Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[Guest end3]

I am saying that listening to both sides, the goal is the same....love, unity, peace, et.al.

You mean on this website or in life?

 

(Btw, it should be "etc" not "et al." "Et al" is used for people, "etc" for list of things.)

 

Et al is for a list of people? anyway thx.

 

I think in a general sense Hans...in life. Probably not down to last drop of humanity, but as a whole.

[Deva]

Yes, because we both possess iniquity in this regard....sin.

And there's a key issue: with no gawd there is no sin. There are human laws and basic morality (what is good for the pack) to be followed, but no "divine" laws to make or break. We're on our own to behave, no supernanny in the sky.

 

You are saying that divine rules are different than men's rules? Or are you saying that no definition of morality equals no sin?

 

I don't want to speak for Par, but I would say that for a Christian "sin" means chiefly going against God's will. Not morality per say, which we find in many different cultures and is the duplicate, or better, of the Christian morality.

Sin has a special meaning for Christians beyond simple morality. Do you deny that, End? Doesn't sin mean disobeying God and for the Christian have eternal consequences?

[Ouroboros]

I am saying that listening to both sides, the goal is the same....love, unity, peace, et.al.

You mean on this website or in life?

 

(Btw, it should be "etc" not "et al." "Et al" is used for people, "etc" for list of things.)

 

Et al is for a list of people? anyway thx.

Yup.

 

"Etc" comes from Latin "et cetera," meaning "and the other things."

 

While "et al," also from Latin, "et alii," means "and other people" or "and the others."

 

"Et" means "and." Just an FYI. So it's never "ect" "ex cetera."

 

Even the symbol "&" comes from the word "et." It was originally an E with a smaller T attached to the middle bar of the E, used in type setting machines few hundred years ago.

 

I think in a general sense Hans...in life. Probably not down to last drop of humanity, but as a whole.

If non-Christianity is sufficient to resolve the question about love, unity, and peace, is probably not answered on this website. We're here mostly because we need to get rid of baggage and get on a journey where we find our own answers. So to look here to find the answers might not be a good thing. In essence, your expectation of this website is misguided.

[oddbird1963]

Yes, because we both possess iniquity in this regard....sin.

And there's a key issue: with no gawd there is no sin. There are human laws and basic morality (what is good for the pack) to be followed, but no "divine" laws to make or break. We're on our own to behave, no supernanny in the sky.

 

You are saying that divine rules are different than men's rules? Or are you saying that no definition of morality equals no sin?

 

I can't and won't speak for par4dcourse, but the idea of sin is a religious term. It is inappropriate for any discourse about public policy and law as we are or at least should be a secular republic.

 

You know that atheists have definitions of morality. It is disingenuous of you to say that we don't.

 

And that is why there is a rift. Many of the Christians who frequent this site and whom I encounter personally persistently misrepresent what atheists believe about morality.

 

Instead of simply acknowledging that atheists have a different approach to morality than you, end3, you blithely rattle off ". . . no definition of morality . . ."

 

That's an important misrepresentation. And that is where the barrier lies between ex-c's and Christians on this site. We understand Christians because we have been in that position. But so many ex-c's Christians really don't seem to have made the effort to understand a secular point of view, opting instead for the poorly drawn caricatures of atheism they hold in their minds.

 

OB '63

 

EDIT: For some reason I wrote ex-c's where I should've written "Christians."

[Guest end3]

Yes, because we both possess iniquity in this regard....sin.

And there's a key issue: with no gawd there is no sin. There are human laws and basic morality (what is good for the pack) to be followed, but no "divine" laws to make or break. We're on our own to behave, no supernanny in the sky.

 

You are saying that divine rules are different than men's rules? Or are you saying that no definition of morality equals no sin?

 

I don't want to speak for Par, but I would say that for a Christian "sin" means chiefly going against God's will. Not morality per say, which we find in many different cultures and is the duplicate, or better, of the Christian morality.

Sin has a special meaning for Christians beyond simple morality. Do you deny that, End? Doesn't sin mean disobeying God and for the Christian have eternal consequences?

Truthfully Ms. D, I don't know that I have a good grasp, nor any real grasp between the two....distinct differences that I could list. For me, it would be an eye opener, I am sure. Sure, there is the Levitical Law, but is summed up later. I do think, that if we had more complete knowledge, we would understand the reasonings behind the Levitical Law....just saying. And yes, sin against God has eternal consequences. Doesn't sin against men?

[Guest end3]

If non-Christianity is sufficient to resolve the question about love, unity, and peace, is probably not answered on this website. We're here mostly because we need to get rid of baggage and get on a journey where we find our own answers. So to look here to find the answers might not be a good thing. In essence, your expectation of this website is misguided.

 

Yes, but a rather concentrated contingent here of baby eaters.

[Guest end3]

Yes, because we both possess iniquity in this regard....sin.

And there's a key issue: with no gawd there is no sin. There are human laws and basic morality (what is good for the pack) to be followed, but no "divine" laws to make or break. We're on our own to behave, no supernanny in the sky.

 

You are saying that divine rules are different than men's rules? Or are you saying that no definition of morality equals no sin?

 

I can't and won't speak for par4dcourse, but the idea of sin is a religious term. It is inappropriate for any discourse about public policy and law as we are or at least should be a secular republic.

 

You know that atheists have definitions of morality. It is disingenuous of you to say that we don't.

 

And that is why there is a rift. Many of the Christians who frequent this site and whom I encounter personally persistently misrepresent what atheists believe about morality.

 

Instead of simply acknowledging that atheists have a different approach to morality than you, end3, you blithely rattle off ". . . no definition of morality . . ."

 

That's an important misrepresentation. And that is where the barrier lies between ex-c's and Christians on this site. We understand Christians because we have been in that position. But so man ex-c's really don't seem to have made the effort to understand a secular point of view, opting instead for the poorly drawn caricatures of atheism they hold in their minds.

 

OB '63

 

A productive list might be interesting.

 

1) Baby burgers, ketchup or without?

 

And that is what I appreciate about you heathens, not afraid to admit enjoying a well grilled baby.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, but a rather concentrated contingent here of baby eaters.

Yes, they're yummy.

[par4dcourse]

Both Miss Deva and OB1963 did a fine job of elaborating the point. Sin implies a god-law. No god = no god law.

[Deva]

Truthfully Ms. D, I don't know that I have a good grasp, nor any real grasp between the two....distinct differences that I could list. For me, it would be an eye opener, I am sure. Sure, there is the Levitical Law, but is summed up later. I do think, that if we had more complete knowledge, we would understand the reasonings behind the Levitical Law....just saying. And yes, sin against God has eternal consequences. Doesn't sin against men?

 

No, it does not.

[Guest end3]

Truthfully Ms. D, I don't know that I have a good grasp, nor any real grasp between the two....distinct differences that I could list. For me, it would be an eye opener, I am sure. Sure, there is the Levitical Law, but is summed up later. I do think, that if we had more complete knowledge, we would understand the reasonings behind the Levitical Law....just saying. And yes, sin against God has eternal consequences. Doesn't sin against men?

 

No, it does not.

 

I used the wrong word...immoral behavior. Does it have eternal consequences? Sure it does.

[oddbird1963]

Truthfully Ms. D, I don't know that I have a good grasp, nor any real grasp between the two....distinct differences that I could list. For me, it would be an eye opener, I am sure. Sure, there is the Levitical Law, but is summed up later. I do think, that if we had more complete knowledge, we would understand the reasonings behind the Levitical Law....just saying. And yes, sin against God has eternal consequences. Doesn't sin against men?

 

No, it does not.

 

I used the wrong word...immoral behavior. Does it have eternal consequences? Sure it does.

 

Are you pretending we're all theists here? Immoral behavior doesn't have eternal consequences, unless you want to make an appeal to some of the tenets of chaos theory. An act of adultery committed on earth causes the Andromeda galaxy to change course and eliminate an advanced society of intelligent alien beings, or something?

 

In a Naturalistic, non-theistic world how would immoral behavior, or any behavior, have eternal consequences?

[Guest end3]

Truthfully Ms. D, I don't know that I have a good grasp, nor any real grasp between the two....distinct differences that I could list. For me, it would be an eye opener, I am sure. Sure, there is the Levitical Law, but is summed up later. I do think, that if we had more complete knowledge, we would understand the reasonings behind the Levitical Law....just saying. And yes, sin against God has eternal consequences. Doesn't sin against men?

 

No, it does not.

 

I used the wrong word...immoral behavior. Does it have eternal consequences? Sure it does.

 

Are you pretending we're all theists here? Immoral behavior doesn't have eternal consequences, unless you want to make an appeal to some of the tenets of chaos theory. An act of adultery committed on earth causes the Andromeda galaxy to change course and eliminate an advanced society of intelligent alien beings, or something?

 

In a Naturalistic, non-theistic world how would immoral behavior, or any behavior, have eternal consequences?

You're kidding right? If you were the only individual on the planet and morality was only a inter-human thing.

[Deva]

No, End, immoral behavior does not have eternal consequences. Apart from God, prove that any particular immoral action produces an eternal result.

[Guest end3]

Choices have consequences to some end. It seems evident to me that humanity, even if you extend the conversation to the "cosmos", did effect it, regardless. If the fact that morality extended the length of the human timeline, then I would say you are wrong.

[Deva]

Choices have consequences to some end. I don't want to proceed into some theoretical discussion. It seems evident to me that humanity, even if you extend the conversation to the "cosmos", did effect it, regardless. No?

 

And this is not within the context of the discussion.

 

End, you said "immoral behavior. Does it have eternal consequences? Sure it does." I say it does not. I did not say it had NO consequences. I am saying it does not have ETERNAL consequences. How are you going to prove that a certain action had eternal consequences? If you are so certain, you must have a reason.

 

It seems you are now backpedaling in a frantic effort to disengage from this discussion.

[Guest end3]

Choices have consequences to some end. I don't want to proceed into some theoretical discussion. It seems evident to me that humanity, even if you extend the conversation to the "cosmos", did effect it, regardless. No?

 

And this is not within the context of the discussion.

 

End, you said "immoral behavior. Does it have eternal consequences? Sure it does." I say it does not. I did not say it had NO consequences. I am saying it does not have ETERNAL consequences. How are you going to prove that a certain action had eternal consequences? If you are so certain, you must have a reason.

 

It seems you are now backpedaling in a frantic effort to disengage from this discussion.

 

Eternal in the fact Ms D. that, unless we can undo time, the choices effected the eternal in some manner, provided we are assuming something as eternal in the physical.... why I was saying in my edited statement, that if morality has provided the lengthening of humanity's survival, then certainly the fact that humans were there to effect the cosmos plays a role in the eternal cosmos....

 

I would say that it is reasonable to say that we already have through morals.

[Shyone]

Choices have consequences to some end. I don't want to proceed into some theoretical discussion. It seems evident to me that humanity, even if you extend the conversation to the "cosmos", did effect it, regardless. No?

 

And this is not within the context of the discussion.

 

End, you said "immoral behavior. Does it have eternal consequences? Sure it does." I say it does not. I did not say it had NO consequences. I am saying it does not have ETERNAL consequences. How are you going to prove that a certain action had eternal consequences? If you are so certain, you must have a reason.

 

It seems you are now backpedaling in a frantic effort to disengage from this discussion.

Let me jump in here with a weird perspective.

 

No human action has personal eternal consequences for himself other than perhaps premature termination of life.

 

Outside of that human, we can't know what consequences will follow, but we could theorize some type of consequence - as with, for example, evolution. Woman has sex outside of marriage producing offspring. Imagine offspring to become one of a very few survivors of some disaster; genes propagate. Humanity is "different" from what it would have been had the illicit affair not occurred. It might actually be better!

 

BUT (and this is a big but), although our mass may continue "forever", it won't be in any form that really makes a damned bit of real difference. From stardust we came, to stardust we return.

[Guest end3]

And that brings the whole thing to the only reason for morality in any real sense is the interaction between humans....so I think it would be prudent to express it in near immediate consequences.. + or - a few hundred years.

[oddbird1963]

Truthfully Ms. D, I don't know that I have a good grasp, nor any real grasp between the two....distinct differences that I could list. For me, it would be an eye opener, I am sure. Sure, there is the Levitical Law, but is summed up later. I do think, that if we had more complete knowledge, we would understand the reasonings behind the Levitical Law....just saying. And yes, sin against God has eternal consequences. Doesn't sin against men?

 

No, it does not.

 

I used the wrong word...immoral behavior. Does it have eternal consequences? Sure it does.

 

Are you pretending we're all theists here? Immoral behavior doesn't have eternal consequences, unless you want to make an appeal to some of the tenets of chaos theory. An act of adultery committed on earth causes the Andromeda galaxy to change course and eliminate an advanced society of intelligent alien beings, or something?

 

In a Naturalistic, non-theistic world how would immoral behavior, or any behavior, have eternal consequences?

You're kidding right? If you were the only individual on the planet and morality was only a inter-human thing.

 

Do you know what eternal means? It almost sounds (from the above responses to others) that you think of eternal as an endless chain of causation continuing into the future, like a series of dominoes falling into one another touching off other series of dominoes falling and branching off into other branches with series extending throughout the expanse of the universe.

 

Unfortunately, while this concept touches on a particularly small connotation of the word eternal (#2 below), this is not what is normally meant by eternal when contrasted with the activities of humans which are temporal

–adjective

1.

without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life.

2.

perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.

3.

enduring; immutable: eternal principles.

4.

Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.

 

Very simply put, when you say that immoral behavior has eternal consequences , most people will take the use of the word eternal to be def. #1 or 3 or 4.

 

That is the realm of the gods. Heaven. the afterlife, a place outside time and space, not of this universe. I didn't make that up. That's the way the word has been.

 

Now, for a group of ex-christians, most of whom don't believe in such a realm of god, how can you demonstrate that a behavior exhibited on earth has eternal consequences?

[Guest end3]

Truthfully Ms. D, I don't know that I have a good grasp, nor any real grasp between the two....distinct differences that I could list. For me, it would be an eye opener, I am sure. Sure, there is the Levitical Law, but is summed up later. I do think, that if we had more complete knowledge, we would understand the reasonings behind the Levitical Law....just saying. And yes, sin against God has eternal consequences. Doesn't sin against men?

 

No, it does not.

 

I used the wrong word...immoral behavior. Does it have eternal consequences? Sure it does.

 

Are you pretending we're all theists here? Immoral behavior doesn't have eternal consequences, unless you want to make an appeal to some of the tenets of chaos theory. An act of adultery committed on earth causes the Andromeda galaxy to change course and eliminate an advanced society of intelligent alien beings, or something?

 

In a Naturalistic, non-theistic world how would immoral behavior, or any behavior, have eternal consequences?

You're kidding right? If you were the only individual on the planet and morality was only a inter-human thing.

 

Do you know what eternal means? It almost sounds (from the above responses to others) that you think of eternal as an endless chain of causation continuing into the future, like a series of dominoes falling into one another touching off other series of dominoes falling and branching off into other branches with series extending throughout the expanse of the universe.

 

Unfortunately, while this concept touches on a particularly small connotation of the word eternal (#2 below), this is not what is normally meant by eternal when contrasted with the activities of humans which are temporal

–adjective

1.

without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life.

2.

perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.

3.

enduring; immutable: eternal principles.

4.

Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.

 

Very simply put, when you say that immoral behavior has eternal consequences , most people will take the use of the word eternal to be def. #1 or 3 or 4.

 

That is the realm of the gods. Heaven. the afterlife, a place outside time and space, not of this universe. I didn't make that up. That's the way the word has been.

 

Now, for a group of ex-christians, most of whom don't believe in such a realm of god, how can you demonstrate that a behavior exhibited on earth has eternal consequences?

 

then it's another word that is defined yet has no practical meaning....see supernatural.

[Deva]

Eternal in the fact Ms D. that, unless we can undo time, the choices effected the eternal in some manner, provided we are assuming something as eternal in the physical.... why I was saying in my edited statement, that if morality has provided the lengthening of humanity's survival, then certainly the fact that humans were there to effect the cosmos plays a role in the eternal cosmos....

 

I would say that it is reasonable to say that we already have through morals.

 

I don't think its reasonable. Human morals do not have eternal consequences or "play a role" in the eternal cosmos. That is, assuming the cosmos is eternal, which I am not sure is proven. We are discussing moral consequences, apart from God, right?

 

I continue to insist that Christians have a special idea when it comes to "sin". Sin is offense against God which has eternal consequences. An idea which does not conform to reality.

 

The moral or immoral actions of one temporary human are also temporary. They may be long lasting in terms of human measurement - perhaps centuries, but we are not discussing that, we are discussing eternity.

[oddbird1963]

 

I can't and won't speak for par4dcourse, but the idea of sin is a religious term. It is inappropriate for any discourse about public policy and law as we are or at least should be a secular republic.

 

You know that atheists have definitions of morality. It is disingenuous of you to say that we don't.

 

And that is why there is a rift. Many of the Christians who frequent this site and whom I encounter personally persistently misrepresent what atheists believe about morality.

 

Instead of simply acknowledging that atheists have a different approach to morality than you, end3, you blithely rattle off ". . . no definition of morality . . ."

 

That's an important misrepresentation. And that is where the barrier lies between ex-c's and Christians on this site. We understand Christians because we have been in that position. But so man ex-c's really don't seem to have made the effort to understand a secular point of view, opting instead for the poorly drawn caricatures of atheism they hold in their minds.

 

OB '63

 

A productive list might be interesting.

 

1) Baby burgers, ketchup or without?

 

And that is what I appreciate about you heathens, not afraid to admit enjoying a well grilled baby.

 

What do you mean by "a productive list?" A list of what? The different types of moral systems to which non-theists adhere? You mean you haven't even bothered to learn about the different types of moral systems? You haven't gleaned a sense of the morality of Ouroboros, Shyone, Antlerman, Deva or others?

 

I think you are proving my point. This is the source of any rift. It seems as if your system of belief has hardened you to hearing the beliefs of others to the point that you don't even know what those beliefs are. Are those mystical beliefs in a living Spirit of Christ so tenuous as to evaporate away by just getting to know the hearts and minds of people who do not believe the same as you?

 

I would try to jokingly reply to the baby remarks, but I don't want my words to be taken literally. Believers tend to do that when it is convenient for them to do so.

[Ouroboros]

End,

 

Is lying immoral and with eternal consequences?

 

Does allowing someone to be killed immoral?

 

How about if you have to lie to stop a murderer from killing someone? Is it still immoral to lie?

[oddbird1963]

then it's another word that is defined yet has no practical meaning....see supernatural.

 

Ok, then. You want to change the word you use.

 

Now remember, it was you who used the word eternal. If your definition of eternal is different from the way most of Western Civilization uses the word eternal in contrast to the activities of humans, then it might have been helpful to provide your definition of eternal so we would know where you were coming from to begin with.

 

But All I need to do is ask you this,

 

 

For a group of ex-christians, most of whom don't believe in such a realm of god, how can you demonstrate that a behavior exhibited on earth has supernatural consequences?

 

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this question.