Craig asked me...
DO WE SIN BECAUSE WE ARE SINNERS, OR ARE WE SINNERS BECAUSE WE SIN?
I'm relatively sure I've answered this question multiple times but I'm glad to do so again, directly and clearly. It's an easy question to answer:
Maybe I'm a simple man, but I think
a killer is one who kills,
a cheater is one who cheats and
a sinner is one who sins.
Period. As simple as that. We are sinners WHEN we sin. Before we sin, we are literally, by definition, NOT sinners. Which is why infants are not sinners.
Biblically speaking, "sinners" are ones who miss the mark, who fall short of the target. Here again, what "target" is it that infants can possibly fall short of? Trying to apply the term "sinner" to a newborn is just not rational (or biblical) on the face of it, biblically or just speaking from standard English (and I'm relatively this is true for all languages).
Do you see how this is at the very least a rational understanding - That those who DO NOT engage in sin ARE NOT sinners?
Craig also asked...
I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".
1. Is it not possible that it could be figurative, to make a point or for some other reason? Why not?
2. That passage - "conceived in sin" - is from ONE place in the Bible... Psalm 51, which also says:
"Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin."
Do you think that the ONLY way to understand this line is literally.. that God literally uses soap and water and washes away sin?
3. That passage also includes this from David (who is the one speaking, confessing his actual great sin of killing a husband to bed down his wife):
"Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight;"
Does this mean literally that David did NOT sin against Bathsheeba's husband, who he had killed? That he didn't sin against his nation for abusing his power? MUST that line also be ONLY taken literally?
4. AFTER uttering those two lines, then David said, of himself:
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
David is speaking of himself and only of himself, literally, in that passage. Does that mean we should only take it literally about David, OR should you make it figurative and say that David was speaking of all humanity, although he literally isn't? If so, why?
5. Conversely, another place that says something similar is Psalms 58 (which is addressed SPECIFICALLY and literally to oppressive, unjust rulers):
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."
Do we take this literally... that the ONLY way to understand this line is that newborns are literally speaking lies? That's observably false, we can agree on that reality, correct? Why should we take the line about "estranged from the womb" literally but not the clearly figurative "infants speaking lies..."?
DO WE SIN BECAUSE WE ARE SINNERS, OR ARE WE SINNERS BECAUSE WE SIN?
I'm relatively sure I've answered this question multiple times but I'm glad to do so again, directly and clearly. It's an easy question to answer:
Maybe I'm a simple man, but I think
a killer is one who kills,
a cheater is one who cheats and
a sinner is one who sins.
Period. As simple as that. We are sinners WHEN we sin. Before we sin, we are literally, by definition, NOT sinners. Which is why infants are not sinners.
Biblically speaking, "sinners" are ones who miss the mark, who fall short of the target. Here again, what "target" is it that infants can possibly fall short of? Trying to apply the term "sinner" to a newborn is just not rational (or biblical) on the face of it, biblically or just speaking from standard English (and I'm relatively this is true for all languages).
Do you see how this is at the very least a rational understanding - That those who DO NOT engage in sin ARE NOT sinners?
Craig also asked...
I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".
1. Is it not possible that it could be figurative, to make a point or for some other reason? Why not?
2. That passage - "conceived in sin" - is from ONE place in the Bible... Psalm 51, which also says:
"Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin."
Do you think that the ONLY way to understand this line is literally.. that God literally uses soap and water and washes away sin?
3. That passage also includes this from David (who is the one speaking, confessing his actual great sin of killing a husband to bed down his wife):
"Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight;"
Does this mean literally that David did NOT sin against Bathsheeba's husband, who he had killed? That he didn't sin against his nation for abusing his power? MUST that line also be ONLY taken literally?
4. AFTER uttering those two lines, then David said, of himself:
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
David is speaking of himself and only of himself, literally, in that passage. Does that mean we should only take it literally about David, OR should you make it figurative and say that David was speaking of all humanity, although he literally isn't? If so, why?
5. Conversely, another place that says something similar is Psalms 58 (which is addressed SPECIFICALLY and literally to oppressive, unjust rulers):
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."
Do we take this literally... that the ONLY way to understand this line is that newborns are literally speaking lies? That's observably false, we can agree on that reality, correct? Why should we take the line about "estranged from the womb" literally but not the clearly figurative "infants speaking lies..."?
Also, literally, it isn't speaking of all humanity but only "the wicked," in a passage written specifically to oppressive leaders (which again, is why it's important to understand the prominence of specifically oppression of the poor and marginalized in biblical teachings).
=====
Craig...
I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".
So, given that there are only TWO places that say something pretty close to "born in sin," or "born as a liar" and given that LITERALLY the main passage you're quoting is literally speaking of David, why is it not possible that David is being figurative or, somehow, speaking ONLY of himself? Why is it not exceedingly rational that David was feeling overwhelmingly guilty for murdering a man to bed his wife and so he moaned and berated himself exceedingly? This is a common human reaction to being caught in great wrong-doing. On what basis MUST we assume that David was trying to say this was a reality for ALL newborn babies (or even for himself)? Because it's what you're used to thinking?
The more I read it, the less rational, less biblical it seems. At the very least, can you see how others would find this opinion of yours to NOT be a very biblically deep or rational way of viewing this passage?
Is it possible that because you've grown up in religious traditions that REALLY emphasize this point, that it's hard for you to view it any other way, even though it's not an exceptionally biblical point of view to take?
Or consider this: Ezekiel says...
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
That passage, for what it's worth, was literally written to one king, who turned out to be a bad man engaging in oppression. But that bad man, according to Ezekiel's pronouncement, was BLAMELESS until he did wrong. (And as an aside, some conservative types say that the passage is a figurative reference to "the devil/Satan..." which would be saying that even SATAN was blameless until he did wrong!)
Or consider this, from Jesus:
“Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them,
for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
If you take the ONE line in the Bible "We are born in sin..." literally because, well, it's there (albeit, literally referring specifically to David who had committed a great crime)... WHY not take this ONE line literally, when it's coming from Jesus, speaking apparently of literal children?
All of that to say that, while you personally don't understand why we shouldn't take this passage from David sort of literally (well, not the part about him speaking specifically of himself - THAT part we should make figuratively applicable to ALL of humanity, but the single line, ripped from context, "born in sin," THAT we should take literally - sort of - to mean that babies are sinners), that you personally don't understand why we should interpret it the way you interpret it, that this is not a compelling reason to agree with your interpretation?
Craig...
I'm compelled to align myself with what scripture says, not with what you say.
Literally, what you INTERPRET/READ INTO scripture what YOU THINK makes sense TO YOU. Since nowhere - not one single line on one single page in the Bible - does it say that newborns are sinners. NOT ONE LINE, NOT ONE TIME.
Can we agree on that basic literal reality?
I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".
So, given that there are only TWO places that say something pretty close to "born in sin," or "born as a liar" and given that LITERALLY the main passage you're quoting is literally speaking of David, why is it not possible that David is being figurative or, somehow, speaking ONLY of himself? Why is it not exceedingly rational that David was feeling overwhelmingly guilty for murdering a man to bed his wife and so he moaned and berated himself exceedingly? This is a common human reaction to being caught in great wrong-doing. On what basis MUST we assume that David was trying to say this was a reality for ALL newborn babies (or even for himself)? Because it's what you're used to thinking?
The more I read it, the less rational, less biblical it seems. At the very least, can you see how others would find this opinion of yours to NOT be a very biblically deep or rational way of viewing this passage?
Is it possible that because you've grown up in religious traditions that REALLY emphasize this point, that it's hard for you to view it any other way, even though it's not an exceptionally biblical point of view to take?
Or consider this: Ezekiel says...
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
That passage, for what it's worth, was literally written to one king, who turned out to be a bad man engaging in oppression. But that bad man, according to Ezekiel's pronouncement, was BLAMELESS until he did wrong. (And as an aside, some conservative types say that the passage is a figurative reference to "the devil/Satan..." which would be saying that even SATAN was blameless until he did wrong!)
Or consider this, from Jesus:
“Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them,
for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
If you take the ONE line in the Bible "We are born in sin..." literally because, well, it's there (albeit, literally referring specifically to David who had committed a great crime)... WHY not take this ONE line literally, when it's coming from Jesus, speaking apparently of literal children?
All of that to say that, while you personally don't understand why we shouldn't take this passage from David sort of literally (well, not the part about him speaking specifically of himself - THAT part we should make figuratively applicable to ALL of humanity, but the single line, ripped from context, "born in sin," THAT we should take literally - sort of - to mean that babies are sinners), that you personally don't understand why we should interpret it the way you interpret it, that this is not a compelling reason to agree with your interpretation?
Craig...
I'm compelled to align myself with what scripture says, not with what you say.
Literally, what you INTERPRET/READ INTO scripture what YOU THINK makes sense TO YOU. Since nowhere - not one single line on one single page in the Bible - does it say that newborns are sinners. NOT ONE LINE, NOT ONE TIME.
Can we agree on that basic literal reality?
80 comments:
Craig...
I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".
Also, I asked a specific question: DO YOU BELIEVE NEWBORNS ARE SINNING, COMMITTING SINS, DOING WRONG?
The terms, "conceived in sin," "free from sin," "having a sin nature..." these are all more figurative, less well-defined, less precise, more vague phrases. What does it mean to be "free from sin?" "Conceived in sin?" The Bible doesn't tell us and God has not told us and YOU have not said, Craig.
But, "That newborn literally has committed no sin, literally had no evil thoughts, literally done not a single thing wrong or 'bad.'" is very precise and understandable and obvious.
The question I'm asking - can you agree with that? That newborns have not committed a sin, have done NO WRONG? It's just about the simplest, easiest to answer question in the world.
I'm simply going to respond to this from the end of your nonsense:
"Since nowhere - not one single line on one single page in the Bible - does it say that newborns are sinners. NOT ONE LINE, NOT ONE TIME."
Once again, after having pretended you don't do this, you insist Scripture must present a concept in EXACTLY a specific way of YOUR choosing, to YOUR satisfaction, in order for that concept to be absolutely Biblical AND proof you're position is wrong. But the fact is that it is clear we are all born with a sin nature. Thus, as we are all born with a sin nature, we are, by that nature, sinners. And since we all must be born, we were, as newborns, sinners then as well.
Your Ezekiel offering, as all your offerings, is a perversion. What is said about the king is a comparison of him to another (look it up), because that king was never a cherub or in Eden. There were only three who were created blameless. One died on a cross, another tempts mankind, the third was Adam. Due to the last two, none of us is born blameless, including the king spoken of in your offering. With this FACT in mind, it up to you to provide verses or passages which suggest newborns are not sinners like the rest of us.
Christ said one is a murderer who hates. Thus, a murderer doesn't have to murder to be a murderer. He also said and adulterer is one who simply lusts after another woman or another man's wife. Thus, and adulterer doesn't have to commit adultery. They are guilty of these crimes because of their nature. We are sinners because of our sin nature, which makes us prone to sinful behaviors.
Your interpretation of David speaking only of himself doesn't work, either, because he's speaking something which he regards as universal applying to him, too. Then, you do your typical corruption of what it means to take Scripture literally with your crack about using soap and water to "wash away my iniquities". No one takes it that way, yet they still take Scripture literally. The literal understanding here is God dismissing one's sin nature, which happens for us all who truly believe in Christ as our Savior...Who actually did the "washing" when He literally paid for transgressions by His death on the cross. It's not the only place in this post where you corrupted the concept of taking Scripture literally, but it stands as a cheap rationalization for not taking other parts literally which should, such as David, like all of us, having been born in sin.
Marshal...
the fact is that it is clear we are all born with a sin nature. Thus, as we are all born with a sin nature, we are, by that nature, sinners. And since we all must be born, we were, as newborns, sinners then as well.
1. Fact 1: It is an OPINION not proven that we are born with a "sin nature."
Can you admit that this is an unproven opinion, not a fact? You can't prove it as a fact, there is no objective data to support this and you'd have to begin by defining it.
2. IF you are merely saying, we are all born imperfect, THAT is demonstrable, or at least reasonably demonstrable (you might have some difficulty proving a newborn is imperfect, but just the reality of human imperfection is not really in question, generally speaking).
IF, by "sin nature" you mean something beyond "Humans are born imperfect," then you really need to define it, THEN support it.
3. For instance, if by "sin nature" you mean "stained with the sin of Adam..." then that is truly not supportable in any objectively provable manner.
Do you recognize that reality?
4. Thus, a sinner LITERALLY is one who sins unless you have SOME OBJECTIVE proof otherwise or want to explain your alternate definition. But you can't willy nilly re-define words and expect your redefinition of words to be the authoritative version of the word.
So, Marshal, if you want to comment here, answer the questions about, clearly, directly. AND provide definitions (your definitions) for
Sinner
Sin nature
And if they are not the typical definitions, admit you're operating from an unproven and subjective personal opinion and it has nothing to do with "facts."
That should have said, "Answer the questions ABOVE, clearly, directly..."
Marshal...
Christ said one is a murderer who hates. Thus, a murderer doesn't have to murder to be a murderer. He also said and adulterer is one who simply lusts after another woman or another man's wife. Thus, and adulterer doesn't have to commit adultery.
Prove it. WHY is it not possible (indeed, likely) that Jesus was making a point using figurative language? HOW IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, GOOD and RATIONAL can one be a murderer by hating? One LITERALLY can't be, literally speaking. Words have meanings.
"Your interpretation of David speaking only of himself doesn't work, either, because he's speaking something which he regards as universal applying to him, too. ..."
Sigh. He LITERALLY is speaking if himself in the text.
The text LITERALLY says nowhere, "and this true of all humanity..."
YOU literally are reading that interpretation INTO the text, which is fine if you wish to do so, but let's be clear about the facts.
Dan
The passage from David...
A psalm of David.
When the prophet Nathan came to him [DAVID]
after DAVID had committed adultery with Bathsheba.
1 Have mercy on me [DAVID], O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my [DAVID] transgressions.
2 Wash away all my [DAVID] iniquity
and cleanse me [DAVID]from my sin.
3 For I [DAVID] know my [DAVID] transgressions,
and my sin is always before me [DAVID].
4 Against you, you only, have I [DAVID]sinned
and done what is evil in your sight;
so you are right in your verdict
and justified when you judge.
5 Surely I [Now, HERE, you want to guess that David is speaking literally of all humanity?] was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Dan
Just to make clear the problem you're having, Marshal, you claimed...
because [David]'s speaking something which he regards as universal applying to him, too.
But as we see in the text that says ANYTHING like "This is something I regard as universal..." He's clearly concerned about his own sin and own state. Why are you reading that interpretation into the text when it isn't there? And even if he believed it, why must he be considered to speaking literally (I was sinful at birth, I was sinful as a zygote when my mother conceived me, etc)? Why is it not rational that he's exaggerating to make the point - "Dang! I've messed up badly and I'm guilty of great and shameful wrong. I am a worm! I am sinful from conception!"?
Indeed, the psalmist (David) in Psalm 22 says:
"But I am a worm and not a man,
A reproach of men and despised by the people"
You do not take that verse literally, right? You don't think that David was actually a worm, not a man. He's using an extreme metaphor to emphasize his sin. Right?
WHY, then, is David in Psalm 51 not reasonably using a metaphor and not suggesting he holds a universal belief that from conception, he is a sinner... we ALL are sinners, or, if you prefer, sinful?
You try to mock me for pointing out that you don't take every line as literal ("washes us clean") but that's the point. I KNOW you don't take it literally, nor should you. But what is your consistent rubric for making up your mind to take "sinful from conception" literally but "I am a worm" figuratively?
While waiting, pointing out more of your flawed opinions (not facts). You said, about Ezekiel 28, which I had quoted...
One died on a cross, another tempts mankind, the third was Adam. Due to the last two, none of us is born blameless
Prove it. Or, better yet, admit you can't prove it, that this isn't a fact and it's just your own unsupported hunch.
Do you really think that ALL people are "guilty" of something because ADAM (and here, you're presuming an actual "first man" person who sinned, of course, even though the creation story reads much more like a creation myth than history and even though you can't prove this theory of yours) sinned?
Do you think that this is rational? "MY great-great-great-granddaddy sinned, therefore, my newborn infant is a sinner!"
WHAT IS THAT NEWBORN GUILTY OF?
The Bible is pretty clear (and of course, REASON is even more clear) that we can't reasonably blame one person for the misdeeds of another. That would be a great evil. Don't do that. Don't embrace that evil human theory and pass it on and claim that even your own loved ones who have newborns, that they're "guilty" and "deserving" of an eternity in hell.
That's crazy talk. Do you even realize that?
I'm going to try to respond to your "questions" and claims (mostly that which in bold print), and regardless of what you think of my manner in doing so, I expect you to be a man and leave my comments posted. Don't bother citing a word I say if you delete any comments in which they are found. You routinely distort, corrupt and pervert my words in a variety of ways and I don't appreciate it one bit. At least if they remain posted, and you cite any portion with the entire context remaining in full, all can see what you think I said, and I can better correct your inevitable misunderstandings and blatant lies about what I've said. So, despite the fact you lack the honor to abide this request, I nonetheless begin:
"1. Fact 1: It is an OPINION not proven that we are born with a "sin nature."
Can you admit that this is an unproven opinion, not a fact? You can't prove it as a fact, there is no objective data to support this and you'd have to begin by defining it."
First, it is not in the least an "unproven opinion". It is a solid conclusion based on the words of Scripture. If you wish to present a fact-based contradiction to what Scripture says, and what many theological scholars have affirmed through their own study, then give it a shot. Merely saying, "It's an unproven opinion" is worthless.
To support...if not totally prove...the premise to which you object without contradictory evidence, I present the following two links. Before doing so, I will concede some of the verse used to make the case do not by themselves stand as the best evidence, but taken together with all which accompanies them in the links, the solidify the position:
https://bible-truths-revealed.com/adv73.html
https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-is-the-sinful-nature-a-bible-study/
https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/are-you-accidentally-committing-the-heresy-of-pelagianism.html
The above are only three of many from which I could have presented. I've also reviewed several which take your side of the issue and found them as wanting as your simply, unsupported objections...except that one or two were somewhat impressive for their valiant attempts to get it done. Yet, they all have serious flaws, and if you provide anything remotely studious, I'm sure it, too, will be easy to blow up.
"3. For instance, if by "sin nature" you mean "stained with the sin of Adam..." then that is truly not supportable in any objectively provable manner.
Do you recognize that reality?"
Why do you do this? You routinely ask a question a second time and it looks like a little kid trying to pad an essay to appear more scholarly to his teacher. Just re-read the response to the first question, as the answer there satisfies this second asking.
"So, Marshal, if you want to comment here, answer the questions about, clearly, directly. AND provide definitions (your definitions) for
Sinner
Sin nature
And if they are not the typical definitions, admit you're operating from an unproven and subjective personal opinion and it has nothing to do with "facts.""
A couple of things before I respond more directly.
--I'm in the process of doing a post on leftist corruption of the language. Part of that will include the leftist demand that definitions from their opponents meet specific definitions of which the leftist has sole authority to approve.
--Here, you ask for "my" (Marshal Art's) definition with the warning it must be "typical". But what does that mean? Some words have multiple meanings with the least typical being just as valid as the most common. So, and tell me if these definitions sound in any way familiar to you:
Sinner= one compelled to sinful behavior.
Sin Nature= the orientation which compels sinful behavior.
The familiarity should have slapped you across the room. Is one a homosexual because one engages in homosexual behavior, or is one a homosexual because one is compelled toward that behavior? If you're attracted to little girls, are you not a pedophile despite not having acted upon those attractions? Think again to Christ insisting one who hates is akin to a murderer, or one who lusts is akin to an adulterer. Neither indicates actually acting on either the hate or lust, but merely hating and lusting marks one as a murderer or adulterer.
Sinful behavior is merely the manifestation of being a sinner.
When one's "orientation" is homosexual, one is compelled toward homosexual acts because that nature drives the attraction and desire to do so. Thus, one's "sin nature" is the natural orientation of mankind. That's what Scripture teaches about us all and we're that way from birth...if not from conception (which I believe is clearly the case).
To say the definition of "sinner" is merely "one who sins" ignores what compels one to sinful behaviors. It's simplistic and only true as a quick explanation for "sinner". But that is only part of the truth.
"Prove it. WHY is it not possible (indeed, likely) that Jesus was making a point using figurative language? HOW IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, GOOD and RATIONAL can one be a murderer by hating?"
This was Jesus providing the correct interpretation of the OT law. And it goes to the heart of what it means to be of a sinful nature. Clearly, to be angry (as my NIV puts it) is hateful and hate is what drive one to murder. Also, John affirms the claim later in 1 John 3:15. Exodus 21 also speaks of intention behind a killing. How this ties into the notion of a sin nature should be easy to figure, but more importantly, it illustrates perfectly the concept that one needn't actually commit a sin in order to be a sinner.
As to what Jesus meant, if you think He wasn't being literal about the seriousness of anger and hate being akin to murder, or of lust being akin to adultery, I'll wait here while you don't do a thing to support your objection.
"Sigh. He LITERALLY is speaking if himself in the text.
The text LITERALLY says nowhere, "and this true of all humanity...""
Fortunately he doesn't have to, for how is David different than any of us...aside from God's incredible fondness for the guy? Was he not born of a woman? Is there any detail from Scripture about his mother or her character? No. He's simply stating a fact of life and using that to explain how he could have been such a creep. Unlike those you support, he was actually born that way, just as we all are. So how could David be sinful at birth but somehow Dan Trabue was not?
"You try to mock me for pointing out that you don't take every line as literal ("washes us clean") but that's the point. I KNOW you don't take it literally, nor should you. But what is your consistent rubric for making up your mind to take "sinful from conception" literally but "I am a worm" figuratively?"
Is David a worm, or is he speaking of just how much a sinner he is...and thus how deep his sin nature is? Clearly, he's describing how sinful he is. In essence, he's admitting what all living humans can easily admit. He is mirroring any number of Scriptural passages which affirm our fallen nature, and his is an early example which is affirmed later on in the NT, but rejected by progressives who want to carve out loopholes for people justly identified as craven sinners.
In other words, I don't pretend the obvious metaphors (I'm a worm) are in any way similar to someone trying to describe just how naturally corrupt he is. Again, you pervert the notion of taking Scripture literally in order to reject proper understanding which you find inconvenient. For that I mock you. It's deserving as your ploy is dishonest.
"One died on a cross, another tempts mankind, the third was Adam. Due to the last two, none of us is born blameless
Prove it."
I did already. Up above. Go read it again.
"Do you really think that ALL people are "guilty" of something because ADAM (and here, you're presuming an actual "first man" person who sinned, of course, even though the creation story reads much more like a creation myth than history and even though you can't prove this theory of yours) sinned?"
It doesn't matter how it "reads" to you or anyone else. What matters is the concept being taught, which is that we're all corrupted by sin, whether we are naughty or not, and it's why Christ was born for us. This is Christianity 101.
"Do you think that this is rational? "MY great-great-great-granddaddy sinned, therefore, my newborn infant is a sinner!""
The concept is entirely rational. You lame perversion of it is not. It is desperate, however. Calm down.
"WHAT IS THAT NEWBORN GUILTY OF?"
Of having a sin nature. I'm pretty sure that's the topic on the table.
"The Bible is pretty clear (and of course, REASON is even more clear) that we can't reasonably blame one person for the misdeeds of another."
That's not the case here, so...
"That's crazy talk. Do you even realize that?"
"Crazy talk" is progressive "Christians" rejecting the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture without so much as a hint of a verse or passage to support that objection.
Marshal, answer this question before making any other comments...
it is not in the least an "unproven opinion". It is a solid conclusion based on the words of Scripture.
It is LITERALLY a subjective human opinion, NOT proven objectively in any possible sense.
Answer questions directly: Do you acknowledge that reality?
If you wish to present a fact-based contradiction to what Scripture says, and what many theological scholars have affirmed through their own study, then give it a shot. Merely saying, "It's an unproven opinion" is worthless.
1. Merely stating, "It IS proven! Nyaa!" is worthless.
2. It is an observable fact that humans are imperfect.
3. It is a human theory that this imperfection is explained by the notion of a "sin nature," which you define here:
Sinner= one compelled to sinful behavior.
What does this mean, "compelled to sinful behavior?" Do you mean one who commits sins or one who merely contemplates sinful behavior? Contemplating sinful behavior does not make one a sinner. Committing sins makes one a sinner.
Sin Nature= the orientation which compels sinful behavior.
So, it's your explanation of this human theory that sinful behavior is "compelled" by something within humanity? What is it that compels that? Our sin nature?
Prove it.
Marshal, you should know that you're treading on dangerous ground. For now, I'm leaving this comment which has, side by side, the examples of gay folk and pedophiles, a homophobic trope that has been used literally in the real world to oppress LGBTQ folk. Just leave LGBTQ thoughts out of your comments here and use another example if you want to use examples.
Is one a homosexual because one engages in homosexual behavior, or is one a homosexual because one is compelled toward that behavior?
One is a homosexual if their orientation is to attraction to folks of the same gender. This is in no way wrong or sinful, anymore than being heterosexual.
Of course.
So, if your analogy is "sinner is equivalent to being a heterosexual," well, there's no sin in one's orientation, so your analogy falls apart. "Sinner" is recognized as a bad thing, one whose done wrong, literally, "one who sins." Heterosexual or homosexual is literally NOT a bad thing. Having an orientation towards a particular gender or having a natural orientation towards being out in the mountains or being at the ocean of being active in sports or towards reading books, this "orientation" does not imply any wrong-doing.
So, are you saying a "sinner" who has a "sin orientation/sin nature" is not doing anything wrong? I don't think so.
IF, however, you are merely saying that, to you in your human theory, that having a "sin nature" merely means you might have a likelihood of "sinning" and doing wrong eventually, but that the sin nature itself is not problematic, I'm fine with that human theory.
Is that what you're saying?
But then, if so, HOW is it rational to suggest that those with a "sin nature" are "deserving" of a punishment of "eternal torture," for merely having a proclivity to considering sin? Isn't the actual sin the thing that would need to be punished, if it needed to be punished? And not just the proclivity towards sin?
For example, I am prone to being lazy and not working hard enough on what I need to get done. But if I recognize that in me and generally do work hard (and who's going to define "working hard enough" and where does that cross a line into "sin..."?), would it be reasonable to punish me for my natural tendency? Would it be rational to punish me for an eternity for it, EVEN IF I didn't generally engage in that proclivity? Is the proclivity itself, worthy of eternal torture?
That is neither rational nor biblical.
Marshal...
Sinner= one compelled to sinful behavior.
Sin Nature= the orientation which compels sinful behavior.
You probably need to define "compelled," because this theoretical definition you're making up hinges on it (is this your own definition? Nothing wrong with that, just clarifying.)
The typical definition of compelled:
Compelled: force or oblige (someone) to do something.
Are you saying we have "something" innately within all humans that compels us, forces us even against our will to do something wrong, harmful, damaging? That we are powerless to refuse this compulsion?
If so, I'd have to ask you to prove that. I fully recognize in the real world that there are some who might have innate compulsions that are nigh unto irresistible (to drink alcohol to excess, to be malignantly narcissistic, etc), but that's generally in those with some mental disabilities. I see nothing in all of humanity that says generally healthy people are powerless to refuse to do wrong stuff.
I also see that we humans are IMPERFECT, and while of course it is within my power to not abuse someone, not cheat and steal money from someone, some of us will do it anyway. But that was a choice we would have made, not a compulsion we could not overcome or withstand.
Do you have any data to support this theory, if that's your theory?
Consider this MW definition - and the example - of Compelled:
to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly. Hunger compelled him to eat.
Hunger and thirst are, indeed, irresistible compulsions, innate to humanity, part of our build. But choosing to assault someone? Choosing to lie? Choosing to steal money or oppress LGBTQ people? Those are all choices that we CAN overcome. Not an irresistible compulsion. There is absolutely no data I know of that says otherwise as, indeed, our reality generally bears out.
Do you agree?
If so, then we have this contrasting observable reality that
1. we are imperfect and we WILL make wrong choices sometimes (with varying degrees of intention, or no intention at all), but also
2. the reality that we are NOT compelled to make these bad choices. We sometimes let our worst come out, but we are not required or compelled to.
Just curious, Marshal:
I suspect (don't know that anyone could prove it objectively, but strongly suspect) that most of the wrong we do - the vast majority - is done without an intent to do wrong. I was raised extremely conservatively, for instance, and said harsh, cruel things about homosexual people - just rude in some cases, demeaning in others and sometimes, I'm certain, just cruel - and almost certainly in the presence of LGBTQ folks. I truly meant no harm. I wasn't thinking, "I should say something mean about gay folks just for the hell of it..." but rather, I was raised to believe that "being gay" was a "sin," and so my words reflected that.
I was, I know now, doing harm and adding to oppression but it was literally unintended. Or consider my driving a gas-fueled vehicle. That adds to pollution in the air which has the result of causing harm to people and God's creation. But I drive it currently in order to do my job, to assist folks with disabilities who, for instance, may not be able to drive and may need to get somewhere. I fully recognize the moral complexity and problem of driving polluting vehicles, but at the same time, I don't know how to do this job which helps people without doing it. So, again, no great intention to do wrong - indeed, my intention is to do right - but in this imperfect world we humans have made policies that make driving seem like a necessity.
It's morally nuanced.
Like that. I suspect that most of our wrong-doing is in that nature... either unintended, perhaps from a place of ignorance, or just as a result of a morally complex world with systems and policies in place that are morally complex.
Do you theorize that most humans regularly intentionally engage in wrong ("sin") deliberately to sin? Or are you like me and think it's more unintentional and a byproduct of imperfect systems and policies (personal and societal)?
I had said...
"Prove it. WHY is it not possible (indeed, likely) that Jesus was making a point using figurative language? HOW IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, GOOD and RATIONAL can one be a murderer by hating?"
And you responded...
This was Jesus providing the correct interpretation of the OT law. And it goes to the heart of what it means to be of a sinful nature. Clearly, to be angry (as my NIV puts it) is hateful and hate is what drive one to murder.
? I'm not sure you understood. What I said was PROVE IT.
Don't just tell me that YOU personally REALLLLY REALLYREALLYREALLY think in your own head that Jesus wanted us to take it literally. Prove that being angry is THE SAME THING as murder. It's not, and the text does not even say that. Is it "akin to murder..." as you note? Sure, in some respects, but it's not literally the same thing as murder and one who is rational would not judge being unjustly angry as requiring an equal punishment as what is dispensed for killing someone.
What Jesus said, as a reminder:
“You have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not murder,’ and ‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’ But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment.
There are all manner of righteous reasons to be angry. If a brother has raped someone, we SHOULD be angry about that. And of course, it's not the same thing as murder. And we certainly SHOULD hate that action.
This is the problem with randomly, hit and miss, deciding to take THIS verse pretty literally but THAT verse as figurative. WHY, for instance, make this verse literal and Luke 6 (blessed are you who are poor, who are hungry, WOE to you who are rich...) figurative?
You have no justification or textual reason to justify this, it's random and appears to be entirely dictated by your human traditions.
Did you know many traditional, conservative takes on this passage say that it's there to contrast between the pharisees and Jesus' teachings? The pharisees, who were quite the rule followers literally, but who missed the point. So, Jesus is pointing out that the pharisees' "righteousness" is actually quite shallow, and so he made this point about unjustly being angry with someone is akin to sin. NOT to say that they were literally just as guilty, just as due the same punishment as someone who killed someone. And this whole conversation is about WHY it's not rational to say we all deserve eternal torture, whether for stealing a cookie or for genocide.
"it is not in the least an "unproven opinion". It is a solid conclusion based on the words of Scripture.
It is LITERALLY a subjective human opinion, NOT proven objectively in any possible sense.
Answer questions directly: Do you acknowledge that reality?"
No. It's not at all a reality as I have demonstrated. You can ignore what I present, but ignoring it does nothing to support your perversion of what reality is.
"1. Merely stating, "It IS proven! Nyaa!" is worthless."
Good thing I never did that. That's how YOU argue a point. In my case, I provided Scriptural evidence to support the premise. You should try it sometime...that is, if there is any such evidence you can find that isn't just you corrupting verses in a shape you think does the trick.
"2. It is an observable fact that humans are imperfect."
Never more obvious than in your case, but not at all a point in contention here. Thanks for the info, Capt. Obvious.
"What does this mean, "compelled to sinful behavior?" Do you mean one who commits sins or one who merely contemplates sinful behavior? Contemplating sinful behavior does not make one a sinner. Committing sins makes one a sinner."
You don't know what "compelled" means? It's not a hard word to understand for the ordinary person not trying to lie. And no, one needn't commit a sinful act in order to be a sinner. You totally are ignoring clear Christian teaching yet again. But in more common understanding, the desire or compulsion to act badly is enough. That's why we're all sinners. Because we are all "oriented" toward sinful behaviors of one kind or another. You, for example, are so deeply a sinner...given over to it, in fact...that you insist what you support is not sinful. And regardless of how sincere you are in your claim to truly believe what you say, the fact is what you support is sinful beyond any doubt...at least to those who truly seriously and prayerfully study Scripture. Said another way, actually committing a sinful act merely confirms the sinfulness of the sinner outwardly. The sinner's sinful nature is without question when the sinner commits a sinful act. (..though by virtue of Christian Scriptural teaching, one's sin nature is already without question. I was merely referring to observers who would suppose one is good until the sin proves otherwise.)
"So, it's your explanation of this human theory that sinful behavior is "compelled" by something within humanity? What is it that compels that? Our sin nature?
Prove it."
I already did this with all the Scriptural references in my previous comments, and the attendant explanations and teachings therein. Try reading the links I provide before lying about whether or not I support my claims. And then, address the evidence directly rather than pretending I've provided none.
Gotta go. I'll get to more later. You've been more adult in not deleting my comments. I hope it continues with actual responses rather than rank dismissals.
Do not post anything until you answer this directly with authoritative, objectively demonstrable evidence more than just a claim. You DO know the meaning of 'objective,' right? ANYTHING YOU POST before answering this question WITH OBJECTIVE SUPPORT will be deleted unread.
Marshal...
It's not at all a reality as I have demonstrated.
Demonstrated, WHERE? PROVE IT. Show me the objective proof.
You DO understand that you pointing to a verse and saying "This is what it means" is NOT OBJECTIVE PROOF? That this is literally the definition of subjective opinion?
Regarding your "proof" (which once again, is literally not objective proof.... it's literally another human pointing to multiple verses then that human saying, "These verses mean that God thinks that babies are sinners/have a sin nature..." - literally subjective and unsupported opinions), your first source does the same thing you are doing, making subjective, unsupported claims and points to some verses as if those verses somehow prove they're right or, in most cases, even say something about the topic in question (which they don't). Let's look at some of those verses.
First of all, there's nothing from Jesus. Nada. Jesus never made a claim that newborns are sinners or have a sin nature. You'd think something as basic and foundational as that, Jesus might have mentioned it. Any alleged "Christian" doctrine or theory should find support in Jesus' teaching as a minimal starting point.
But setting that glaring hole aside, the author cites:
Psalm 51 - literally makes NO claim about all infants being born with a sin nature or that they are sinners. It's literally not there. The passage is literally David speaking about himself and his OWN sinful nature in a moment of distress following greatly evil acts he committed. Just like David called himself a "worm" in another passage citing his own great personal evil. Clearly hyperbolic, but even if you think otherwise, it's literally not a claim about all babies and fetuses.
Isaiah 6 - Isaiah speaking of literally himself:
"Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
Literally nothing about sin natures of sinful newborns/babies as a universal condition of newborns and preborns.
Isaiah 53:
"We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all."
Literally nothing about sin natures of sinful newborns/babies as a universal condition of newborns and preborns.
Isaiah 64:
"All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away."
Literally nothing about sin natures of sinful newborns/babies as a universal condition of newborns and preborns. Indeed, it says, "We have BECOME..." indicating that they were not always in the same sinful state as they perceive themselves to be now.
Jeremiah 17:
"The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?"
Literally nothing about sin natures of sinful newborns/babies as a universal condition of newborns and preborns.
And that's it from the entirety of the OT, from your first source.
cont'd...
Romans 3:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
Literally nothing about sin natures of sinful newborns/babies as a universal condition of newborns and preborns. Also, it engages in figurative hyperbole to emphasize the point (we're not perfect, we're sinners) by saying "our throats are open graves" (they literally aren't) "Poison of vipers is on their lips" (it literally isn't) - these are hyperbolic, figurative claims to emphasize a point of our sinfulness, but it's literally NOT a claim about the sin nature of babies.
Romans 5:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"
Literally nothing about sin natures of sinful newborns/babies as a universal condition of newborns and preborns.
And on and on it goes. YOUR OWN SOURCE can't cite even ONE SPOT where it proves that we have something called a "sin nature" or that infants have a sin nature or are sinners. Offering verses and saying "EVEN THOUGH it says nothing about sin nature in infants, this is what it means..." is literally not objective proof and it truly isn't even ANY kind of proof. It only undermines your theories because those verses don't even TRY to say what you're trying to make them say.
You know what you find if you do a bible search on "Sin nature..."? Nothing. It's not in the Bible.
You know what you find if you do a search for "nature..."? Verses talking about a lot of things, but NONE of them saying ANYTHING LIKE "infants have a sin nature as a universal reality..." NOT THOSE WORDS, but ANY words suggesting that irrational theory.
If nothing else, Marshal, you're helping me understand just how thoroughly UN-biblical this set of human traditions and unsupported theories are. Thanks for that.
Truly, tell me: What do you think are THE MOST CLEAR and UNMISTAKABLE three (five??) biblical passages that deal with this fantasy theory of yours?
Do not post anything until you answer this directly with authoritative, objectively demonstrable evidence more than just a claim. You DO know the meaning of 'objective,' right? ANYTHING YOU POST before answering this question WITH OBJECTIVE SUPPORT will be deleted unread.
As a reminder, you can ALSO just admit, "I can't prove this objectively with data and stuff. It IS an opinion and one that I can't prove, and neither do my sources, in a demonstrably objective, authoritative manner."
That IS the reality of it all and admitting it would show a sense of good faith adult conversation.
In response to two questions from Craig...
Does YHWH really need our help to accomplish His plans and purposes?
Well, given the reality that God doesn't overtly insert God's Self into our every day affairs, doesn't stop to give housing to an unhoused person or help someone unemployed find employment, yes. God operates in this world through our hands and feet and minds and actions.
God expects our actions to accomplish God's plans. If you'd like a Bible verse (or a dozen) to support this theory, just to show this is basic biblical teaching (although why in the hell you can't just use your God-given reasoning is beyond me)
"For we are God’s handiwork,
created in Christ Jesus to do good works,
which God prepared in advance
FOR US TO DO."
Ephesians 2
So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.
The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and
each will be rewarded according to his own labor.
For we are God's fellow workers...
1 Cor 3
Yet you have made [humans] a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned [us] with glory and honor.
You have given [us] dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under [our] feet [ie, to manage, help, make things better with OUR management/cooperation]
Psalm 8
Truly, truly, I say to you,
whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do;
and greater works than these will they do...
Jesus, in John 18
Now you are the body of Christ,
and each one of you is a part of it. (the point of the greater text is that each of us have our roles and should be doing those roles for the betterment of the Beloved Community.)
1 Cor 12
“Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.
Each one should use whatever gift they have received
to serve others,
faithfully administering God’s grace
in its various forms.”
1 Peter 4
YOU feed them.
Jesus, Mark 6
What YOU DO for the least of these
you do for me
Jesus, Matt 25
I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.
Does the God of Truth, really need lies to help Him out?
Why not?
The point is doing good. If following rules from some magic rule book leads you to doing WRONG - even committing atrocities (perhaps by a sin of omission, by the way), in spite of following the "rules," you've missed the point.
This is the problem with woodenly literal thinking instead of using your God-given reasoning. You would find problems with "lying" to protect a child or "stealing" (carburetors from the Nazi's cars) to save people's lives. YOU would call those "sins..." and fail to get the point. Completely. Horribly.
Hear the words of Jesus and understand. Open your heart, eyes and mind and be free from the chains of legalism, friend!
Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.
2 Peter 1:3,4
“His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”
Those of us believe and are in communion with the living Christ (rather than settling for a printed on paper Jesus) are co-participants with god in the divine works of healing, restoring justice, saving all of creation - everything and every creature in it - from death and destruction, and effecting the emancipation into freedom of all of humankind.
Amen and amen.
Dan
To answer some of Craig's questions on his blog, just to show him how it's done and/or demonstrate that I've already answered some of them.
1. Is theft the only sin that can be used in the service of a "moral" good?
Theft is not the only action (it wouldn't be a sin in the example I gave of nuns stealing carburetors to stop Nazis from harming innocent citizens) that can be used for good. Of course. Pushing someone down and stopping them physically from harming someone, for instance (which is not a sin IN THIS CONTEXT) is not wrong, even though it would be assault if the motivation and situation were different. Hell, even YOU don't think all such normally "bad" things are bad in every situation. Presumably, you are okay with the police shooting and killing someone to defend lives. You may even be okay with a citizen doing so because they were afraid ("stand your ground" sort of thinking), am I right?
Would you say, "Is killing someone while standing your ground the only sin that can be used in service of a moral good..."?
2. If not, what other sins are allowed in order to stop a "moral" good.
Actions (not sins) taken to create/promote good or stop harm are moral goods, not sins... up until the "defensive" action starts harming others in unjust manner.
Would you agree? Again, think police, the military or even citizens killing someone to "protect liberty" or the citizenry or even themselves.
3. How to you determine what sins are allowed, and what sins are off limits?
Again, NOT sins, but actions. Motivations and circumstances are what make an action - any action - bad or good... sinful or humane or Godly. This is the problem with literal magic rulebook approach to morality or literally reading selected passages and failing to get the greater point.
If someone is taking an action in love to save others, to stop harm to innocents, to promote peace and healing and reduce harm, then it's not a sinful action. Of course. IF, on the other hand, someone is taking an action to "save lives" but end up killing vast numbers of innocents, then it's no longer a positive, healing, saving behavior and it's moved to bad or evil or sinful behavior. Think Hiroshima. (Which, presumably, you'd agree that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders is a great evil, BUT, I believe you've made clear, that in this case, it was a good thing. I guess your stance might be, "NO, it was still clearly a great immoral evil and atrocity... but it was worth it and can be forgiven..."?
[Shudder!]
4. Why?
Explained above.
cont'd...
5. Does this "get out of jail free" card only work when "stopping NAZI's" or does it work for other evil leaders?
Explained above.
6. Is there a correlation between the level of "evil" and the types of "sin" that magically become "good" in order to stop them?
I'd say so, yes. Although there's nothing magic about it. It's just the hard reality of adult moral decisions. Normally, I would never grab another man and wrestle him to the ground because of course that would be an assault and a moral wrong. Of course. But if he's beating a child, then the physical confrontation may be necessary.
Are you really thinking that in these sorts of examples, STOPPING the harm in ways that normally would be wrong (what you're calling "sin") IS a moral wrong itself, just one that's justified and can be forgiven?
Again, shudder! The evil that is promoted in that way of thinking!
OF COURSE, using force to save a child is not a moral sin. OF COURSE, stealing to stop the Nazi car is not a moral sin.
The Bible never says that anywhere. Indeed, Jesus made clear: The sabbath is for humanity, not the other way around. You see, that's the problem with this legalism approach to "sin..." It's lacking in grace to recognize that circumstances and motivations matter and it's lacking in common sense and it's just not biblical UNLESS you want to woodenly take some rules literally and not others.
Tell me: Jesus clearly and unequivocally said "Do not store treasures up on earth..." That's a direct rule from Jesus, if you are a legalistic literalist when it comes to biblical rules. Is it the case that you think savings or retirement accounts (literally storing up treasures) are sins, but "justified" sins that can be forgiven? Or is that a rule you just set aside and justify ignoring?
It's interesting. When I expect you all to clearly support your claims with data or admit you can't, you repeatedly go completely silent. As if you can't support your claims but also don't want to admit you can't support them.
Dan
Marshal...
Not at all certain one can determine by your weasel behavior what data hasn't been comprehensively supported.
Questions that remain unanswered from you, Marshal. You had said...
It is not in the least an "unproven opinion" ["It is an OPINION - not a proven reality - that we are born with a "sin nature."]. It is a solid conclusion based on the words of Scripture.
Answer this, directly, clearly...
It is LITERALLY a subjective human opinion, NOT proven objectively in any possible sense.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
Marshal always salves his twisted conscience with the poisonous self-deception that he pays attention to objective news. Like Tucker Carlson. And FOX.
Tucker Carlson whose non-camera ready emails and texts admit that he knows he's selling lies to build up an audience of bloodthirsty thugs like Marshal. And Carlson and those very emails and texts were set to be the very first witness and evidence called up by Dominion lawyers.
FOX, who could not have that happen, settled for a record defemation settlement. FOX, who knew that furtehr, redacted Carslon emails could possibly come to light revealing Carlson's misygony and racism, fired him the next Monday.
And the Wintery Knight he shares with Craig and whatever treasonous, lying sites he loves, have been proven as such by case after case after case after case after case after case by our court systme that a few thousand Trump supporters (who claim Trump's directives to go ahead and storm the Capital as their defense) did, in fact, engage in insurrection. And hundreds are going to jail.
Marshal has less than zero credibility when it comes to reason-based information gathering.
He thrills to chaos for the hate and brutality it ushers in.
Craig, too, the wicked latent man.
You're certainly correct that Fox and Carlson are anything but objective.
Admitted liars, actually. And Carlson admitted that it was for the purposes of ginning up an audience of irrationally raging thugs like Marshal and Craig.
And Marshal openly uses Carlson in his defense of his brutalizing worldview.
Dan, ask Marshal and Craig whether they believe the God of Genesis or their blind - though radical protestant - reading of Paul in Romans.
AFTER the so-called "Fall":
But he did not look with favour on Cain and his offering, and Cain was very angry and downcast. Yahweh asked Cain, 'Why are you angry and downcast? If you are doing right, surely you ought to hold your head high! But if you are not doing right, Sin is crouching at the door hungry to get you. You can still master him.'
God says we "may master" sin... or "must master" sin. תִּמְשָׁל-בּוֹ Genesis 4:5-7
Either way, biblical literalists must choose who is wrong in their reading of orignial sin: God or Paul?
Dan, Craig is trying to argue against the full humanity of LGBTQ+ people by blythely making up statistics that are dubious at best and prejudicial almost surely: ".00006% of all species is "normal", that's quite a claim."
And such en effort easily paints his effort as sophistry.
For instance, 4% of Americans openly identify as gay, lesbian, or tans. This is about the same percentage as women who never have children and express zero interest in having children. By inference, Craig has to say that such women are not normal and shouldn't exist.
Or, the human species makes up 0.01% "of all species" [Craig's phrase]. So, by inference, Craig has to say that the human species is not normal and shouldn't exist.
Further, when we consider individuals, human individuals make up 0.00000007% of all individual organisms on earth. So.... human beings are each vastly more abnormal than even gay sexual behavior.
But returning to the idiocy of Craig's best homespun - bigoted - thinking, if human beings as a species represent only 0.01% of all species, then
- only 0.01% of all species build spaces for work separate from living spaces; not normal and shouldn't exist in Craig's theocratic regime
- only 0.01% of all species build artificial flight machines; not normal and shouldn't exist in Craig's theocratic regime
- only 0.01% of all species cook their food with fire; not normal and shouldn't exist in Craig's theocratic regime
- only 0.01% of all species have sex for fun and well past procreative years; not normal and shouldn't exist in Craig's theocratic regime
- only 0.01% of all species build temples in which to worship god; not normal and shouldn't exist in Craig's theocratic regime
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum.
And nauseating is exactly what one feels when wondering how Craig can be so brazenly stupid. And make a religion out of it. But! 60+ million white Americans do it. So it's pretty normal among our irrationally raging fellow citizens.
If your faith needs to be bolstered by attacking others, you’re not a Christian: you’re not following Jesus. You’re an ancient Roman persecuting others.
But returning to the idiocy of Craig's best homespun - bigoted - thinking, if human beings as a species represent only 0.01% of all species, then
- only 0.01% of all species build spaces for work separate from living spaces; not normal and shouldn't exist in Craig's theocratic regime...
Yup. As I pointed out to Craig (from another source): celebrating Christmas is normal in the US and celebrating Hanukah is not the NORM, but of course, it's not "abnormal..." Any suggestion to the contrary is just stupidly false.
"Normal" and "abnormal" carry cultural baggage and tend to be used to demonize and oppress. Words matter.
Talking with them - or trying to - is just so deeply weird.
Also, to be clear: When I ask if sinning babies is biblical, their answer is clearly no. They won't say so directly, but their silence speaks volumes.
As I have said many times and is demonstrably clear, they are a) sick in the head, and b) really shallow thinkers.
a leads to b and needs b to continue to exist.
Because they’re kind of sick in the head problems are the consequences of their racism, bigotry, misogyny. These predilections are mutually supportive with their will to identify themselves in the culture of brutality that is our foundation as the hegemony in this society: radical protestant white supremacists.
You and I share with them a psychological development within this unconscious ideological stand-in for culture.
But the truths pushed upward in life by conscience, by loving relationships, by communal feeling, and by experiences in a world that volubly demonstrates care and hate all build manifold messages that resist and argue against and fully disparage the maxims of brutalizing whiteness that we all first internalize as white children.
As we mature, a contest is waged within our consciousness by our conscience.
And it is in this internal battle that we all construct our adult narratives. We all get it wrong. But the spectrum of personal decisions runs from aspiring to be moral person who actively loves others to passive well wishers who enact unburdensome behaviors as contributions to abdication of moral involvement altogether to making commitments to white supremacy with active defending if it to insurrectionists to the assaultive and murderous lost.
These guys early in adulthood committed themselves to racism, bigotry, and misogyny. They did not acknowledge this to themselves; and in all likelihood will never be able to do so. They did so with the power of a repressive will - they Willed to be unaware - because they needed, like all of us, an identity. But they could not see any other option to being a white supremacist because they had willfully ignored the normal lessons witnessed by conscience in life of care and love, communal bonds, social belonging, fairness, and inclusive togetherness.
This Will to deny is their one overall identity now. And their denial of the real and the good and the beautiful has sickened their being, a steeped-in-being that demands their lies.
Again, God says to Cain AFTER the so-called Fall:
“If you are doing right, surely you ought to hold your head high! But if you are not doing right, Sin is crouching at the door hungry to get you. You can still master him.”
Radical Protestantism has no way to comprehend this.
Try again, Marshal. If you want to say, "It's not my position that babies can or do sin and it's never been my position that this is the case..." then do so. Be a respectful adult.
If that's your position, great. Glad to hear it. Newborn infants are NOT sinners, they have committed NO sin. They are literally INNOCENT of any misdeed.
Is that your position? Please make it clear.
We are indeed ALL sinners. That's different than saying an infant has perpetrated a sin. As has been comprehensively explained and supported already, being a sinner does NOT mean one engages in sinful behavior
Words have meanings. A sinner is one who sins. Period. An infant has not sinned. Period. You agree on the latter while insisting it's okay to misuse a word on the former.
Dictionary.com
Sinner: a person who transgresses against divine law by committing an immoral act or acts.
MW:
Sinner: a person who sins; reprobate, scamp
Cambridge dictionary:
Sinner: a person who has broken a religious or moral law
Infants are NOT sinners according to the standard English usage of the word.
The Bible does not say that infants are sinners as typically defined. GOD has not told you this.
Now, can you admit ALL of that? And do so in a respectful way. Start with that.
Once you admit that you're using a non-standard definition of sinner to refer to newborns, then you can apologize for being an ass about it. From that point on, if what you MEAN by "infants are sinners" is that "infants have a theoretical 'sin nature'" you can start saying that.
And when you start saying that, I will insist that you insert "theoretical sin nature," because it's not proven and the Bible has not told you that. God has not told you that. It's a human theory based upon how some humans have interpreted the Bible.
Understand? You need to clean up your act and be more rational and respectful if you want to comment here, including be more precise with your words.
But does a runner run always?
No. But they SOMETIMES run, which is what makes them a runner.
A baby, which you agree does NOT commit sins (because how idiotic a claim would that be?) IS NOT a sinner. Literally speaking. That isn't a semantic game. It's just reality.
You might rationally call them a "future sinner..." if you wanted to, but to call newborns "sinners" is an actual semantic game... except it's not even a game. It's just an outright false claim.
Thus, infants have this same nature regardless of their ability to recognize or act on it. You want to believe they're angelic due to their helplessness. That's not how one's "nature" works.
Thus, they're as deserving of eternal separation from God as is anyone older. Does that mean that they will suffer that eternal separation should they die before they are old enough to manifest their sin nature?
Well, THAT is the question, isn't it? YOU believe in YOUR head in the human tradition that says
1. there is a place of eternal torment
2. That this place (let's call it Hell) is for the vast majority of humanity
3. That humans don't have a choice in the matter... either God "elects" and chooses you into the pool out of whimsy (or whatever unknown blip of consciousness that causes that god to pick their lottery winners) - and that is MOST of humanity - OR this random god chooses you to be one of the lucky ones (you tell me - I don't know if you're of the Elect Thinkers or not)
4. And that this randomgod does this because they are incapable of (or, perhaps worse!, unwilling to) forgiving even the mildest of sinful lives
Is that correct?
Then THAT is what is in question. Is that a morally, rationally, justly reasonable position to hold/claim to make about the Almighty God of the Universe, the God of Love, Grace and Forgiveness?
YOU believe it is. I think it's a gross attack on the perfect God of All to speak such slander.
You want to believe they're angelic due to their helplessness. That's not how one's "nature" works.
I DO recognize the reality that they are sinless due to their having not committed a sin. Period. I'm just using words precisely.
Do you disagree with simple observable reality? Or do you agree with me/reality?
The same is true of the sin nature which is in each of us. We don't have to sin to be a sinner. We need only be oriented toward sinning, which we all are.
But this is literally NOT the definition of sinner. It's your made-up definition. Now, IF you want to make up a new definition and MAKE CLEAR that it's literally not the definition but YOUR OWN made up definition, you may do so.
But don't pretend like it's the actual definition.
Also, you say "oriented toward sinning," I say that this is an unproven human theory. We are IMPERFECT humans, that much is observably true. But pretending like it's a given that this means that we're oriented towards sin, well, you'd have to begin by defining that, THEN providing proof of it.
As I've made clear: Empty claims are not welcome here. If you want to admit it's your own unproven opinion that leans into the human opinions of various human religious beliefs, then say so. But an empty claim is just an empty claim. Swamp gas. Meaningless.
is one a homosexual because they're attracted to someone of the same sex, or because the actually engaged in sexual behaviors with another of the same sex?
One is a homosexual if they are attracted to people of the same gender.
A newborn is NOT a sinner if they don't sin. If they don't plan to sin. If they're not attracted to sin. Being a -er means one is CURRENTLY interested in the verb in question. If one likes running, one is a runner. If one is interested in people of the opposite gender, they are a heterosexual. If one is interested in or engaged in sinning, one is a sinner.
A newborn is literally not a sinner.
Again, a rational, literal fail on your part. Look, why NOT just refer to newborns as imperfect newborn human beings, humans that almost certainly will make mistakes and sin, given a chance eventually?
Why not use precise and accurate words, rather than trying to push improper and factually incorrect words to denigrate newborn babes?
What's wrong with you that you feel this need to denigrate/demonize newborns?
"No. But they SOMETIMES run, which is what makes them a runner."
Well, thanks for affirming my position. They're runners whether they run or not. Their desire to run makes them a runner.
"A baby, which you agree does NOT commit sins (because how idiotic a claim would that be?) IS NOT a sinner. Literally speaking. That isn't a semantic game. It's just reality."
Now you're contradicting yourself. If a runner is defined by his desire to run...which clearly comes before actually setting out to run...then a sinner is one who is possessed of sinful desire, which all human beings are. However, it's much more the case of the sinner than the runner, given that the sin nature compels one to sin regardless of a recognized desire to do so. When you lie about me being a racist, misogynist or "homophobe", you again prove the point. Are infants any less inclined, or are they simply unable to manifest their nature due to their stage of development. Clearly, it's the latter. How God chooses to deal with it should one die in infancy is irrelevant.
So yeah, you're playing a semantic game by insisting that one is a thing because one engages in a behavior unique to that thing. That's not how it works, and citing dictionary definitions doesn't change that. It only enhances your ability to corrupt reality to your liking.
"You might rationally call them a "future sinner..." if you wanted to, but to call newborns "sinners" is an actual semantic game... except it's not even a game. It's just an outright false claim."
No. It's a reality. The degree of capability of an infant doesn't change the reality of their nature.
"Well, THAT is the question, isn't it?"
No. It's not. The question is whether or not an infant has a sin nature. The answer is "YES".
"YOU believe in YOUR head in the human tradition that says..."
You keep repeating this crap because of your own sin nature which cannot tolerate Biblical truth. I believe what Scripture teaches clearly and without fake Christian equivocation. That is, whatever "tradition" I abide is that which aligns with clearly revealed Scriptural teaching. I'll continue to correct this lie of yours every time you spew it.
"1. there is a place of eternal torment
2. That this place (let's call it Hell) is for the vast majority of humanity
3. That humans don't have a choice in the matter... either God "elects" and chooses you into the pool out of whimsy (or whatever unknown blip of consciousness that causes that god to pick their lottery winners) - and that is MOST of humanity - OR this random god chooses you to be one of the lucky ones (you tell me - I don't know if you're of the Elect Thinkers or not)
4. And that this randomgod does this because they are incapable of (or, perhaps worse!, unwilling to) forgiving even the mildest of sinful lives
Is that correct?"
Hardly.
"Again, a rational, literal fail on your part."
Not at all, and not at all true regardless of how desperate you are that it be so.
"Look, why NOT just refer to newborns as imperfect newborn human beings, humans that almost certainly will make mistakes and sin, given a chance eventually?"
Because it would be a dodge...a lame concession to that which isn't the case. Instead, why don't you explain why humans are imperfect.
"Why not use precise and accurate words, rather than trying to push improper and factually incorrect words to denigrate newborn babes?"
First, the words I've used ARE precise and accurate in terms of Scriptural teaching. Nothing I've said is either improper or factually incorrect. What's more, I've explained the distinction between a dictionary definition and why I use the words which are the accurate reflection of Scriptural teaching. YOU want to insist one must do a specific thing in order to be what one who generally does that specific thing makes them. I cited Jesus teaching that one needn't do a specific thing in order to be what doing that thing makes them. So one needn't sin to be a sinner. That definition does not work in this context as a result. So who are you going to abide...Webster or Jesus? I choose Jesus and Scripture. But that's me.
Second, the point isn't to denigrate anyone, but to point out how we've all been denigrated by Adam's sin and thus are cursed with sin natures. That's a proven point of fact as has been presented throughout this discussion.
"What's wrong with you that you feel this need to denigrate/demonize newborns?"
What's wrong with you that you feel this need to reject anything in Scripture which conflicts with your preferred Pollyanna alternative to Scriptural teaching?
"If a runner is defined by his desire to run...which clearly comes before actually setting out to run...then a sinner is one who is possessed of sinful desire..."
A runner is NOT defined by their desire to run. They're defined by running.
I have a desire to rise off the ground and fly. Nonetheless, I am not a flyer.
Look at it this way: an infant is born and they Do NOT sin. They have no desire to sin. If at some point - at two days... two months... two years..? - that baby dies young, they will have died having never - not at a single time - sinned. They will have lived and died without ever being a sinner. As a point of definitional fact.
Agreed?
Now, YOU may have a theory that they had an as-yet enacted "sin nature," but that doesn't change the fact that they will have died having never sinned. Not one time. Thus, literally not a sinner as the word is defined.
Right?
Also, define "possessed of sinful desire..."
Dan
"What's wrong with you that you feel this need to reject anything in Scripture which conflicts with your preferred Pollyanna alternative to Scriptural teaching?"
1. The Bible doesn't say that newborns commit sins.
2. Clearly, observable, it's reasonable to note that newborns commit sins.
3. Recognizing that reality is not pollyanna-ish. It's recognizing reality. Period. Why do you think Recognizing reality is Pollyanna-ish or unbiblical?
4. Is it your human opinion that a newborn who dies at one week having never committing even ONE sin is somehow deserving of eternal torment (setting aside your guess that God will give them a pass, if that's what you think...)? Do you think merely having this mythical sin nature mythically "inherited" from your mythical Adam is deserving of eternal torment, EVEN IF that infant was literally sinless, having never sinned?
Is that rather like saying that Marshal has a gun and a killing nature, SO, Marshal should be sent to jail for murder, even if he never killed anyone?
Dan
"A runner is NOT defined by their desire to run. They're defined by running."
This is a dictionary definition. But not all runners run for the love of running, or even the love of what they believe are the health benefits of running. Some run because they're forced to run. So think of two runners: one forced by, say, the threat of death, the other because they get a high. Which of the two would you say regard themselves as runners, regardless of whether or not they are actually running or intend to run any time soon?
You want to define the runner by a dictionary definition which doesn't account for desire or passion for the act. You do this in order to rationalize your rejection of the fact that we are all sinners because of our sin nature, as opposed to any actual committing of a sinful act. Scripture defines it according to the latter. I tend to abide Scripture. I do not tend to reject those parts I find inconvenient.
"I have a desire to rise off the ground and fly. Nonetheless, I am not a flyer."
Now you're playing words games again. I used the word "desire" with regard to runners to express the manifestation of their orientation to run. Thus, you speak deceitfully yet again. Thus, you fail in arguing in good faith. That's OK, as I don't expect it from you.
"Look at it this way: an infant is born and they Do NOT sin. They have no desire to sin. If at some point - at two days... two months... two years..? - that baby dies young, they will have died having never - not at a single time - sinned. They will have lived and died without ever being a sinner. As a point of definitional fact.
Agreed?"
No, because you again ignore the teaching of Scripture and cite dictionaries to describe Biblical concepts. I cite Scripture, which speaks of our sin nature despite not using that term, which has been applied to the concept taught in Scripture. I don't disagree that infants commit no sinful acts. I've never, ever so much as hinted in such a thing, but you need to corrupt the concept to make your case. Worse, you provide no argument for what could possibly be wrong with accepting the Scriptural teaching....even if you want to insist it doesn't teach the concept in any way, which isn't the case even slightly. If an infant dies weeks after birth, it will have died without ever having committed a sinful act. It is still a sinner in the sense that it is possessed of a sin nature. You well know the distinction between the two I've consistently expressed and explained, but you in your corruption demand that I reject what is true for reasons you've not even attempted to explain.
"Now, YOU may have a theory that they had an as-yet enacted "sin nature," but that doesn't change the fact that they will have died having never sinned. Not one time. Thus, literally not a sinner as the word is defined."
If you wish to worship Merriam-Webster...I don't...then by that definition, it is true. But Scripture is not working by definitions imposed 1800 or so years after it was written.
I don't know what you mean by "as-yet enacted". We are born with a sin nature. We are born tainted by Adam's sin. This is Christianity 101.
"Also, define "possessed of sinful desire...""
Again??? No. Just re-read my comments that you haven't deleted, some of which are at other blogs. I've explained the concept many times already. There's no freakin' way you're unaware of what I mean by the concept from Scripture. Jeez!
And by the way, I'm not about to continually restate what I've stated multiple times already just so you have an excuse to delete my comments or insist I'm not answering your questions. This is not "good faith" discourse. It's childish petulance.
"1. The Bible doesn't say that newborns commit sins."
Wonderful. I haven't said that, either.
"2. Clearly, observable, it's reasonable to note that newborns commit sins."
"Clearly" this is a typo, as it is 180 degrees opposite of what you've been saying. So I'm going to go with that and simply assert yet again that I'm not arguing that infants commit sinful acts.
"3. Recognizing that reality is not pollyanna-ish. It's recognizing reality. Period. Why do you think Recognizing reality is Pollyanna-ish or unbiblical?"
This is another example of your failure to abide your plea for "good faith", "respectful", "adult" dialogue. You are not at all devoted to a "realistic" understanding of Scripture, as years of discourse having clearly exposed. Yours is a Pollyanna-ish, Kumbaya, hippie version which is rank heresy. Nonetheless, you insist you're all about "reality" as if your saying so makes it so, when clearly you're nowhere near reality about much of anything. Arguing "reality" requires more than just you rejecting you don't like as opposite of reality. It requires actual support of some kind...which you demand of my every utterance...but rarely if ever provide...and that which you do is some degree of crap. But, because you put it forth, we're supposed to accept it as "reality". Doesn't work that way, especially if you're sincere about wanting "good faith", "respectful", "adult" dialogue, which are just words to you.
"4. Is it your human opinion that a newborn who dies at one week having never committing even ONE sin is somehow deserving of eternal torment (setting aside your guess that God will give them a pass, if that's what you think...)? Do you think merely having this mythical sin nature mythically "inherited" from your mythical Adam is deserving of eternal torment, EVEN IF that infant was literally sinless, having never sinned?"
Again you demand I answer what has been expressed comprehensively and without equivocation multiple times in the past (the recent past as it happens) and I'm supposed to regard this as an examples of "good faith", "respectful", "adult" dialogue. Worse, you do so in a decidedly and intentionally demeaning manner, describing my position drawn from the clear teachings of Scripture as "myth". Yeah...that's "good faith", "respectful", "adult" dialogue. In a pig's eye. Scripture is crystal clear on what we "deserve". But your Pollyanna-ish sensibilities can't accept the truth. Fine. Provide Scriptural evidence of your counter position.
"Is that rather like saying that Marshal has a gun and a killing nature, SO, Marshal should be sent to jail for murder, even if he never killed anyone?"
No. That's you being insulting again, when I'm constantly being told by you that insults aren't allowed here. More ridiculous is you again conflating civil laws of human beings with the Will of God. But even Jesus never said that despite one being a murderer because one hates, then one must be jailed or executed for murder. Then again, given your history of really, really stupid analogies, this isn't surprising you'd try to push this lame attempt.
Marshal...
"If you wish to worship Merriam-Webster...I don't...then by that definition, it is true. But Scripture is not working by definitions..."
And...
"No, because you again ignore the teaching of Scripture and cite dictionaries to describe Biblical concepts. I cite Scripture, which speaks of our sin nature despite not using that term,"
I'm simply asking you questions to get a clear and direct response. I ask because I don't know your answer for sure. Now, if you want to comment here, you can answer directly and clearly or you can go away. These are reasonable questions.
You have agreed that the newborn doesn't actively commit sins. I think you agree that they don't even have the capacity to consider choosing to sin.
Right?
And so, the newborn who dies at one week lived a sinless (without sin or sinning) life. In that week, they never one time sinned or thought about sinning. During that week, they never once rejected God or God's ways.
Right?
Now, given that reality, do you hold to a theory that this infant deserves an eternity of torment?
And if you do, you do this recognizing that they were literally sinless, and STILL, in your theory, they DESERVE hell?
And it is your theory that they derve hell NOT because of ANY misdeeds on their part, but because they possess, in your theory, a "sin nature," and because this theoretical sin nature would have led them to sin one day, if they hadn't died?
Or, do you theorize that it's not ANY sins we humans deserve hell for, it's the mere having-a-sin-nature that is deserving hell?
=====
As to this silly "worshipping the dictionary " nonsense, I'm just operating out of how words are defined. IF you want to make up non-standard definitions, that's fine, as far as it goes, but then, YOU must give your non-standard made up definition so people can understand you.
And also, you should recognize that no one is obliged to agree with your made up definition just on your say so.
Dan
I actually THINK I know what you believe, I'm just trying to get you to say so clearly and, in stating it clearly, maybe you'll understand the problems.
I THINK:
1. You believe that babies are "sinners" - BUT NOT that they actually commit sins, just that they have a "sin nature."
2. You believe that this sin nature is an AWFUL, AWFUL thing, EVEN IF we never commit one actual sin or transgression.
3. You believe that we "inherited" this "sin nature" from the biblical Adam of Genesis and that this inherited sin nature is vastly EVIL and something an all-powerful, perfectly just, perfectly loving God WILL NOT abide.
Am I correct so far?
4. I believe you theorize that God won't punish newborns for an eternity for having "inherited" this "sin nature" from "Adam" (somehow), but that God will choose to give newborns and some children up to some unknown age a "pass" or a get out of hell card for free because they are too young to act on this "sin nature."
5. I believe you acknowledge there is NO biblical support for this "get out of hell free" pass, but that you're guessing it exists because - even for you - it seems TOO monstrous to imagine an almighty perfectly just and loving God to send babies and young children to hell.
Is that correct so far?
Some human theories from the conservatives at the Gospel Coalition:
The Bible’s teaching of sin starts in the garden, where Adam violated God’s prohibition from eating from the forbidden tree. There, we discover that prior to man’s fall, sin existed in the form of the tempting serpent Satan.
Yet as God created all things good, including the fallen angels, we inevitably must come to grips with God’s sovereignty, omniscience, and omnipotence with respect to the origin of sin.
Balanced Bible teaching will show that
God is not the author of sin,
since in his holiness God is without any sin or evil of his own.
Careful biblical reflection teaches that
God willed sin in such a way that he remains morally perfect:
God is never the primary but only
the secondary cause in human sin.
WTH is this nonsense?
The attempt to make rational sense of sin will always run aground on the inherent irrationality of sin.
Or is it on the inherent irrationality and, frankly, silliness of these sorts of theories of traditional religionists such as these folks?
Donald Macleod writes: “According to the Bible, man, as made by God, was upright. He was made in God’s image. He was absolutely sinless.”1 Man became a sinner, however, when Adam succumbed to temptation in the garden. In this important sense, man sinned when Adam willed to sin in his heart.
Once Adam had sinned, the entire human race fell with him, losing the original righteousness of creation in God’s image (Gen 6:4), sharing Adam’s guilt (Rom 5:12, 18), and becoming corrupted with sin so that henceforth each individual human originates as a sinner...
Out of time...
More from the Gospel Coalition:
Although we can trace the entry of human sin to Adam’s temptation and fall, we observe that Adam’s fall was preceded by the fall of the evil angels, chief of whom is Satan, who masqueraded in the garden as the serpent. For when Adam sinned, there was already a sinful angel present in the garden. The Bible does not clearly define the manner or time when the fall of the angels took place...
This biblical data brings us to the question of God’s relationship to the origin of sin. Herman Bavinck comments: “On the basis of Scripture, it is certain that sin did not first start on earth but in heaven, at the feet of God’s throne, in his immediate presence.”2 Does this mean that sin has its origin in God, or in God’s will?...
More can be found here...
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-origin-of-sin/
Part of the problem with this human tradition of interpreting ancient texts, is that they're taking what is clearly a figurative mythical tale and trying to treat it like it's a scientific treatise on the origin of sin. It's not that.
Another part of the problem is the traditional religionists act as if it's a given that these ancient origin stories are a scientific treatise on the origin of sin and thus, when someone says, "Well, doesn't that sound just a little... silly?" the traditionalists take offense on behalf of God, as if questioning their human traditions is the same as hating and rejecting God. It's not that, either.
Part of the problem with this human tradition of interpreting ancient texts, is that they're taking what is clearly a figurative mythical tale and trying to treat it like it's a scientific treatise
And this is why "Creationism" theories are problematic. I don't really care much one way or another if you think that the earth began ~6000 years ago and there were dinosaurs and humans hanging out at the same time... that's a relatively minor problem with Creationism. BUT, if you start treating these ancient texts as if they were supposed to be a scientific treatise on the origin of sin... well, it can lead to pretty nonsensical and unhealthy starting points. I mean, thinking that SOMEHOW, we all magically "inherited" from one man (a literal Adam) a "sin nature" (which the ancient creation stories don't tell us) and that "Sin nature" means that even NEWBORN babes are "sinners" and that their "sin" or their "sin nature" is SO great, that even newborns are "deserving" of an eternity of torture... well, that's just pretty messed up rationally.
If ANY other religion passed on these stories as if they were facts "And to begin with, Zeus had NO sin in the world and it was perfect, BUT, there was a walking snake who carried sin inside it and that walking snake started talking to the First Man and convinced that Man that he should rebel against God and engage in "sin," the walking/talking snake infected that human with a disease called SIN and that disease is passed on from that first man to ALL humanity ever since. Also, the tiger didn't have stripes til the first man painted the stripes on him!" You would laugh at that and say, Well, of COURSE, that's a mythic story, not a literal treatise on sin!
But because your (our) human traditions are what WE grew up with, you treat this as a credible theory. It's not that.
"I'm simply asking you questions to get a clear and direct response. I ask because I don't know your answer for sure."
How can you not when I've been very direct in stating my position over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Will 30 repetitions really make a difference?
"Now, if you want to comment here, you can answer directly and clearly or you can go away."
Again with the threats and ultimatums, as if I'm not in the habit of answering directly and clearly. There's no way I can answer without this nonsense being thrown at me. But regardless of the manner in which I respond, no honest person can insist they don't know my position. Jeez!
"You have agreed that the newborn doesn't actively commit sins. I think you agree that they don't even have the capacity to consider choosing to sin.
Right?"
Not only don't I agree, I've never so much as hinted to the contrary. I'll go farther and be more explicit in saying they have no possibility of consciously choosing to act contrary to the Will of God or the will of their parents. Don't move on if this response is in any way confusing for your limited intellect. I'll be happy to elaborate if required.
"And so, the newborn who dies at one week lived a sinless (without sin or sinning) life. In that week, they never one time sinned or thought about sinning. During that week, they never once rejected God or God's ways.
Right?"
It would follow, yes. Duh.
"Now, given that reality, do you hold to a theory that this infant deserves an eternity of torment?"
No. I hold to Scriptural teaching that we are all born with a sin nature and deserving of death...eternal separation from God, which can certainly be labeled "eternal torment".
"And if you do, you do this recognizing that they were literally sinless, and STILL, in your theory, they DESERVE hell?"
You play semantic games yet again. I do this recognizing they never consciously committed an act they knew was sinful, but as they are human, they were sinners by birth and like us all, born deserving death and eternal separation from God. I've stated this distinction what feels to be a thousand times and you pretend you don't know my position. You pretend you can't see the distinction for the dictionary definition of "sinner" and the Scriptural definition as described in the context of our nature and what it means for our salvation.
"And it is your theory that they derve hell NOT because of ANY misdeeds on their part, but because they possess, in your theory, a "sin nature," and because this theoretical sin nature would have led them to sin one day, if they hadn't died?"
You continue to refer to Scriptural teaching on the our sin nature as "your (my) theory". This is a lie as I've made plain it is Scriptural and you've simply said it isn't without any substantive Scriptural evidence. But I have to note the problem you have in presumably accepting the fact that we are not saved by works, while insisting only works condemns us. How do you resolve this clearly obvious contradiction?
"Or, do you theorize that it's not ANY sins we humans deserve hell for, it's the mere having-a-sin-nature that is deserving hell?"
Again, I don't "theorize", but rather simply repeat the clear teaching of Scripture.
"As to this silly "worshipping the dictionary " nonsense, I'm just operating out of how words are defined. IF you want to make up non-standard definitions, that's fine, as far as it goes, but then, YOU must give your non-standard made up definition so people can understand you."
Which came first: Merriam-Webster or Scripture? I gave Scripture's "definition" of what constitutes a sinner. If it conflicts with Merriam-Webster, that's not my problem. If you reject Scripture because Merriam-Webster has a definition which conflicts with the clear teaching of Scripture, that's a real and serious problem for you.
"And also, you should recognize that no one is obliged to agree with your made up definition just on your say so."
I'll keep that in mind should I ever try to make up a definition. But for the purposes of this discussion, I've not done anything of the kind, but merely abide the clear teaching of Scripture.
---------------
I'm going to jump past your wholly irrelevant citations to respond to this:
Marshal...
I've never so much as hinted to the contrary.
Also Marshal...
Babies ARE sinners
Sounds rather like a hint and, well, even more... a direct declaration. THAT is why you need to make it clear when you're using non-standard English. IF you say that newborns are sinners, THEN people will presume you mean that newborns sin, which is what a sinner is, one who sins.
I will entertain an apology for your obtuse responses and non-responses.
"Now, given that reality, do you hold to a theory that this infant deserves an eternity of torment?"
No. I hold to Scriptural teaching that we are all born with a sin nature and deserving of death...eternal separation from God, which can certainly be labeled "eternal torment".
Sigh. Then, GIVEN that you think that ALL are deserving of eternal torment, THEN DO YOU THINK that the newborn who dies at one week deserves an eternity of torment.
Stop answering other questions and answer the question put to you.
You play semantic games yet again. I do this recognizing they never consciously committed an act they knew was sinful, but as they are human, they were sinners by birth and like us all, born deserving death and eternal separation from God. I've stated this distinction what feels to be a thousand times and you pretend you don't know my position.
Semantic games. Funny.
SO, given that you believe that this newborn is a sinner (by which you DON'T mean that they sinned even once, but that they are born with this mythical, unproven "sin nature..."),, THEN that newborn is "deserving death and eternal separation from God, is that correct?
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what you're saying but when you try to play semantic games (but are actually just being evasive and obtuse), you make yourself unclear.
I'm hearing you say "YES, I think that baby who committed NO sins is STILL a "sinner" and thus, that baby who committed no sins DESERVES an eternal death and separation from God.
IS THAT CORRECT? And if so, why not just say, "YES, that is what I'm saying?"
But I have to note the problem you have in presumably accepting the fact that we are not saved by works, while insisting only works condemns us. How do you resolve this clearly obvious contradiction?
I don't understand the question. I believe we are saved by God's grace, NOT by works. What do you mean "only works condemns us..."? What contradiction?
The real contradiction is in the evangelical theory that says we are saved by grace, but by "grace," they really mean a business transaction whereby Jesus pays a "debt" owed to... someone? To God? That Jesus pays this "sin debt" by paying with magic blood that enables God to forgive us (and without which "payment," God is impotent and/or unwilling to forgive us), thus making it a crass and magical business transaction, not grace at all.
When we forgive someone, we don't first insist upon, "Well, but you gotta pay this debt..." That's not forgiveness. God expects us to just forgive, turn the other cheek, live and let live, to let it go. Period. But you think that God is not able or willing to forgive without some "ransom" some "blood sacrifice and payment?" Where is the grace in that business deal?
Which came first: Merriam-Webster or Scripture? I gave Scripture's "definition" of what constitutes a sinner.
You've given NO instance of a "biblical definition" of sinner. The Bible does NOT say that "sinner" is one who is born with a sin nature, EVEN IF they never sinned. THAT is a human interpretation and tradition, which is why I keep referring to your human theories AS human theories.
Do you know how the word "sinner" is actually defined in the Bible? One who misses the mark, who comes up short. That's it. No mystical, mythical "sin nature" "inherited" from "Adam."
So, stop with the Merriam Webster schtick. You've lost that case. YOU are pretending that the ancient Hebrews and Greeks of Jesus day had some alternative dictionary that defines sinner differently, but you've provided no such dictionary.
I'll check on blogger for any responses to this post, but no, I'm not going to turn off the timer that would allow spam to flourish on my blog. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.
If you reject Scripture because Merriam-Webster has a definition which conflicts with the clear teaching of Scripture, that's a real and serious problem for you.
But of course, I don't. I reject YOUR opinions and YOUR definitions because they are not biblical, but YOUR human theories and interpretations. Have the decency to admit you can find no Greek or Hebrew definition of "sinner" which means "One born with a sin nature." Until you do so, that's a problem for you.
KJV Dictionary Definition: sinner
sinner
SIN'NER, n.
1. One that has voluntarily violated the divine law; a moral agent who has voluntarily disobeyed any divine precept, or neglected any known duty.
https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/sinner.html
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Sinner
SINNER
sin'-er (chaTTa; hamartolos, "devoted to sin," "erring one"):
In the New Testament, in addition to its ordinary significance of one that sins (Luke 5:8; 13:2; Romans 5:8,19; 1 Timothy 1:15; Hebrews 7:26), the term is applied to those who lived in disregard of ceremonial prescription (Matthew 9:10,11; Mark 2:15; Luke 5:30; Galatians 2:15), etc
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/sinner/
In These two traditionalists websites, there is NO mention of newborns having a sin nature as biblically considered a sinner. Isn't it possible this is NOT a Biblical definition at all (it's not) and you've just got caught up in the heat of the moment defending an errant human claim?
Dan
Again, just stopped in to check and you're doing your thing, obfuscating, pretending I'm unclear and not answering directly, clearly, and without ambiguity, but insisting the opposite. In short, you're lying again. I could not be more clear and the more clear I try to be in response to your nonsensical, arrogant and unjust condescension results in no better than the exact opposite of the "adult conversation" about which you pretend to care so much and demand. Then you whine about my response to this level of childishness. In-freakin-credible!!!
But I will be returning to this as well. Stay tuned.
just stopped in to check and you're doing your thing, obfuscating...
He says, vaguely and with no support in the real world. In short, making an empty claim. Don't do this if you want your posts to remain.
pretending I'm unclear and not answering directly, clearly, and without ambiguity, but insisting the opposite. In short, you're lying again.
As I clearly said, I THINK I know exactly what you're saying, but because you keep saying, "No, that's not it..." I'm asking you. I ask you to get clarification because you all have a history of not responding directly to questions.
THAT is why I ask.
For instance, I asked a clear and direct and simple question based upon what you've already said:
"Now, given that reality, do you hold to a theory that this infant deserves an eternity of torment?"
YOU responded with obfuscation, saying directly, clearly:
No.
That is. "NO, I do NOT hold to a theory that this infant deserves an eternity of torment." BUT, you followed it with:
NO. I hold to Scriptural teaching that we are all born with a sin nature and deserving of death...eternal separation from God, which can certainly be labeled "eternal torment".
Which, IF you include that baby in with "we are all born with a sin nature and deserve death..." THEN your answer to my question would be YES, I DO think that baby is a "sinner" deserving of eternal torment/separation from God.
That is the dictionary definition of obfuscation. Saying No, when you mean Yes.
If you wanted to be clear and still make the point I think you're trying to make, you could have said, "YES, that baby would deserve eternal torment... but it's not JUST that baby: ALL humanity is born deserving eternal torment!" That would say the same thing you said and still directly answered the question instead of using obfuscations.
The point of asking the baby question is I'm trying to get you to directly acknowledge clearly what you're implying.
You've said that this newborn HAS NOT SINNED. They have committed NO SINS, done NO WRONG. They are SINLESS, incapable of committing sin in that first week (at least). They have committed no crimes or done anything of their own choice. Correct?
AND YET, you believe because YOU theorize that newborns have a "sin nature" and that God HATES "sin natures" and WILL NOT ABIDE them in God's presence (setting aside that this is an entirely unproven human theory, not directly biblical or rational - it's not anything that God has told you, but set that aside)... EVEN IF that newborn has done no wrong, the mere "crime" of being born with this imperfect "sin nature" is deserving of eternal punishment. (along with the rest of humanity, blah, blah, blah)
Correct?
And I'm hoping that if and when you can say that clearly and directly... if you OWN that YOU are theorizing that newborns who have committed NO WRONGS are "deserving" of eternal torment... you will recognize how atrocious a human theory that is. How irrational and vulgar in its assault on decency, love, justice and grace.
So, make yourself clear: Do you really believe that a SINLESS baby (a baby who has committed NO SINS) is deserving of eternal punishment EVEN THOUGH they died before ever doing anything wrong? That they are guilty of "future crimes," that they never committed?
Stop with the obfuscations.
At the very least, at the end of this conversation, I hope you can say, "Well, that IS a rather crazy claim. I still think that humanity is fallen and suffering from this "inherited sin nature" they got from Adam, but clearly, it's not rational OR biblical to say that a newborn who has committed NO wrongs is "deserving" of eternal punishment."
But let's see.
"As I clearly said, I THINK I know exactly what you're saying, but because you keep saying, "No, that's not it...""
The problem is that what you ask me cannot be followed by a "yes" because the question contains falsehoods. You asked "...do you hold to a theory that this infant deserves an eternity of torment?" I said "no" because as I stated, it isn't a theory but a clearly revealed Scriptural teaching. The crux of it is true but you have to insist this shit because you demand total compliance. That's not an example of "adult conversation". That's you imposing your preferred false alternatives. Thus, if you ask me questions in that manner, I am absolutely answering directly by responding with my actual beliefs...WHICH IS WHAT YOU DEMANDED BY YOUR QUESTION!!!! You see how it is YOU who is making this more difficult? In other words, do you want my position or do you want me to agree with your false portrayal of my position as "my theory". It isn't. It's what Scripture teaches and you play this game rather than provide Scripture which rebuts what I present.
Then look what you do:
"Which, IF you include that baby in with "we are all born with a sin nature and deserve death..." THEN your answer to my question would be YES, I DO think that baby is a "sinner" deserving of eternal torment/separation from God."
But what did I say? What did you QUOTE me as having said? It's this:
" I hold to Scriptural teaching that we are all born with a sin nature and deserving of death...eternal separation from God, which can certainly be labeled "eternal torment"."
What in the wide, wide world of sports does "we" mean to you in this context? WE are ALL born with a sin nature. How does that exclude infants who, as it happens, have been BORN???? And it follow your acknowledgement of what provoked my "no" response:
"NO, I do NOT hold to a theory that this infant deserves an eternity of torment."
I clearly referred to the concept as a Scriptural TEACHING...not a Scriptural THEORY. Thus, I answered directly. Do I have to first explain your own question to you while answering it, too? Or might you deny yourself the joy of condescending and insulting me to actually understand my answer? Maybe you'd be better off not inserting your opinion into your questions seeking my position. I can't answer without going through massive explanations separating the implications of your loaded question with my actual position which has already been stated countless times.
"That is the dictionary definition of obfuscation. Saying No, when you mean Yes."
No. I said "NO" because it was the proper direct answer to your question as you asked it, and then I followed with a more accurate representation of my position. That's not anything at all like obfuscating. Indeed, it's a perfect example of providing clarity after you acted to muddy the waters with your demand I regard my position as mere "theory".
"The point of asking the baby question is I'm trying to get you to directly acknowledge clearly what you're implying."
Which I had already done over and over and over and over again. You weren't satisfied. You chose to attack the validity of my position by describing it as "theory" using "made up" definitions as opposed to a dictionary definition which doesn't serve the purpose...as I have also explained using Scripture to clarify. (Lust akin to adultery, hate to murder and thus, the intention or predisposition makes us adulter, murderer, sinner. Totally Biblical!)
What's more, I never "implied" it. I said it directly because that's Biblical teaching!
"You've said that this newborn HAS NOT SINNED. They have committed NO SINS, done NO WRONG. They are SINLESS,..."
There!!! You did it again!!! I never said they were sinless. They're sinners by virtue of their nature and that doesn't require they actually commit sinful acts. That's not what Scripture teaches. That's the dictionary talking. Where do you get your moral teaching? Scripture or Merriam-Webster? Well, that's not a good question to ask YOU!! It ain't from Scripture unless it serves you personally!!!
"EVEN IF that newborn has done no wrong, the mere "crime" of being born with this imperfect "sin nature" is deserving of eternal punishment."
I don't "theorize" (unless I personally expressly state that I am). I repeat what Scripture teaches. What I've said on this subject is what Scripture teaches and you've provided no Scripture which contradicts or rebuts it. You just don't like it and can't resolve it...or won't even try. You think you're more holy because you believe infants aren't stained by sin as the entirety of Creation is.
"And I'm hoping that if and when you can say that clearly and directly... if you OWN that YOU are theorizing that newborns who have committed NO WRONGS are "deserving" of eternal torment... you will recognize how atrocious a human theory that is."
No more atrocious than the fact that the rest of us are deserving of the same eternal punishment. Another clear Biblical teaching! So you're hoping that I will disregard the clear teaching of Scripture to agree with you that this fact is too horrible to accept as true...because it sounds horrible to you. That's not a basis for me to alter by belief and acceptance of the clearly revealed teachings of Scripture.
"How irrational and vulgar in its assault on decency, love, justice and grace."
Only to those who only claim to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture. You clearly don't understand how those concepts work in the context of God's nature.
"So, make yourself clear: Do you really believe that a SINLESS baby (a baby who has committed NO SINS) is deserving of eternal punishment EVEN THOUGH they died before ever doing anything wrong?"
AGAIN????? You want me to make myself clear AGAIN???? Jeez!!!
WE....that is, every human being who ever lived or ever will...is born with a sin nature which means every human being who ever lived or ever will...is a sinner deserving of eternal punishment, just as Scripture teaches. "Future crimes" are nothing I've ever mentioned, suggested or imagined in this discussion, but you insist again on inserting whatever you think diminishes the Scriptural truths you can't otherwise honesty rebut. Stop doing that. It doesn't comport with what "adult" discussion looks like.
"Stop with the obfuscations."
The obfuscations are in your questions, not my answers. Stop obfuscating and engage in discourse like an adult who's not afraid of finding himself wrong. You know, being enlightened by a better argument is something I don't fear. If only you could provide one once in a while, that would be new and exciting!
"At the very least, at the end of this conversation, I hope you can say, "Well, that IS a rather crazy claim."
Oh, I can say that easily upon reception of a Scripture-based argument superior to the position I've expressed...a position informed by Scripture. Any chance you've got something like that? If so, you could've saved us both a ton of time.
So, in summary...
1. Marshal believes that a newborn child whoe dies at 1 week is
A. Has never committed ONE sin or even considered it
B. Nonetheless, that newborn is somehow NOT sinless
C. And is deserving of a punishment of eternal torment, EVEN THOUGH it has not committed ONE SINGLE sin or misdeeds
2. Marshal does NOT recognize that such a claim sounds atrocious, evil, crazy and just goofy
3. Marshal does not even consider this a human theory. He believes it's just a "fact."
A. NOT because it's actually an objectively proven fact - of course, it's not. At all.
B. But because he and maybe some in his tradition read a few verses in the Bible that they interpret them that way
C. EVEN THOUGH, there are zero Bible verses that actually say this directly
#####
The fact is, your human theories ARE just that, unproven human theories. And they do paint an extremely vile image of what you imagine your godling is like.
You're done here, Marshal. Your irrational human theories are just nuts, on the face of it.
Dan
I think rejecting your irrational human theory on the basis of, well, that's just crazy... and of course, it's not biblical! ...suffices. But look, here is a very traditional sounding website that goes into more biblical detail of the sort that might appeal to folks like Marshal. The conclusion? Of course Marshal's theories are not biblical!
https://www.topicalbiblestudies.com/are-babies-born-with-sin.html
Dan
Another traditionalist explaining why Marshal's theory is not biblical...
"Even though large segments of the Christian world adhere to these ideas, thinking Christians should look at doctrines that arose years after the New Testament record with a critical eye and ask: Is this rooted in the Bible—God’s inspired Word—or in the ideas of men?
First, the phrase original sin is found nowhere in the Bible. It was coined years after the Bible had been completed. Though Adam’s choice in Genesis 3 was certainly a sin, nowhere does the Genesis account say that his children inherited his sin. In fact, the first time the word sin appears in the Bible is when God warned Adam’s son Cain that “sin lies at the door” because of Cain’s anger issue (Genesis 4:6-7)....
When we look at the Bible’s teaching on sin, we see clearly that God always regards sin as a personal matter. In other words, sin is always imputed as a consequence of each individual’s choice to personally break the law of God (1 John 3:4)."
https://lifehopeandtruth.com/change/sin/were-you-born-with-original-sin/
Dan
"So, in summary...
1. Marshal believes that a newborn child whoe dies at 1 week is
A. Has never committed ONE sin or even considered it
B. Nonetheless, that newborn is somehow NOT sinless
C. And is deserving of a punishment of eternal torment, EVEN THOUGH it has not committed ONE SINGLE sin or misdeeds
2. Marshal does NOT recognize that such a claim sounds atrocious, evil, crazy and just goofy
3. Marshal does not even consider this a human theory. He believes it's just a "fact."
A. NOT because it's actually an objectively proven fact - of course, it's not. At all.
B. But because he and maybe some in his tradition read a few verses in the Bible that they interpret them that way
C. EVEN THOUGH, there are zero Bible verses that actually say this directly "
This is all abject bullshit. In other words, you're lying yet again. My position is Biblical. I've provided Biblical proof and much of it has been deleted by you. You again go with the "a few verses" crap, as if one needs tons of verses in order for a truth to be true. That's leftist loophole crap, not true Christian devotion to Scripture.
What I've presented is fact BECAUSE Scripture supports it and you haven't presented a f'ing thing from Scripture which debunks, rebuts or refutes it. You simply default to your standard "Nyuh uh"...which is all you're capable of presenting.
Stop lying and bring some evidence for a change.
"The fact is, your human theories ARE just that, unproven human theories. And they do paint an extremely vile image of what you imagine your godling is like."
Typical marxist God-hating bullshit. I've backed up everything I've said with Scripture. Thus, what you demean and write off as "human theories" are actually Biblical truths you haven't the means to refute like a man who cares to truly follow the Word and Will of God. Why you pretend to be a Christian is a mystery to me given how you reject Scripture so thoroughly. And yes, you reject it until you can use it to back up your contrary position. You haven't yet, so the conclusion is clear: you reject God and merely exploit Him to posture as "spiritual".
I said...
"So, in summary...
1. Marshal believes that a newborn child whoe dies at 1 week is
A. Has never committed ONE sin or even considered it
B. Nonetheless, that newborn is somehow NOT sinless
C. And is deserving of a punishment of eternal torment, EVEN THOUGH it has not committed ONE SINGLE sin or misdeeds
2. Marshal does NOT recognize that such a claim sounds atrocious, evil, crazy and just goofy
3. Marshal does not even consider this a human theory. He believes it's just a "fact."
A. NOT because it's actually an objectively proven fact - of course, it's not. At all.
B. But because he and maybe some in his tradition read a few verses in the Bible that they interpret them that way
C. EVEN THOUGH, there are zero Bible verses that actually say this directly "
Marshal responded (in a comment now deleted because he used vulgar, sexist language)...
This is all abject bullshit. In other words, you're lying yet again. My position is Biblical. I've provided Biblical proof ...
Stop. Right there. What is BS? My 1A, B and C points are factually correct, right? I'm just repeating what YOU have told me. So, 1A, B and C are literally correct summation of your beliefs, right?
And it sounds like I'm correct on my point 2... you don't recognize how crazy it sounds (at least to those outside your beief system) to say a newborn is deserving of eternal punishment, right?
And 3 is correct as well, right?
Dan
So, my summary of all that is literally what you've said. That leaves:
A. NOT because it's actually an objectively proven fact - of course, it's not. At all.
It IS literally not an objectively proven fact. IF it were, you could objectively prove it. YOU CAN NOT.
That is literally, factually correct. Do you recognize that? That you can't objectively authoritatively PROVE your opinion as an established fact?
Reminder: Pointing to some lines in a book and saying, "I INTERPRET those lines to mean what my theory is..." is literally not objectively proving it. That is the definition of SUBJECTIVE opinion.
B. But because he and maybe some in his tradition read a few verses in the Bible that they interpret them that way
How is that incorrect? Is that NOT how you interpret those few verses?
C. EVEN THOUGH, there are zero Bible verses that actually say this directly "
Again, literally factually correct, observably provably so. IF there were any verses that said what you think directly, you could point to them.
You're acting in a delusional manner.
Even in a thread that's not speaking about women's issues directly, Marshal feels necessary to use hateful, rape-y, misogynistic words attacking and demeaning women. And so, the comments were deleted. Needless to say, where Marshal says, "I DID prove it. I DID I DID I DID!!" without providing any proof or recognizing that his opinions are not facts, he's just factually mistaken.
Move on, Marshal. And get help. You're sounding rather out-of-control, as if you're ready to strike out in violence beyond your violent words.
Marshal, as long as you are using the ultra-vulgar, misogynistic rape-defending words you're using, that's a nonstarter here. Get help. You're hurting women every time you write.
Marshal, in a vulgar, now-deleted attack comment, said...
I DID support my position on the sin nature of all people.
I asked you to PROVE IT OBJECTIVELY if you can (and you can't) or admit that you can't. What you did is say, "here are a few verses that, to me, in my head, make me personally think that babies deserve to be tortured for an eternity..." but that is NOT objective proof.
Still.
Do you understand the difference between objective proof and subjective opinion and interpretation?
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment...
Yes it IS objective proof, given the point was what Scripture teaches
Saying "Here are five texts from the Bible that mention babies and sin. I THINK they mean that babies deserve to go to hell." is NOT objective proof that babies deserve to go to hell. The question is how reasonable and biblical (which should not be separate things, unless you believe in an irrational religion and godling) it is to reach this personal human conclusion.
That there are maybe five verses that seem to mention babies and sin in the same passage is simply not objective proof of your claim. It is literally a subjective opinion. Ask anyone.
Marshal continued...
You now want to portray me as violent. But that might just be my orientation. You're obliged to respect it, defend it and enable it. I will say that I would at all mind the opportunity to slap the fake sanctimony right out of you. No doubt you'll respond like a coward. I'm satisfied you quake in fear.
So, just speaking to the anyone who might read this (not Marshal): This belief in their toxic violent masculinity and their power to "instill fear" is a red flag of an unhealthy and violent mentality. More often than not, their just pissing in their pants and not really going to do anything violent precisely because they're cowards who only boast of their violent "virility" to try to stabilize their own fears. But every once in a while, one of them really do embrace the violence, as we see in the real world, and this is why the boys of white nationalists are listed as a great threat by law enforcement types.
Get help, Marshal. This is not how adults operate.
Post a Comment