not consider this a complete post. I will return when time permits and complete my response.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Hillbilly, you seem to be grasping part of my argument. The Bible is a collection of writings and during this time most folks couldn't read. The part you are missing is my conclusion from this. If most folks could not read the bible when it was being written, then clearly the bible was not intended for most folks. It was intended for those who could read. That would be the priests and royalty of society. The bible was not written with the "average" person in mind, because nothing was written for the average person in this time period.I had wanted to make an argument for modern day context as well as the context of the authors. But I am willing to drop the modern day argument if you want to focus on the context the authors lived in. Please explain how the authors intended the book for the average person when the average person was incapable of reading the bible.Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

A man is his own tormenter and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone.

​

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled 1938 by Joseph Fielding Smith

---

Aha, there we go. That would have shorted discussion considerably had it been presented earlier.This does bring up an odd thought; there are several sections in the Doctrine and Covenants where changes are made to the belief system. One example would be baptism, which is in essence a "new" eternal deal. Does this mean God punished people previous to the announcement and it was retconned back, or that people only assumed it read like it meant before? If it is the latter, if it is changed again at some later point would it again be the latter?

Hi, Phage. Yeah, I apologize for my weird debating tactics earlier on the thread. I've just accepted it all for so long that I couldn't remember where all the relevant quotes were.----- I thought about this while I was writing my earlier, and the answer is that I don't know. I think most Mormons believe that God used to punish people before Christ's mission, and the Atonement brought about the new, non-punishment system.Unfortunately, I can't tell you why the Atonement would have changed all that, so I personally tend to shy away from that viewpoint.Things got more complicated when the Lord brought forth the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants (the "Restoration," as you've no doubt heard of before). During the Restoration, it is said that God brought in the "fullness of the Gospel," introducing some new doctrines and new covenants (hence, the name of the modern scriptures). The Lord maintains a prophet on the earth so He can continue to add greater depth to the things we already know.The problem is that this gives the Church an excuse to rub out old doctrines that are no longer seen as positive, so it's impossible to be certain what is actually inspired and what isn't.But, personally, I prefer a religion that is open to the idea of change over time to a religion that believes truth lies in stagnation.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, the Master Debator.Sorry, I never gave you a full reply to this message. Well, you're right. I wasn't thinking about the Bible when I wrote that: I was thinking about the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, which were not written by scholars (at least, to the best of our current knowledge, they weren't).My comment clearly doesn't explain the Bible: I'll try to be more careful with my wording next time.Thanks.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Perdition. That's an even better explanation.It just seems that all Straggler, Stile and I ever talk about is free will: maybe it was my subconscious trying to avoid that road again.Thanks.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Hill Billy. You seem to be arguing with me for no reason at all: we are both describing the same thing (but, only one of us apparently realizes it).In the above quote, the conditions you are describing are deterministic conditions. Mathematical formulas are deterministic, because there is no alternative sum that can be made with two 2's.By comparing sin to a mathematical equation, you are stating that sin is deterministic. Or, you are saying that God could not have created the universe we have without creating sin. Thus, the existence of sin is out of God's control.The question I'm asking is whether (a) God created a bunch of laws and defined "sin" as breaking those laws; or (b) "sin" already existed, and God created a bunch of laws to protect us from it.Here's a series of questions the approximate the scenario I'm getting at:

1. Which came first: sin or God's law?
2. Does God's law define sin? Or, does sin define God's law?
3. Would there still be sin if God had never given us any laws or commandments?

I suspect you would answer:

1. Sin
2. Sin defines God's law
3. Yes

If I am wrong, please explain to me what I got wrong.-----As it stands, I am interpreting your remarks as saying that sin is a natural part of reality, rather than something that God invented. I am calliing this viewpoint, the "deterministic sin" viewpoint.Running score:

[indent]Deterministic Sin: 1
God-invented Sin:  0[/indent]

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, ICANT. Well, that doesn't bode well for the discussion.Perhaps this question can help:If God hadn't given us a law, would there still be sin?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

K, I'm back.I was wondering what this: Had to do with the intent of the writers.I'm not even sure we have established who the writers are.
Let alone their intent.
We do agree on some things.
Like this: I agree emphatically.
In fact, call me crazy but I believe it was specifically written for....
You ready?Well......Every one,
who could read it.Ya, it sounds kinda wacky, I believe it's a magic book, (I read that and it seems completely bonkers to me.) but hey, I'll let you in on a little secret.
I'm an artist.
They give me money to be kinda wacky.If you wanna look a bit closer I think I can show you it's not so nuts.
That is, if you believe that there is a conscious entity that is the cause of this whole universe thing.
I get how lot's of folks don't believe that and those folks will just think I'm brain damaged but I don't really give much of a shit ( that artist thing). Every bodies got their own reasons for believin what they believe.I will state right here and now that I do not KNOW that my beliefs are an accurate picture of reality. Just as I believe that some things are beyond human comprehension. Now anyway. One thing seems clear to me, it's a really big frikkin universe. Huge, much bigger than most, if any one can wrap their heads around. There are some amazing discoveries to come if the past is any indication of the growth of human understanding.
Which brings us back to the beginning. To have any understanding of the "bible", it's intent, what sin is, or what it says at all, it would likely help to know, just who is the the author?
I believe it's that conscious entity I spoke of previously, the one I call GOD.Let's start there.
Who do you think the author/s is/are?

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Not really. Not so different, but not the same either.See, sin exists because of an individual's freedom to choose. If you were to subtract all the individuals with free will from the universe you would still be left will an awful lot of universe...... but no sin. Just like the very beginning of this universe. So it's not a pre existing part of the universe.
I think. That's the thing Jay, I wasn't comparing sin to the equation. I was comparing wrongness of sin to the correctness of the particular equation. And my answer is...
None of the above. GOD did however, create some laws to protect us from sin. I'll take you quiz.GOD's law come first. Sin came later.
GOD's laws define some sins and sin defines some of GOD'S laws.
Laws, no, commandments ,well the potential for sin but the not sin it's self.I'm not sure I know what you mean by GOD's laws by the way, but I think it would be close to what I mean, but not the same. I wonder, for example, if GOD is bound by any laws.One of GOD's laws is that we will posses free will. So one of GOD's laws created sin.
Sin is determined by free will and defined by free will. No free will, no sin.GOD could make billions of universes with out sin. Those universes would also not contain any free will.Sin is a natural part of a reality that contains free will, that was created by GOD.I think that although GOD has free will, with GOD only the potential for sin exists but not sin itself.In my brain this all seems crystal clear, I'm not so sure how it all reads tho.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Rules? How were these rules originally decided upon, ascertained or othersie derived? How can one know what the universe stipulates as "sinful" or "right"? Positive or negative? By how it feels to us? But how do we decide what is a negative result and what is a positive result? Is killing someone negative? I presume (and hope) that Mormon teachings say yes. But how on Earth can we know that the universe tells us this? I get that. But I don't get how we can know what the universe thinks is a positive direction and what is a negative direction? Do we know by means of what feels right? Or is there some less subjective means of determining what this universal and absolute morality tells us?

Hi jay, I hadn't ever really pondered that question.Ponder, Ponder, Ponder.Yes.He gave one man (the first man) an option of eating or not eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.By choosing to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he gained the knowledge of good and evil.From that time until the present mankind has this knowledge.Therefore he can choose good or evil.All that the laws was given for was to bring mankind to the knowledge of his/her status before God. All mankind was separated from God by the first man eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All are under the penalty of sin. The penalty of sin is death.No person alive today will be in the lake of fire because of any sin he has or will commit in his/her lifetime.The only reason they will be there is because they have not been born again as Jesus told Nicodemus "ye must be born again". John 3:7.The gift of God is eternal life.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You might like to add one to your list: cynical-priest-and-king-invented sin. What's the score for that one?

Hi, Hill Billy. Okay, whatever.And, in doing so, you state that sin is a deterministic part of a universe that contains free will.In other words, you are stating that God did not voluntarily create sin within this universe (which contains free will): He had no choice but to create sin within this universe (because it contains free will).----- A principle of the universe doesn't have to apply to every piece of the universe: it only has to be a natural part of it.A shadow over one place in the universe doesn't negate the fact that light is a natural part of the universe. Even if the shadow covered 99.9% of the universe, light would still be a natural part of the universe.Likewise, 99.9% of the matter in the universe not being involved in sin doesn't mean sin isn't a natural part of the universe.Both neutrons and electromagnetism are parts of our universe, even though they do not have much to do with one another.----- The options are essentially (a) God created sin, or (b) God did not create sin. And, your answer is, "none of the above"?It's a dichotomy: either He did it, or He didn't. There can't be a third option!----- "Sin is a natural part of [fill in the blank]" = "the stuff Bluejay is calling 'deterministic sin'"Edited by Bluejay, : Clarifications and syntactical improvements

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Woodsy. I'm trying to determine what sin means to Christians.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.