Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
33 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (7 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,865 Year: 1,613/23,288 Month: 1,613/1,851 Week: 253/484 Day: 29/42 Hour: 3/7

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Sin
Member (Idle past 44 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 126 of 185 (516176)
07-23-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by ICANT
07-23-2009 7:20 PM

Re: Sin
Lets see you don't believe in God, or that sin exists.

Does your belief make it a fact that they don't exist?

Does your belief in them make them exist?

Certainly not.

I'll let you in on a little secret you are not a Bible scholar either.

Cursing God is not the event refered to in Mark 3:29, and carries no more penalty than a little white lie would.

But if there is a God you don't want to die charged with the one in Mark 3:29. BTW that is when you commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Although it is possible to do earlier in your lifetime.

That seems pretty clear to me, too - it's blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, not jsut God, that carries an unforgivable sin. But then, that opens up the debate regarding the trinity again, doesn't it? If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one God, why is a curse against one different from a curse against the others?

You do know I believe in a God so I will warn you about that one, but you go ahead and do whatever your little mind decides to do.

God Bless,

See, this just reeks of Pascal's Wager. "Don't insult my deity, because if you're wrong you'll go to Hell!"

Clearly it's not quite the same (unless there's another deity out there who requires blasphemy against other deities).

In any case, why bother hurling insults at fictitious entities? I've never cursed Santa Claus, or blasphemed against Athena.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by ICANT, posted 07-23-2009 7:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 44 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 137 of 185 (516387)
07-24-2009 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Phage0070
07-24-2009 6:53 PM

Re: Sin
Then tell me why it requires a real, physical event that affect other people in order for it to be a sin? What is that real, physical event?

...I don't see where ICANT has ever made such a claim. I think you may be attacking a strawman.

ICANT does not claim that specific actions of any sort are sins - disobedience to God is a sin. Thus murder, theft, eating meat on Friday, or planting flowers in your yard can be sinful or not sinful depending on God's instruction.

The "unforgivable sin" of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit seems to be, in ICANT's view, ending your life denying God's existence and rejecting his offer of a full free pardon. Basically, allsins are pardonable and forgivable so long as you accept the gift of forgiveness.

Jesus instructed that even thinking lustfully about a woman is sinful because you disobey God's commandment against adultery in your heart. There's no physical act necessarily involved.

That about right, ICANT?

The idea that a sin must be a physical act that has a specifically detrimental effect on other people is not the Christian concept of sin. You're thinking about a very different, non-authoritarian, practicality-based system of ethics. The "love thy neighbor" and related commandments ensure that the two have a lot of overlap, but they aren't the same at all. Even the idea that God's commandments are intended to be what we would consider ethical (ie, reducing net harm to others, etc) is not Biblical.

The concept of sin is amorally authoritarian. It can resemble morality when the authority figure gives certain instructions (thou shalt not kill/steal/lie/etc), and can appear to be immoral when the authority figure gives other commands (kill all the firstborn). It's all about doing what God says, period. Disobedience to those commands is sin, whether that matches a reasonable system of ethics or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Phage0070, posted 07-24-2009 6:53 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Phage0070, posted 07-24-2009 7:25 PM Rahvin has responded
 Message 140 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2009 7:55 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 44 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 139 of 185 (516392)
07-24-2009 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Phage0070
07-24-2009 7:25 PM

Re: Sin
No, I am asking what real consequence the specific act of unforgivable sin will have. I don't think that ICANT will be able to provide a real consequence, rather he/she will provide an imaginary one.

Semantics. ICANT believes his lake of fire to be real, ergo it is a "real consequence" to him. Granting for the sake of argument that ICANT's beliefs accurately reflect reality, sin does have consequences.

The problem is that the consequences are supposed to happen after we die. Rather difficult to get independent confirmation

Oh, and ICANT - sorry about the sig, but I couldn't resist.

"You were doing OK until you started to think."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Phage0070, posted 07-24-2009 7:25 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2009 8:40 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020