Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
I - an atheist - have an objective standard for Good
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThat would make more sense, except for the fact that everyone sins, or breaks the law, whatever, and so, if the above were true, if each is repayed according to their deeds, then all would go to hell. The only way to be saved then, would be to be a believer in Jesus as god.
The notion that a single sin ever in your life makes you deserving of hell is a product of a couple of different theological changes introduced by Augustine in the 5th century and Anselm in the 11th century, where the standard God required of humanity was upped to 'perfection'. Paul's words in Romans 3 are commonly misinterpreted as 'proof' of this doctrine, in a way that would mean Paul was misusing every single proof-text he cites in his argument, since all those OT passages contrast certain historical sinful humans and certain historical righteous humans (using the standard OT overall-sinful overall-righteous terminology). Obviously using passages that speak of historical righteous humans isn't legitimate as a proof-text for the claim that all humans in history were sinful.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAre there other examples among Paul's writings of him employing this particular technique to this extent?
Also, unusually in Romans, Paul cites passages from the apocryphal work Wisdom of Solomon to an extent not found in his other works. Wisdom of Solomon is a work that originated around the time of Paul, but which is strongly antithetical to Paul's views on the topic of the Jews and gentiles.
Also, unusually in Romans 1, Paul gives the single longest quotation/paraphrase of any passage in any of his works, or in the entire bible for that matter, with the entirety of Rom 1:18-32 being a paraphrase of Wisdom of Solomon 13-14, and much of Romans 2-3 and elsewhere in Romans Paul appears to attack the view of Jewish sinlessness that appears in Wisdom of Solomon 15 and elsewhere in that work.
I think it is therefore reasonable to conclude that in Romans Paul is trying to contrast his own views with those being taught by another Jewish teacher or Jewish school of thought, presumably whom he has reason to think might be influencing the Church in Rome, whose views are represented in the work Wisdom of Solomon (which may have been finalised into the written version we have it in either before or after Paul's lifetime). I think it is reasonable to read then the questions and answers throughout Romans as a dialog between Paul and this other teacher whom he disagrees with. If I had to guess the specific identity of this individual, I would say it was the particular Jewish teacher mentioned but not named in Josephus' history whose antics in Rome with regard to the theft of donations to the Temple and adultery with converts there, led to the Emperor expelling all Jews from the city of Rome after it became a public scandal there, since those are specific crimes Paul mentions in Romans 2 in relation to describing his opponent as a Jew who views themselves as a great teacher of the gentiles but who actually caused God's name to be "blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you".Last edited by Starlight; 08-19-2020, 11:04 PM."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI think Paul, like the Jews in general at the time, thought you'd go to hell only if your life had more bad deeds than good ones in it. Paul thought of this as God judging people by their level of Christ-like-ness. The early Christians assumed the average person was entirely capable of living a sufficiently good life so as to get into heaven. To them a 'sinner' was a person who habitually did wrong rather than right (if you read Proverbs for example you'll see it used this way). A person who sinned once wasn't "a sinner", anymore than a person who did right once in their lives was "righteous". Rather these terms depicted general character tendencies.
The notion that a single sin ever in your life makes you deserving of hell is a product of a couple of different theological changes introduced by Augustine in the 5th century and Anselm in the 11th century, where the standard God required of humanity was upped to 'perfection'. Paul's words in Romans 3 are commonly misinterpreted as 'proof' of this doctrine, in a way that would mean Paul was misusing every single proof-text he cites in his argument, since all those OT passages contrast certain historical sinful humans and certain historical righteous humans (using the standard OT overall-sinful overall-righteous terminology). Obviously using passages that speak of historical righteous humans isn't legitimate as a proof-text for the claim that all humans in history were sinful.
Even in Genesis god describes all men as being nothing but evil "how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil". Adam sinned once and was banned from the Garden, and god killed everyone in a flood.
And what would be the purpose of Jesus sacrificing himself for the sins of man, if only the sins of those with a passing grade were forgiven, unless of course there was a catch, i.e. that only those sinners with a passing grade are forgiven if they believe Jesus is god and could forgive them? Did he sacrifice himself for the sin of just those who got a passing grade? And where would be the dividing line between the wheat and the chaff?
Come to think of it, Paul himself would have to have been considered a great sinner prior to his conversion and belief in Jesus. What if he had died prior to his conversion? Instead of a saint in heaven, according to himself, he'd have been condemned to hell.
So, yeah, I agree, the bible is all over the place and people, including Paul, will interpret it to their own liking, and that is a major problem when considering ones belief in it.Last edited by JimL; 08-20-2020, 08:22 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Postin this life
[quote]"in this life"?
Since they accepted Jesus, in this life, they are saved. How is that hard to understand?
If a person is a Christian, then they will not be judged for their sins at all. They are credited the righteousness of Jesus. On the other hand, you will have to face judgment for your sins.
I never said to pretend. I said to choose. You look at the evidence, then make a decision to believe or not. To have faith.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSo you think that Paul believed people were graded as to their level of goodness or of their evil and that a passing grade was needed in order to be saved and if one gets a passing grade then he is given a glorified body incapable of sinning while one with a failing grade is condemned to hell? I mean that is a possible interpretation of Paul I guess, but it's still rather silly in my opinion.
And it certainly isn't what most christians believe
because they believe in atonement wherein even the worst of the worst, say a Hitler, can atone for their misdeeds and be forgiven.
Even in Genesis god describes all men as being nothing but evil "how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil".
And what would be the purpose of Jesus sacrificing himself for the sins of man, if only the sins of those with a passing grade were forgiven, unless of course there was a catch, i.e. that only those sinners with a passing grade are forgiven if they believe Jesus is god and could forgive them?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
Since they accepted Jesus, in this life, they are saved. How is that hard to understand?If a person is a Christian, then they will not be judged for their sins at all. They are credited the righteousness of Jesus. On the other hand, you will have to face judgment for your sins.I never said to pretend. I said to choose. You look at the evidence, then make a decision to believe or not. To have faith.
Comment
-
He is concerned with your heart, so when do something wrong without understanding it is wrong, how can he hold you accountable for that? But when you do something wrong and you KNOW it is wrong, then you are doing evil on purpose and will be judged on that. Then you have no excuse.
Seriously?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+1&version=NIV
It answers all of your questions. It is like Paul was talking directly to you, Tassman. You are asking all the same questions that Paul goes through in that book.
For example your question above, should or can Christians go on sinning and murdering after being saved?
Romans 6:
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostHe is concerned with your heart, so when do something wrong without understanding it is wrong, how can he hold you accountable for that?But when you do something wrong and you KNOW it is wrong, then you are doing evil on purpose and will be judged on that. Then you have no excuse.
So please try reading the book of Romans. It's not that long. At least know the material you keep trying to argue against.Last edited by Tassman; 08-21-2020, 08:34 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whateverman View Post"Good" is that which reduces the unnecessary suffering of conscious creatures. The unnecessary suffering of conscious creatures is therefore "Evil".
Necessity should be obvious.
This standard is objective in that anyone with access to the person and the aforementioned technology can look to see whether the person's suffering has lessened, and therefore, whether Good exists. The observer doesn't need to accept the standard as their own. All they need is to understand this standard, and to recognize when it's been met.P1) If , then I win.
P2)
C) I win.
Comment
-
Again, he won't hold you accountable for not believing in him. You just won't get Christ's righteousness to cover your sins and will have to face judgement for your own actions without forgiveness.
Obviously, that applies to the rules of behavior in every society whether they apply with an alleged divine imprimatur or secular authority.
Can't answer Huh? Trying to palm me off with bible quotes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostAgain, he won't hold you accountable for not believing in him. You just won't get Christ's righteousness to cover your sins and will have to face judgement for your own actions without forgiveness.
So you understand. You will be judged on the sins you commit with full knowledge that you did wrong.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostSneering mockery does nothing to solve the moral problem for atheists. If atheism is true,
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Postthen any atheist who expects or demands that others live according to whatever objective standard of morality the atheist has defined is rejecting the logical implications of his own world view.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostWhy would you do that? Aren't you comfortable with where atheism ultimately leads?
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostIf it's really the worldview you believe, then why not gladly embrace it's implications and live and let live? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die.
Why is it that (some) theists want to constantly tell atheists what their atheism means, leads to and involves? They're invariably wrong.America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostAgain, he won't hold you accountable for not believing in him.
You just won't get Christ's righteousness to cover your sins and will have to face judgement for your own actions without forgiveness.So you understand. You will be judged on the sins you commit with full knowledge that you did wrong.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostGood of him.
He will hold you accountable for what you did that you KNEW and UNDERSTOOD it was wrong but did it anyway. That is what the Christian is forgiven of.
card.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
|
37 responses
184 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:12 AM | ||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
|
27 responses
146 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
06-27-2024, 01:35 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
|
82 responses
477 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 03:48 AM | ||
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
156 responses
637 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 06:38 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,140 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM |
Comment