Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on November 21, 2018, 08:10:37 AM
-
This is one of the beliefs of the New atheists as outlined in the Wikipedia entry on New Atheism.
What do people mean by it and what are the examples?
-
I imagine it refers to things like creationists denying the reality of evolution.
-
Biblical literalists get upset when science undermines the credibility of their faith.
-
This is one of the beliefs of the New atheists as outlined in the Wikipedia entry on New Atheism.
What do people mean by it and what are the examples?
In the Wikipedia page Dawkins is quoted as saying "It is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."
Since he said it, it seems sensible to take that as 'what people mean by it' don't you think rather than asking people who haven't used the phrase.
-
In the Wikipedia page Dawkins is quoted as saying "It is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."
Since he said it, it seems sensible to take that as 'what people mean by it' don't you think rather than asking people who haven't used the phrase.
But what does it mean?
What are existence claims?
How do they tie in withDawkins dogmatic agnosticism about origins and eternity?
Isn't this just intellectual imperialism on his part?
What then are scientific existence claims?
-
But what does it mean?
What are existence claims?
...
I think you can probably search that interweb-thingy to find out what he meant. I feel under no obligation to do it for you, still less to look through his book (I assume it's in The God Delusion but that bit obviously made such an impression on me that I've completely forgotten what his point was), and even less than that to defend his claims if I don't agree with them.
Dawkins dogmatic agnosticism about origins and eternity?
What's "dogmatic agnosticism"?
-
This is one of the beliefs of the New atheists as outlined in the Wikipedia entry on New Atheism.
What do people mean by it and what are the examples?
From Wikipedia this appears to be part of a direct quote from Richard Dawkins. So I've no idea why you are asking us what it means - ask Dawkins, or if he is unavailable to you, why not read the book the quote comes from where I presume he will elaborate on what he means.
-
But what does it mean?
What are existence claims?
How do they tie in with Dawkins dogmatic agnosticism about origins and eternity?
Isn't this just intellectual imperialism on his part?
What then are scientific existence claims?
If you want to know what Dawkins meant then ask him or research where he has explained what he meant. If you are asking what others think he might have meant then that is different of course.
-
From Wikipedia this appears to be part of a direct quote from Richard Dawkins. So I've no idea why you are asking us what it means - ask Dawkins, or if he is unavailable to you, why not read the book the quote comes from where I presume he will elaborate on what he means.
I take it you are confused about what existence claims means and would agree that the good Dawkter is just whittling on.
At a guess I think Dawkins is probably saying that all claims are ultimately Science claims hence the accusation of scientism from atheist philosopher of science Massimo pigliacci of scientism as a mark of New Atheism.
Of course this is also supported by the hypocrisy of people like Harris and frankly Dawkins researching a scientific basis for morality.
-
I take it you are confused about what existence claims means and would agree that the good Dawkter is just whittling on.
Nope - all I am saying is that if you want to understand the direct quote from a person it is best to ask that person, or at least read the book in which that quote appears. No point in asking me because I am not Richard Dawkins, nor have I read any of his books.
At a guess I think Dawkins is probably saying that all claims are ultimately Science claims hence the accusation of scientism from atheist philosopher of science Massimo pigliacci of scientism as a mark of New Atheism.
Then I suggest you either ask Dawkins directly or read his books.
Of course this is also supported by the hypocrisy of people like Harris and frankly Dawkins researching a scientific basis for morality.
If you want to know more I suggest you direct those questions to Dawkins and Harris, or read their books. For the record I've never read any of Harris' books either.
-
If you want to know more I suggest you direct those questions to Dawkins and Harris, or read their books. For the record I've never read any of Harris' books either.
Their is nothing to ask about the palpable humbug of complaining on one hand that religion is stepping on sciences turf while at the same time saying that of course science can engage in moral and value questions.
And if you are interested in that I suggest YOU direct any enquiry to Dawkins or Harris.
-
Their is nothing to ask about the palpable humbug of complaining on one hand that religion is stepping on sciences turf while at the same time saying that of course science can engage in moral and value questions.
Then why did you raise it in the first place Vlad?
And if you are interested in that I suggest YOU direct any enquiry to Dawkins or Harris.
I'm not the one asking the questions though am I - that would be you, in your OP and therefore if you want to know more I suggest you ask Dawkins and Harris of at the very least spend some time reading the books they have written, where you might find the answers.
-
Then why did you raise it in the first place Vlad?
I'm not the one asking the questions though am I - that would be you, in your OP and therefore if you want to know more I suggest you ask Dawkins and Harris of at the very least spend some time reading the books they have written, where you might find the answers.
I see nothing wrong in asking people who have read the God delusion, and other works from the recent stable of authors who have wished to advertise their atheism and opposition
to religion and agree or endorse those books, to comment why it is that they a)apparently understand what Dawkins means b) apparently nod agreeable heads to it.
-
I see nothing wrong in asking people who have read the God delusion, and other works from the recent stable of authors who have wished to advertise their atheism and opposition
to religion and agree or endorse those books, to comment why it is that they a)apparently understand what Dawkins means b) apparently nod agreeable heads to it.
Leaving aside yet another of your army of straw men, perhaps we know better than to feed your paranoia about atheists and atheism.
-
I see nothing wrong in asking people who have read the God delusion, and other works from the recent stable of authors who have wished to advertise their atheism and opposition
to religion and agree or endorse those books, to comment why it is that they a)apparently understand what Dawkins means b) apparently nod agreeable heads to it.
Then why are you raising this with me, when I specifically pointed out (and have done so many times on this MB) that I have never read the God Delusion or anything else by Dawkins nor anything by Harris.
-
Then why are you raising this with me, when I specifically pointed out (and have done so many times on this MB) that I have never read the God Delusion or anything else by Dawkins nor anything by Harris.
This thread was not aimed at you....in fact who did you say you were again...it is aimed at the general atheist readership of Dawkins around here.....if folks are saying that no one round here has read The God Delusion then you've made an old godbotherer very happy!
-
This thread was not aimed at you....in fact who did you say you were again...it is aimed at the general atheist readership of Dawkins around here.....if folks are saying that no one round here has read The God Delusion then you've made an old godbotherer very happy!
I have read the book in question.
-
I have read the book in question.
Oh.....you'd have to go and put the mockers on it.
-
So've I. I wasn't impressed. He should stick to zoology - he's no philosopher.
-
I have read the book in question.
What is your interpretation of the term "existence claims" and indeed why they should come exclusively under the umbrella of science.
-
What is your interpretation of the term "existence claims" and indeed why they should come exclusively under the umbrella of science.
Just because I have read the book, doesn't mean that I am going to engage in some kind of conversation with you.
I have much more rewarding things to do do with my time.
Now please excuse me whilst I go take a dump.
-
This thread was not aimed at you....in fact who did you say you were again...it is aimed at the general atheist readership of Dawkins around here.....if folks are saying that no one round here has read The God Delusion then you've made an old godbotherer very happy!
Why on earth does it bother you so much that people might have read The God Delusion?
-
This thread was not aimed at you....in fact who did you say you were again...it is aimed at the general atheist readership of Dawkins around here.....if folks are saying that no one round here has read The God Delusion then you've made an old godbotherer very happy!
As a god botherer I bet you don't make the sky fairy very happy with your comments. ;D
-
Just because I have read the book, doesn't mean that I am going to engage in some kind of conversation with you.
I have much more rewarding things to do do with my time.
Now please excuse me whilst I go take a dump.
I think you already have.
-
Why on earth does it bother you so much that people might have read The God Delusion?
He has this weird obsession with Richard Dawkins...
-
So've I. I wasn't impressed. He should stick to zoology - he's no philosopher.
Neither are you. Nor me. And definitely not Vlad. And yet here we are debating the existence of God and other “philosophical” problems.
The God Delusion is not a book about philosophy. It tries to answer the question of why religion is bollocks and yet so many people are into it. You don’t have to be a philosopher to talk about that.
-
The God Delusion is not a book about philosophy. It tries to answer the question of why religion is bollocks
Funnily enough that must be the first time a statement like that has actually raised the intellectual tenor of a thread.
-
Neither are you. Nor me. And definitely not Vlad. And yet here we are debating the existence of God and other “philosophical” problems.
The God Delusion is not a book about philosophy. It tries to answer the question of why religion is bollocks and yet so many people are into it. You don’t have to be a philosopher to talk about that.
Wait a cotton picking moment there.
Can you call something you're supposed to be agnostic about....bollocks?
I'm not sure you can.
-
Wait a cotton picking moment there.
Can you call something you're supposed to be agnostic about....bollocks?
I'm not sure you can.
As so often, I think you are getting a little confused Vlad.
I think you will find that many of us on these MB are agnostic and/or atheist on the issue of whether god or gods exists. We are not agnostic on whether religion exists - religion beyond any doubt does exist. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to be agnostic and/or atheist on existence of god but also to consider religion to be bollocks - particularly if that religion is predicated on the assumption of the existence of a god or gods.
-
As so often, I think you are getting a little confused Vlad.
I think you will find that many of us on these MB are agnostic and/or atheist on the issue of whether god or gods exists. We are not agnostic on whether religion exists - religion beyond any doubt does exist. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to be agnostic and/or atheist on existence of god but also to consider religion to be bollocks - particularly if that religion is predicated on the assumption of the existence of a god or gods.
So any religion not predicated on the existence of God is not bollocks or not as bollocks. Therefore since the difference is the existence of Gods you are saying that the thing you are agnostic about is or is more bollocks.
-
So any religion not predicated on the existence of God is not bollocks or not as bollocks.
So, that inference does not follow.
-
Wait a cotton picking moment there.
Can you call something you're supposed to be agnostic about....bollocks?
I'm not sure you can.
I'm not agnostic about religion. It exists and is bollocks.
I am agnostic in the strictest sense about the existence of God, but I'm reasonably sure that there isn't one. And if there is a god, it definitely isn't one like the Christian god.
-
I'm not agnostic about religion. It exists and is bollocks.
Positive assertion, please demonstrate it.
-
I'm not agnostic about religion. It exists and is bollocks.
I am agnostic in the strictest sense about the existence of God, but I'm reasonably sure that there isn't one.
That sounds like a hedge.
Your conception of God as someone who perfectly predicts the future from the beginning and leaves it at that is the deist God rather than the Christian God.
-
Positive assertion, please demonstrate it.
Are you now denying the existence of religion?
-
That sounds like a hedge.
Your conception of God as someone who perfectly predicts the future from the beginning and leaves it at that is the deist God rather than the Christian God.
What is it which defines the Christian god for you?
-
Your conception of God as someone who perfectly predicts the future from the beginning and leaves it at that is the deist God rather than the Christian God.
The reason we can be fairly certain that the Christian god does not exist is the insanity of its theology.
What kind of god beams down to Earth as a human, arranges to get itself executed to save humans from a punishment that it invented for a crime committed in a fictional story and then tricks itself by coming back to life again? Answer: a fictional one.
-
The reason we can be fairly certain that the Christian god does not exist is the insanity of its theology.
What kind of god beams down to Earth as a human, arranges to get itself executed to save humans from a punishment that it invented for a crime committed in a fictional story and then tricks itself by coming back to life again? Answer: a fictional one.
Crimes are committed in fictional stories all the time but that does not mean there is not real crime.
It's obvious that crime has consequences and debases the perpetrator. If we are alienated against God and act that out in alienation against other humans and nature then God has to take on any damage incurred and CHRIST is that way.
-
What is it which defines the Christian god for you?
God who is with us.
-
Crimes are committed in fictional stories all the time but that does not mean. There is not real crime.
That there is real crime does not mean that people need to be punished for fictional crimes.
It's obvious that crime has consequences and debases the perpetrator. If we are alienated against God and act that out in alienation against other humans and nature then God has to take on any damage incurred and CHRIST is that way.
Who made that rule up? Was it God or is God subject to a higher authority?
-
That there is real crime does not mean that people need to be punished for fictional crimes.
Who made that rule up? Was it God or is God subject to a higher authority?
No they need to punished for crime though.
He's God Jeremy....what higher authority could there be?
-
He's God Jeremy....what higher authority could there be?
God's dad?
The one he hasn't revealed to you yet?
-
No they need to punished for crime though.
He's God Jeremy....what higher authority could there be?
So God made the rule. You're saying God made a rule that states God must be punished if he wants to forgive humans the crimes that some of their fictional ancestors committed.
Not only that, you are saying that it's perfectly fine for God to dodge the death sentence by resurrecting himself. Why, instead of all that nonsense, didn't he just forgive the humans?
You wonder why I question the existence of this god of yours that is plainly bonkers.
-
God's dad?
The one he hasn't revealed to you yet?
God has no beginning Seb, you know, just like the universe.
-
So God made the rule. You're saying God made a rule that states God must be punished if he wants to forgive humans the crimes that some of their fictional ancestors committed.
Not only that, you are saying that it's perfectly fine for God to dodge the death sentence by resurrecting himself. Why, instead of all that nonsense, didn't he just forgive the humans?
You wonder why I question the existence of this god of yours that is plainly bonkers.
I'm not saying God just made a rule.Any fool can do that As I've said before God is the supreme example of what it is to be Good.
The NT says we will all be resurrected Jeremy.
-
I'm not saying God just made a rule.
So who did make the rule?
The NT says we will all be resurrected Jeremy.
No it doesn't. Unless, by "we" you mean Christians.
-
I'm not saying God just made a rule.Any fool can do that As I've said before God is the supreme example of what it is to be Good.
The NT says we will all be resurrected Jeremy.
You are joking. ::)
-
You are joking. ::)
No I'm perfectly serious. I think you've confused the messages with the messengers
-
So who did make the rule?
No it doesn't. Unless, by "we" you mean Christians.
Choose from the following
Talk of rule is being sarcastic
Talk of a rule is being simplistic
-
God has no beginning Seb, you know, just like the universe.
....unless he has a Dad, who has no beginning.
A Dad who created the omniverse, then created God, then God created our universe.
Impossible or not?
-
....unless he has a Dad, who has no beginning.
A Dad who created the omniverse, then created God, then God created our universe.
Impossible or not?
It is an interesting theological point but it does reduce to that which is created and that which is uncreated. Its philosophically sound I suppose.
-
....unless he has a Dad, who has no beginning.
A Dad who created the omniverse, then created God, then God created our universe.
Impossible or not?
Could read as a variant of Gnosticism, except that refers more to "emanations". The ultimate godhead is all good and spiritual, but in the moment of his creative enterprises, the demiurge who eventually made our world comes into being. The latter is ignorant and, if not quite evil, a pathetic bungler in his own creative attempts. Seems to have a few resonances that sound plausible.
-
Choose from the following
Talk of rule is being sarcastic
Talk of a rule is being simplistic
Choose amongst the following:
Vlad is trying to distract attention from the fact he doesn’t have an answer to the the point again.
-
Let’s be more explicit. You said:
If we are alienated against God and act that out in alienation against other humans and nature then God has to take on any damage incurred and CHRIST is that way.
That is a rule. I offered you the option that it was created by a higher authority than God. You pooh poohed that suggestion. That only leaves us with the option that God created that rule.
So what you are saying is that your god made a rule which means he has to answer for our misdemeanors. Why can’t God - the ultimate authority - just forgive us?
-
Let’s be more explicit. You said:
That is a rule. I offered you the option that it was created by a higher authority than God. You pooh poohed that suggestion. That only leaves us with the option that God created that rule.
So what you are saying is that your god made a rule which means he has to answer for our misdemeanors. Why can’t God - the ultimate authority - just forgive us?
What do you think forgiveness involves Jeremy? Taking it upon yourself.
-
What do you think forgiveness involves Jeremy? Taking it upon yourself.
No it doesn’t.
When the Home Secretary pardons a criminal, they don’t have to do the time themselves.
-
No it doesn’t.
When the Home Secretary pardons a criminal, they don’t have to do the time themselves.
The Home Secretary has no real investment in either the crime or the forgiveness of the crime.
The victims do and there experience is a better model than the Home Secretary.
Jesus takes the sins of the world on himself.
-
Jesus takes the sins of the world on himself.
Which means what?
-
Which means what?
I suppose Calvinists would say he has taken the effect of sin of those who are forgiven.
Other Christians would say the way is thus now open for all who choose it.
Universalists would say that all are saved because Jesus has done it.
-
The Home Secretary has no real investment in either the crime or the forgiveness of the crime.
The victims do and there experience is a better model than the Home Secretary.
Jesus takes the sins of the world on himself.
What about his own sins, who took those away? ::)
-
What do you think forgiveness involves Jeremy? Taking it upon yourself.
No it doesn't. That's just some weird kind of masochism. How would someone forgive, say, a rapist by 'taking it upon themselves'? That just sounds like a way to prolong suffering.
-
The Home Secretary has no real investment in either the crime or the forgiveness of the crime.
The victims do and there experience is a better model than the Home Secretary.
Jesus takes the sins of the world on himself.
So if I have an investment in forgiving the man who raped me I should do that by taking on his guilt for him? Is that what your church teaches?
-
I suppose Calvinists would say he has taken the effect of sin of those who are forgiven.
Other Christians would say the way is thus now open for all who choose it.
Universalists would say that all are saved because Jesus has done it.
None of which addresses the fact that the whole thing is carpet-chewing mad: god deciding we need forgiveness for being what it made us and then deciding that the only way it can happen is by a bizarre sadomasochistic act of torturing itself to death.
-
None of which addresses the fact that the whole thing is carpet-chewing mad: god deciding we need forgiveness for being what it made us and then deciding that the only way it can happen is by a bizarre sadomasochistic act of torturing itself to death.
Yes, if you define 'sin' along Biblical lines - and I don't think that there is any other way - you are including the 'wrong' kinds of love, having more stuff than you need, coveting your neighbour's bottom etc - in other words, we need forgiveness for being human.
-
What about his own sins, who took those away? ::)
That remark is spectacularly stupid, even by your standards.
-
That remark is spectacularly stupid, even by your standards.
But if Jesus was fully human then he must have sinned?
-
That remark is spectacularly stupid, even by your standards.
There is nothing perfect about some of the deeds attributed to him, he was just human like the rest of us.
-
The Home Secretary has no real investment in either the crime or the forgiveness of the crime.
If I forgive the person who mugged me, I don't have to go to prison in their place.
Jesus takes the sins of the world on himself.
But he didn't have to.
-
I suppose Calvinists would say ...
Other Christians would say ...
Universalists would say...
What do you say?
-
But if Jesus was fully human then he must have sinned?
No, he was fully human because he didn't sin. It's we who are less than fully human because of sin, according to orthodox Christian theology.
-
No, he was fully human because he didn't sin. It's we who are less than fully human because of sin, according to orthodox Christian theology.
So God is human, but humans are not human.
Maybe the point of this has been lost in there mists of previous posts, but you are supposed to be demonstrating that the Christian god is not an incoherent concept, not proving that it is incoherent.
-
So God is human, but humans are not human.
Maybe the point of this has been lost in there mists of previous posts, but you are supposed to be demonstrating that the Christian god is not an incoherent concept, not proving that it is incoherent.
It's not that difficult to understand, nor is it incoherent, unless you are determined to oppose and mock Christianity at every turn.
-
It's not that difficult to understand
I understand perfectly. The Christian theology is a mist mash of ideas from disparate people and is not the idea of a single entity.
nor is it incoherent, unless you are determined to oppose and mock Christianity at every turn.
You just told us that God is human but humans are not human. It's difficult to see how not to mock such an incoherent idea.
-
I understand perfectly. The Christian theology is a mist mash of ideas from disparate people and is not the idea of a single entity.
You just told us that God is human but humans are not human. It's difficult to see how not to mock such an incoherent idea.
Humns are less than fully human because of sin. What's incoherent about that?
-
Humns are less than fully human because of sin. What's incoherent about that?
Even for you that statement is totally incoherent. ::)
-
Humns are less than fully human because of sin. What's incoherent about that?
I'm not into mocking Christianity, but all I see in the gospels is a man called Jesus who had some outstanding good points but, nevertheless, showed faults, which pointed to the fact that he was in fact a human being. I would suggest that I am fully human and I have faults too. The idea that if one doesn't sin(in the Biblical sense) this makes one 'fully human seems quite ridiculous to me. Is this what Orthodox Christianity teaches?
-
How can someone or something with faults be fully whatever-it-is?
-
Humns are less than fully human because of sin. What's incoherent about that?
How can something be less than fully what it is?
Christians tell us that humans are sinners. How can a god be fully human if that god is free of sin?
It seems to me that you are saying that Jesus is actually some other entity of which we are imperfect projections. Jesus is fully a
Platonic human and we are not because of our imperfections. However, if that is the case, you should choose your language more carefully, instead of confusing the issue.
-
How can someone or something with faults be fully whatever-it-is?
Because having faults is an intrinsic part of the whatever it is.
-
Oh, fuck this for a game of soldiers - I've had enough of arguing with idiots.
-
How can someone or something with faults be fully whatever-it-is?
So why did god make us faulty, how is that our fault, and why does god making itself into a human and then killing itself horribly make a difference?
-
Oh, fuck this for a game of soldiers - I've had enough of arguing with idiots.
So you give up and you resort to insults. Fair enough. You can't win this one because Christianity is incoherent.
-
Oh, fuck this for a game of soldiers - I've had enough of arguing with idiots.
In which case you are arguing with yourself. ;D
-
In which case you are arguing with yourself. ;D
Most people grow out of that kind of joke when they leave primary school.
-
Humns are less than fully human because of sin. What's incoherent about that?
But the very concept of sin is a human concept.
Being sinful may make us less ethical, trustworthy etc etc, but it doesn't make us any less human. Indeed to suggest as such is a very, very dangerous move. History is full of examples of people being considered to be 'not fully human' as a means to justify the most appalling persecution. And to allow that to be based on a definition of sinfulness that is under the control often of those very perpetrators of persecution is a very problematic position.
-
Good and bad are characteristics of human nature. To suggest people who do wrong are less than human is incorrect.
-
This. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_and_Dumber)
-
How can someone or something with faults be fully whatever-it-is?
Steve,
Human being is not another word for 'perfect'.
A person who is born physically disabled has a faulty physical frame in some way. That doesn't make them any the less fully human. My brother on law was born with cerebral palsy. This doesn't make him any the less fully human.
If a person is born to some extent educationally subnormal(your link suggests, for instance, that the two men are dim witted) that also doesn't make them any the less fully human.
What you are suggesting is that we can label people fully or partially human on the basis that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is fully human and everybody else is only partially human. I couldn't even begin to understand why, but I do find that the very idea leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth.
-
Agree, enki. To say that we fall short of perfection seems obvious, but to say this is less than human, is distinctly creepy. I was just sitting in our allotment, very mild, and everything is falling into decay, but there are also buds on some plants. I like the mixture of decay and new life. It is perfect in a way.
-
Is my adopted Down's Syndrome son less than human because he is quite severely mentally disabled? He is a thoroughly decent man, whom everyone who comes into contact with him is fond. :)
-
The things that make us 'fallen' are effectively the things that not only make us human, but that make us adult. The tree of knowledge of good and evil took us out of infantilism and into adulthood. We aren't less than, but more than. Nothing illustrates the childishness of religion more than the idea that perfect equals innocent.
-
But the very concept of sin is a human concept.
Being sinful may make us less ethical, trustworthy etc etc, but it doesn't make us any less human. Indeed to suggest as such is a very, very dangerous move. History is full of examples of people of people being considered to be 'not fully human' as a means to justify the most appalling persecution. And to allow that to be based on a definition of sinfulness that is under the control often of those very perpetrators of persecution is a very problematic position.
Yes, 'sin' may include thieving and lying but it also includes certain kinds of loving sexual relationships, buying more stuff than you need etc. Things that don't make anyone dangerous in the slightest, but, according to this scenario, less than human.
-
No it doesn't. That's just some weird kind of masochism. How would someone forgive, say, a rapist by 'taking it upon themselves'? That just sounds like a way to prolong suffering.
When you forgive someone you have to carry on with the hurt they have caused you. You have chosen not to repay like for like and have withheld justice from them. So in effect you have chosen to carry the full burden.
The masochism you are alluding to is so weird frankly it sounds as if you have no clue.
-
What do you say?
More the middle option.
I'm not convinced everyone wants God and I'm not convinced God doesn't want the salvation of all.
-
But the very concept of sin is a human concept.
Being sinful may make us less ethical, trustworthy etc etc, but it doesn't make us any less human. Indeed to suggest as such is a very, very dangerous move. History is full of examples of people of people being considered to be 'not fully human' as a means to justify the most appalling persecution. And to allow that to be based on a definition of sinfulness that is under the control often of those very perpetrators of persecution is a very problematic position.
It makes us less than what we can be and it is a symptom of something that societies and religion have tried to keep the lid on for millennia.......total IDmageddon and/or Egogeddon. Of course there have been places where this has surfaced Rwanda, Cambodia, Former Yugoslavia.
-
The things that make us 'fallen' are effectively the things that not only make us human, but that make us adult. The tree of knowledge of good and evil took us out of infantilism and into adulthood. We aren't less than, but more than. Nothing illustrates the childishness of religion more than the idea that perfect equals innocent.
I notice your list of fallenness is nowhere near comprehensive and is some of the greatest spin I've seen in ages.
-
The things that make us 'fallen' are effectively the things that not only make us human, but that make us adult. The tree of knowledge of good and evil took us out of infantilism and into adulthood. We aren't less than, but more than. Nothing illustrates the childishness of religion more than the idea that perfect equals innocent.
Terrific stuff. I think some Christians realize that our badness is part of the mix, like salt in food, hence the phrase "Felix culpa" for Adam and Eve, (happy fault), but then it jars with other Christian ideas, for example, being less than human. Watching the current Attenborough series, you can see how harsh nature is, and we are part of it.
-
None of which addresses the fact that the whole thing is carpet-chewing mad: god deciding we need forgiveness for being what it made us and then deciding that the only way it can happen is by a bizarre sadomasochistic act of torturing itself to death.
Are you not alienated from God?
How did that happen?
-
Terrific stuff. I think some Christians realize that our badness is part of the mix, like salt in food, hence the phrase "Felix culpa" for Adam and Eve, (happy fault), but then it jars with other Christian ideas, for example, being less than human. Watching the current Attenborough series, you can see how harsh nature is, and we are part of it.
Except Rhiannon's interpretation of the tree of knowledge isn't Christian.
And she inevitably has to resort to presenting humanity as some kind of well meaning coffee morning whose worse sin is the "equivalent of a mimsy "sorry I'm late everyone I couldn't find my car keys".
-
Most people grow out of that kind of joke when they leave primary school.
Says the man who just posted that he was leaving in a strop whilst calling the other posters idiots.
-
None of which addresses the fact that the whole thing is carpet-chewing mad: god deciding we need forgiveness for being what it made us and then deciding that the only way it can happen is by a bizarre sadomasochistic act of torturing itself to death.
Have you read the New Testament?
-
When you forgive someone you have to carry on with the hurt they have caused you.
No you don't.
In fact, quite often forgiveness and getting over the hurt come together.
You have chosen not to repay like for like and have withheld justice from them. So in effect you have chosen to carry the full burden.
Rubbish. I can forgive somebody who mugs me even if they face justice and go to prison anyway. I don't have to carry the burden at all. I don't have to replace them in prison.
The masochism you are alluding to is so weird frankly it sounds as if you have no clue.
Honestly, it sounds more like you have no clue what forgiveness is about.
-
Are you not alienated from God?
Are you not alienated from the Norse Goddess Fraya?
Since I have no reason to think that any of the many gods that humans have believed in actually exist, I don't consider myself alienated from any of them.
Have you read the New Testament?
Yes. Have you?
-
No you don't.
In fact, quite often forgiveness and getting over the hurt come together.
Rubbish. I can forgive somebody who mugs me even if they face justice and go to prison anyway. I don't have to carry the burden at all. I don't have to replace them in prison.
Honestly, it sounds more like you have no clue what forgiveness is about.
You may have to carry the scars Jeremy and you may have to underwrite financial costs. You have agreed if you like that the damage you have incurred is the only cost. YOU HAVE TAKEN THE COST OF THE EVENT ON YOURSELF.
PRISON, unless you have insisted that that is justice and has nothing to do with it.
If your testimony given freely ends in them going to jail then you have insisted on serving Justice rather than forgiveness.
-
You may have to carry the scars Jeremy and you may have to underwrite financial costs.
Scars usually heal with time. Why would I have to take the financial cost? Are you thinking forgiving a person for wronging you is the same as forgiving a debt? Again I have to question if you know what forgiving really is.
If your testimony given freely ends in them going to jail then you have insisted on serving Justice rather than forgiveness.
If I stand up in court and say I forgive them, how is that going to stop them from going to prison? Even if it does, how does it put me in the frame for going to prison instead?
-
Are you not alienated from the Norse Goddess Fraya?
WhatFreya makes up with Nordic Amazonian splendour she rather lacks in theological comprehensivity being part of a team and not even being the team leader.
-
Scars usually heal with time. Why would I have to take the financial cost? Are you thinking forgiving a person for wronging you is the same as forgiving a debt? Again I have to question if you know what forgiving really is.
If I stand up in court and say I forgive them, how is that going to stop them from going to prison? Even if it does, how does it put me in the frame for going to prison instead?
Jeremy you've gone into loophole finding mode
If you forgive them you do not press charges.
Also the state might feel the perp has transgressed against it. An enlightened judge might balance your forgiveness with the states needs in sentencing.
-
Scars usually heal with time. Why would I have to take the financial cost? Are you thinking forgiving a person for wronging you is the same as forgiving a debt? Again I have to question if you know what forgiving really is.
Criminals are repeatedly referred to as paying a debt to society. It is metaphorical and allegorical and analogous.
-
It makes us less than what we can be and it is a symptom of something that societies and religion have tried to keep the lid on for millennia.......total IDmageddon and/or Egogeddon. Of course there have been places where this has surfaced Rwanda, Cambodia, Former Yugoslavia.
None of which means we are less human.
I'm sorry but when people start talking about people being less than fully human, round the corner genocide lies.
-
When you forgive someone you have to carry on with the hurt they have caused you. You have chosen not to repay like for like and have withheld justice from them. So in effect you have chosen to carry the full burden.
The masochism you are alluding to is so weird frankly it sounds as if you have no clue.
You are a moral coward.
-
None of which means we are less human.
I'm sorry but when people start talking about people being less than fully human, round the corner genocide lies.
That occurs when people say you are less human than I.
To declare that all are fallen including "I" takes a step.
-
That occurs when people say you are less human than I.
To declare that all are fallen including "I" takes a step.
Nope once you start determining that human-defined sin is a symbol that individuals are not fully human then those who define that sin will necessarily ascribe that 'less than fully' human state in a graded manner - such that some are deemed to be fully human and others not fully human. As I've said before history is littered with the bodies of those that have been murdered as a result of that mantra.
-
Nope once you start determining that human-defined sin is a symbol that individuals are not fully human then those who define that sin will necessarily ascribe that 'less than fully' human state in a graded manner - such that some are deemed to be fully human and others not fully human. As I've said before history is littered with the bodies of those that have been murdered as a result of that mantra.
Slippery slope argument.
If one said that one would be straying from all sorts of doctrine.
New Atheism where Atheists are denoted as Brights and religious people as bad, thick, or referred to as ducklings and sheep though, well.....
-
Jeremy you've gone into loophole finding mode
Nope. Not me.
If you forgive them you do not press charges.
Really? Can you show me where it says forgiving somebody means you have to stop the judicial proceedings against them?
Of course the Christian situation is worse than that: God doesn't just stop the judicial proceedings against us, he redirects them at himself.
Also the state might feel the perp has transgressed against it. An enlightened judge might balance your forgiveness with the states needs in sentencing.
That might be the case, but he or she wouldn't demand that I serve the balance of the sentence.
-
Criminals are repeatedly referred to as paying a debt to society. It is metaphorical and allegorical and analogous.
But it's not an actual debt though.
-
New Atheism where Atheists are denoted as Brights and religious people as bad, thick, or referred to as ducklings and sheep though, well.....
Only the finest whataboutery from Vlad.
This line of discussion raised from my assertion that the Christian god cannot exist because Christianity is completely incoherent. If certain atheist doctrines are also incoherent, it is irrelevant. Atheists don't pretend to have a god that is perfect.
-
Slippery slope argument.
If one said that one would be straying from all sorts of doctrine.
But the whole notion that being human or otherwise is somehow doctrinal is non-sensical. And the suggestion that whether or not a person is wholly human or not is down to someone else's doctrine is also deeply offensive and deeply dangerous.
-
That occurs when people say you are less human than I.
To declare that all are fallen including "I" takes a step.
What you appear to be implying is that no humans are actually ... err ... properly human. Bizarre notion.
-
Steve,
Human being is not another word for 'perfect'.
A person who is born physically disabled has a faulty physical frame in some way. That doesn't make them any the less fully human. My brother on law was born with cerebral palsy. This doesn't make him any the less fully human.
If a person is born to some extent educationally subnormal(your link suggests, for instance, that the two men are dim witted) that also doesn't make them any the less fully human.
What you are suggesting is that we can label people fully or partially human on the basis that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is fully human and everybody else is only partially human. I couldn't even begin to understand why, but I do find that the very idea leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth.
Load of sentimental bollocks.
-
Load of sentimental bollocks.
You and Vlad are on form on this thread. No wonder your church is in its death throes.
-
OK, ok - being disabled doesn't make you less than fully human, but I didn't suggest for a moment that it did; that was brought in by others, sanctimoniously trying to make me feel guilty. Sin makes us less than fully human is what I said. Anyway, it seems an odd argument that the one person since the fall who was sinless and perfect (according to Christisan theology) is less than human on that account. Having known disabled people, and been married to one for 25 years, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that they are less than human; but certainly I, who am not disabled (well I'm rather deaf nowadays, but haven't always been) am not less than human on that account!
-
You and Vlad are on form on this thread. No wonder your church is in its death throes.
Load of over dramatic bollocks.
-
You and Vlad are on form on this thread. No wonder your church is in its death throes.
You'd rather I was a sanctimonious, pecksniffian creeping-jesus type?
-
Load of over dramatic bollocks.
Don’t fucking speak to me.
-
You'd rather I was a sanctimonious, pecksniffian creeping-jesus type?
I’d rather you had the humanity to see Enki’s point.
-
I’d rather you had the humanity to see Enki’s point.
Enki was being sanctimonious and self-righteous, and trying to make me feel guilty. I answered his point fully earlier.
-
I suppose Calvinists would say he has taken the effect of sin of those who are forgiven.
Other Christians would say the way is thus now open for all who choose it.
Universalists would say that all are saved because Jesus has done it.
I can sort of see what the last one means but no idea about the first two.
-
Enki was being sanctimonious and self-righteous, and trying to make me feel guilty. I answered his point fully earlier.
Bullshit. His point was a legitimate one; the fallenness of humanity is supposed to include physical disability and illness as well as the capacity to sin. Or are you going to cherry pick the bits you like?
-
I can sort of see what the last one means but no idea about the first two.
Calvinists believe that Salvation is only for a group known as the elect.In other words Jesus sacrifice is only meant for this few.
Arminians are those who believe that Jesus sacrifice is good for all and that anyone can avail themselves of the sacrifice but not all do or will.
-
Bullshit. His point was a legitimate one; the fallenness of humanity is supposed to include physical disability and illness as well as the capacity to sin. Or are you going to cherry pick the bits you like?
No that is in no way the Christian doctrine. Fallenness refers to sin alone.
-
Calvinists believe that Salvation is only for a group known as the elect.In other words Jesus sacrifice is only meant for this few.
Arminians are those who believe that Jesus sacrifice is good for all and that anyone can avail themselves of the sacrifice but not all do or will.
Right - thanks.
-
What you appear to be implying is that no humans are actually ... err ... properly human. Bizarre notion.
What do you mean by that? That we are a different species than Homo sapiens?
-
But the whole notion that being human or otherwise is somehow doctrinal is non-sensical. And the suggestion that whether or not a person is wholly human or not is down to someone else's doctrine is also deeply offensive and deeply dangerous.
I don't know what you mean when you talk about doctrine. I mean it is not Christian doctrine to think that one is superior or more human than anyone else.
I do subscribe to Augustines doctrine that we have a God shaped hole in our lives.
-
I’d rather you had the humanity to see Enki’s point.
Implying he is not properly human?
-
What do you mean by that? That we are a different species than Homo sapiens?
Nope - but that is the inference of your the bizarre concept that no human is fully human.
-
I don't know what you mean when you talk about doctrine. I mean it is not Christian doctrine to think that one is superior or more human than anyone else.
I do subscribe to Augustines doctrine that we have a God shaped hole in our lives.
But you are implying that it is christian doctrine that no-one is fully human.
-
No that is in no way the Christian doctrine. Fallenness refers to sin alone.
There is a long and very ugly history of christianity equating disability and illness with sinfulness.
-
There is a long and very ugly history of christianity equating disability and illness with sinfulness.
Make good your claim.
There is a long history of Christian charity acknowledged by no less than Matt Dillahunty.
-
But you are implying that it is christian doctrine that no-one is fully human.
Where have I denied we are.not al Homo sapiens.Until you have the balls to explain what you mean by fully human or properly human I can't help you in your enquiries can I?
-
Nope - but that is the inference of your the bizarre concept that no human is fully human.
You need to define terms and show working out.
-
Implying he is not properly human?
I have told you not to speak to me. If you address me again I will regard this as harassment.
-
There is a long and very ugly history of christianity equating disability and illness with sinfulness.
Examples?
-
Examples?
I know one personally and I've posted it here before. A woman with MS who was prayed for by her fundie mates and cut off when she didn't start walking again because they concluded her illness was due to 'unrepented sin'.
-
I know one personally and I've posted it here before. A woman with MS who was prayed for by her fundie mates and cut off when she didn't start walking again because they concluded her illness was due to 'unrepented sin'.
Surely, that her lack of recovery was due to unrepented sin. Charismaniacs are a menace, but proper mainstream Christianity has never taught that disability and sickness are due to sin; in fact, the disabled, especially the learning-dasabled, were often regarded as especially holy.
-
I know one personally and I've posted it here before. A woman with MS who was prayed for by her fundie mates and cut off when she didn't start walking again because they concluded her illness was due to 'unrepented sin'.
Those fundies are the ones in the wrong, not the woman with MS.
-
Those fundies are the ones in the wrong, not the woman with MS.
Like I said - charismaniacs (and fundies) are a menace. They are not mainstream Christianity, though. All ideologies have their lunatic fringe.
-
What do you mean by that? That we are a different species than Homo sapiens?
This whole thing started when Steve H claimed that Jesus being "fully human" meant not that he was human in the sense that we are all human fallible creatures but that he achieved some sort of Platonic ideal humanness that we fall short of (the "Platonic ideal" words are mine, not Steve's). He claims that that is what "fully human" means in the statement "Christ is fully God and fully human".
His interpretation is problematic in two ways. The first is that it means that we humans are not human, which is absurd given that "human" is a word that is defined to reference our species and also, apparently, offensive to some posters here. This is what we have been discussing up till now.
The interpretation is also problematic in that, in the context of the statement, it doesn't make sense. If you want to use that interpretation of "fully" for humans, you need to use the same interpretation for gods too, which implies there are other gods that are less than perfect.
-
There is no such verb as "to reference".
-
There is no such verb as "to reference".
Wrong
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reference
-
Wrong
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reference
Well, there damn well shouldn't be, when we can say "refer to".
-
This whole thing started when Steve H claimed that Jesus being "fully human" meant not that he was human in the sense that we are all human fallible creatures but that he achieved some sort of Platonic ideal humanness that we fall short of (the "Platonic ideal" words are mine, not Steve's). He claims that that is what "fully human" means in the statement "Christ is fully God and fully human".
His interpretation is problematic in two ways. The first is that it means that we humans are not human, which is absurd given that "human" is a word that is defined to reference our species and also, apparently, offensive to some posters here. This is what we have been discussing up till now.
The interpretation is also problematic in that, in the context of the statement, it doesn't make sense. If you want to use that interpretation of "fully" for humans, you need to use the same interpretation for gods too, which implies there are other gods that are less than perfect.
As usual with all Steve's outpourings, it does well to bear in mind where he's coming from in his Christian beliefs. He's rather good at stating what traditional mainstream Christian doctrine is on these matters, without actually believing much of it himself - even though he writes (as here) as if he does believe such things.
I don't know how anyone could hold any concept of 'sin' at all without believing fairly strongly in traditional Christian doctrine, since the matter is inextricably associated with the latter. "Falling short of the mark" - what bloody mark is set by a 'non-realist' god? Or a god that's in the 'process' of growing itself? Likewise ideas of what constitutes being human or less than fully human.
Just to remind you of what Steve stated in the 'Omnipotence' thread, I think:
I don't think I said that I actually believed in the objective existence of an omnipotent (in any sense) God. However, I tend to drift between non-realism and process theology - sometimes one, sometimes the other.
-
No that is in no way the Christian doctrine. Fallenness refers to sin alone.
You will find that certain Christians (admittedly, usually of the fundamentalist variety, who believe that the 'aboriginal calamity' brought about the whole debacle of descent from physical as well as moral perfection). Such are no doubt not 'your sort of Christian' (and, I should hardly need to point out, Steve isn't either). Once again, will the true Christians please stand up?
-
You will find that certain Christians (admittedly, usually of the fundamentalist variety, who believe that the 'aboriginal calamity' brought about the whole debacle of descent from physical as well as moral perfection). Such are no doubt not 'your sort of Christian' (and, I should hardly need to point out, Steve isn't either). Once again, will the true Christians please stand up?
And although it may not be a particularly mainstream view now amongst Christians that disability was somehow a punishment for sin, for centuries this was mainstream doctrine.
-
Enki was being sanctimonious and self-righteous, and trying to make me feel guilty. I answered his point fully earlier.
Steve,
You do get yourself into a bit of a pickle, don't you? First you suggest that Jesus was fully human and that all other human beings aren't because they are sinful. Hence what you are suggesting is that we are only partially human or at the very least not completely human.
Then when you are challenged on this, you come up with the question "How can someone or something with faults be fully whatever-it-is?" in this case, of course, it is being human that is being debated.
When you are questioned on this, your considered response is to say "Oh, fuck this for a game of soldiers - I've had enough of arguing with idiots." That got the desired effect, didn't it...not! :)
Then when your point of view is again challenged, your response is to come up with a Wikepedia article on the film 'Dumb and Dumber' which is a comedy film about 'two kindly but dimwitted men' which if it means anything, suggests either that you think that everyone who is arguing with you is dumb or that 'two kindly but dimwitted men' in the film are examples of your idea of people who are not fully human.
Then, when you are faced with my post as to what your statement that a person with faults cannot be 'fully whatever-it-is' actually means as regards physical/mental defects, you quite happily respond to it with the ringing endorsement of "Load of sentimental bollocks."
At last, in post 120, you finally face up to your completely inappropriate choice of words, by admitting that 'being disabled doesn't make you less than fully human', a welcome addition to your previous question "How can someone or something with faults be fully whatever-it-is?" and emphasise that you actually meant 'sin' and no other faults, I assume.
However you go and spoil it by accusing others(of whom I am one) of being sanctimonious and trying to make you feel guilty. And, finally, you quite happily accuse me directly of being sanctimonious etc. none of which is true, but if it helps you to feel better about your position, then feel free to think that way.
One word of advice, Steve, which no doubt you will reject with the word 'bollocks' or some other opprobrious term, but is nevertheless pertinent, you might consider, when debating, that you think carefully about the terms and statements you make on a debating forum before posting them. We can all say things we don't quite mean(me, certainly included), and then we have to backtrack sometimes to explain ourselves. :)
Finally,
I can't find any reference in Orthodox theology about all other humans being 'less than full human' but I am quite happy to be corrected if you can point me in the right direction.
-
You will find that certain Christians (admittedly, usually of the fundamentalist variety, who believe that the 'aboriginal calamity' brought about the whole debacle of descent from physical as well as moral perfection). Such are no doubt not 'your sort of Christian' (and, I should hardly need to point out, Steve isn't either). Once again, will the true Christians please stand up?
I studied theology many moons ago with some very non fundie, quite liberal Christians who nevertheless were of the opinion that the fall of creation was the way to account for natural disasters and illness. If you do away with the Fall as the reason for it then what are you left with? Design flaws? God deliberately making suffering as a test of worthiness?
-
I studied theology many moons ago with some very non fundie, quite liberal Christians who nevertheless were of the opinion that the fall of creation was the way to account for natural disasters and illness. If you do away with the Fall as the reason for it then what are you left with? Design flaws? God deliberately making suffering as a test of worthiness?
Didn't God regret making the earth & sent floods ie Noah etc ?!!?!?
-
And although it may not be a particularly mainstream view now amongst Christians that disability was somehow a punishment for sin, for centuries this was mainstream doctrine.
Which centuries? Make good your claim please.
-
Let us not beat about the bush.....sin can cause harm and spread disease.
Disability as a punishment for sin sounds more like past life Karma.
As for the revisionist ignorance that health and healing was the preserve of church orders for centuries I suppose that comes as no surprise.
-
It was enki and others who first brought up disability (completely irrelevantly), not me. Imade the perfectly reasonable statement that (on the orthodox Christian view) all humans are less that they are supposed to be, because of sin.
-
It was enki and others who first brought up disability (completely irrelevantly), not me. Imade the perfectly reasonable statement that (on the orthodox Christian view) all humans are less that they are supposed to be, because of sin.
What are we supposed to be?
-
Imade the perfectly reasonable statement that (on the orthodox Christian view) all humans are less that they are supposed to be, because of sin.
If you had just said that, it would have been fine, but you didn't just say that. You said that we were less than fully human as though the word "human" means some platonic ideal rather than the flesh and blood creatures bumbling about on planet Earth.
-
If you had just said that, it would have been fine, but you didn't just say that. You said that we were less than fully human as though the word "human" means some platonic ideal rather than the flesh and blood creatures bumbling about on planet Earth.
So your saying that the faux, sanctomoious horror whipped up as a ruse to divert and reassert the antitheists position of inquisitor.......was a misunderstanding?
-
So your saying that the faux, sanctomoious horror whipped up as a ruse to divert and reassert the antitheists position of inquisitor.......was a misunderstanding?
I think he is pointing out that you made an erroneous statement. ::)
-
Which centuries? Make good your claim please.
Pretty well all of them - a few snap-shots of key points along the way:
Leviticus 21: 17-20
John 5:14 - 1stC
St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Book 15, Chapter 23 - 5thC
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologić, Part 1, Question 51, Article 3 - 13thC
Canon 22 of the Lateran Council - 13thC
I maintain that Satan produces all the maladies which afflict mankind - Luther - 16thC
Ludovico Maria Sinastri, De Daemonialitate et Incubis et Succubis - talking about disabled children being born due to 'carnal intercourse between mankind and the Demon' - 17thC
Through to the current views of some evangelist/charismatic churches in the 20th and 21stC
Worth noting that there is a long history of people with disabilities being barred by canon law from becoming priests because they weren't suitably 'whole'.
-
I think he is pointing out that you made an erroneous statement. ::)
That's funny because he was replying to someone else's post........what was that about being erroneous?
-
Pretty well all of them - a few snap-shots of key points along the way:
Leviticus 21: 17-20
John 5:14 - 1stC
St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Book 15, Chapter 23 - 5thC
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologić, Part 1, Question 51, Article 3 - 13thC
Canon 22 of the Lateran Council - 13thC
I maintain that Satan produces all the maladies which afflict mankind - Luther - 16thC
Ludovico Maria Sinastri, De Daemonialitate et Incubis et Succubis - talking about disabled children being born due to 'carnal intercourse between mankind and the Demon' - 17thC
Through to the current views of some evangelist/charismatic churches in the 20th and 21stC
Worth noting that there is a long history of people with disabilities being barred by canon law from becoming priests because they weren't suitably 'whole'.
Of the paucity of old stuff here so pretty much rules out your claim of every century.
The involvement with the devil and demons. Can that be included in the fall of man? Not sure it can since Christianity has always maintained that all are fallen not just satanists or the demonised
Demonology cannot count.
I shall give you a comment on Augustine et cie presently.
-
Of the paucity of old stuff here so pretty much rules out your claim of every century.
The involvement with the devil and demons. Can that be included in the fall of man? Not sure it can since Christianity has always maintained that all are fallen not just satanists or the demonised
Demonology cannot count.
I shall give you a comment on Augustine et cie presently.
Demonised, what are you on about?
-
Of the paucity of old stuff here so pretty much rules out your claim of every century.
Are you denying that the likes of the bible, the writings of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther etc had influence beyond the century they were written in. And that statements embedded in Canon law simply vanish once a new century arises.
The involvement with the devil and demons. Can that be included in the fall of man? Not sure it can since Christianity has always maintained that all are fallen not just satanists or the demonised
Demonology cannot count.
Of course it can - much of this is about the notion that sinfulness is linked to the devil - indeed isn't the devil supposed to be the ultimate of the 'fallen'.
The point being for pretty well as long as christianity has been around (and still today amongst certain evangelical and charismatic churches) there has been the notion that disability and illness are a punishment from god for sin. Whether this is directly to the individual or more generally to human-kind as a whole is not the point. The point is that sinfulness and disability (and often illness) were seen as linked.
-
Leviticus is rules about priesthood with no reference to causation as far as I can see.
John As I have said it is obvious that sin can cause deformities e.g. Thalidomide where Distillers ltd were found culpable.Seems just to be a measured piece of advice from the Lord.
Augustine seems to be writing about the association of angels taking wives and Giants.
Aquinus does relate disability to original sin rather than individual sin.
So we have Aquinas linking all suffering to the fall and Luther linking illness to the Authorship of Satan.
And a medieval attribution linking certain maladies to individual sin.
-
What are we supposed to be?
Sinless, obviously! Do pay attention at the back!
-
Whether this is directly to the individual or more generally to human-kind as a whole is not the point.
It very much is since I don't think anyone would deny that individual wrong doing can cause disability and illness.
-
If you had just said that, it would have been fine, but you didn't just say that. You said that we were less than fully human as though the word "human" means some platonic ideal rather than the flesh and blood creatures bumbling about on planet Earth.
I was putting the orthodox, historical Christian view, not necessarily my own. It is that all humans are flawed and warped by sin, except Christ, who was the only flawless, perfect human since the fall. In other words, we are all less than fully human. What's so difficult to understand about that?
-
John As I have said it is obvious that sin can cause deformities e.g. Thalidomide where Distillers ltd were found culpable.Seems just to be a measured piece of advice for the Lord.
What are you on about - what on earth is the relevance of John to Thalidomide. You are talking rubbish - John was very clearly linking the disability and illness of an individual to their sinfulness. 'See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.' Sin again and your disabilities will be revisited and in a worse manner.
-
It very much is since I don't think anyone would deny that individual wrong doing can cause disability and illness.
I would, because we aren't talking here about direct cause/effect but general sin and general illness/disability. But even in the case of specific 'sin' - how on earth do you make that link. Can you give me a single example of an illness or disability where the known aetiology is a particular 'sin'. I don't.
-
The point being for pretty well as long as christianity has been around (and still today amongst certain evangelical and charismatic churches) there has been the notion that disability and illness are a punishment from god for sin. Whether this is directly to the individual or more generally to human-kind as a whole is not the point. The point is that sinfulness and disability (and often illness) were seen as linked.
This is a deliberate distortion of the truth. The historical Christian position is that illness and disability are the result of the fall in a general sense but EMPHATICALLY NOT in a particular sense: the sick and disabled are not more sinful than the reswt; indeed, they have often, especially the mentally handicapped, been regarded as especially holy. Only Charismaniacs and other heretics blame individual sufferers for their suffering, and even the more intelligent (or less stupid) of them warn against doing that.
Criticise Christianity for what it does teach, and has taught in the past, by all means, but don't make stuff up and even, as here, actually invert the historical teaching of the church.
-
What are you on about - what on earth is the relevance of John to Thalidomide. You are talking rubbish - John was very clearly linking the disability and illness of an individual to their sinfulness. 'See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.' Sin again and your disabilities will be revisited and in a worse manner.
Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.
Jesus leaves non disabled people too with the advice to sin no more.
-
Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.
Refusing to answer the question.
I asked - give me a single example of an illness or disability where the known aetiology is a particular 'sin'. Perhaps you don't understand the medical term aetiology - it means cause.
So to re-phrase - give me a single example of the illness or disability where the known cause is a particular sin.
-
I would, because we aren't talking here about direct cause/effect but general sin and general illness/disability. But even in the case of specific 'sin' - how on earth do you make that link. Can you give me a single example of an illness or disability where the known aetiology is a particular 'sin'. I don't.
General sin is a theological concept I am unfamiliar with. Explain.
General illness/disability? Not heard of that either.
When Distillers ltd were taken to court for causing the thalidomide disaster, was their defence that it wasn't them it was the chemical reaction?
When there is full antibiotic resistance due to misuse of antibiotics, will the defence be it wasn't us it was the bacteria that got more resistance and we could go on and on.........
-
This is a deliberate distortion of the truth. The historical Christian position is that illness and disability are the result of the fall in a general sense but EMPHATICALLY NOT in a particular sense: the sick and disabled are not more sinful than the reswt; indeed, they have often, especially the mentally handicapped, been regarded as especially holy. Only Charismaniacs and other heretics blame individual sufferers for their suffering, and even the more intelligent (or less stupid) of them warn against doing that.
Criticise Christianity for what it does teach, and has taught in the past, by all means, but don't make stuff up and even, as here, actually invert the historical teaching of the church.
It matters not whether we are talking about general or specific - you have very clearly indicated that christian teaching is that 'illness and disability are the result of the fall' (your words) - thanks for confirming my earlier comments.
Regardless of whether this is general or specific the notion that illnesses and disabilities are linked to sinfulness is a pretty grotesque notion.
-
Refusing to answer the question.
I asked - give me a single example of an illness or disability where the known aetiology is a particular 'sin'. Perhaps you don't understand the medical term aetiology - it means cause.
So to re-phrase - give me a single example of the illness or disability where the known cause is a particular sin.
Gluttony causes obesity, which causes heart attacks, strokes, and arthritis.
-
Gluttony causes obesity, which causes heart attacks, strokes, and arthritis.
No it doesn't - obesity (note not gluttony) may be a predisposing factor, but not a causal one. Plenty of people who suffer from those conditions are not obese. And in plenty of cases people who are obese isn't due to over eating.
And plenty of people who over-eat do not suffer from those conditions - there is no causal link.
Try again.
-
Gluttony causes obesity, which causes heart attacks, strokes, and arthritis.
But there are other causes of obesity. In fact we now know that the way food is manufactured is a big cause of obesity, as is chronic stress, and poverty. Overeating is disordered eating in the same way that under-eating (anorexia) is. Yet you see all of this as 'sin' and blame someone for being ill.
-
Gluttony causes obesity, which causes heart attacks, strokes, and arthritis.
So you are now full-on justifying a link between what you see as sin and illnesses and medical conditions in a very specific sense - i.e. individual sins, individual has heart attack. Yet earlier you were claiming:
'The historical Christian position is that illness and disability are the result of the fall in a general sense but EMPHATICALLY NOT in a particular sense'
'Christianity has never taught that disability and sickness are due to sin'
So which is it Steve, you seem to be arguing against yourself.
-
It matters not whether we are talking about general or specific - you have very clearly indicated that christian teaching is that 'illness and disability are the result of the fall' (your words) - thanks for confirming my earlier comments.
Regardless of whether this is general or specific the notion that illnesses and disabilities are linked to sinfulness is a pretty grotesque notion.
As I recall it the original charge was that Christians viewed disabled people as less than human which itself was a get out from a previous charge of humans per se being less than human.
In other words you are shifting the goalposts and are now down too aetiology.
You have painted yourself into a corner and now seem to be denying any responsibility or affect due to behaviour.
-
So you are now full-on justifying a link between what you see as sin and illnesses and medical conditions in a very specific sense - i.e. individual sins, individual has heart attack. Yet earlier you were claiming:
'The historical Christian position is that illness and disability are the result of the fall in a general sense but EMPHATICALLY NOT in a particular sense'
'Christianity has never taught that disability and sickness are due to sin'
So which is it Steve, you seem to be arguing against yourself.
I'm afraid the orthodox Christian world has never believed collectively in original sin.
-
In other words you are shifting the goalposts and are now down too aetiology.
Nope - I am being clear and consistent.
You claimed:
'Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.'
Some I've asked you to provide an example of this - i.e. where the disability (or illness/medical condition) is specifically caused by that individual sinning.
You are ducking the question.
-
'Christianity has never taught that disability and sickness are due to sin'
I think that remains true since the NT in no way has a aquinine conception of the overall consequence of the fall or was Augustine ever universal.
-
Nope - I am being clear and consistent.
You claimed:
'Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.'
Some I've asked you to provide an example of this - i.e. where the disability (or illness/medical condition) is specifically caused by that individual sinning.
You are ducking the question.
I believe I referred to sin causing the spread of disease if I deviated from this it was inadvertent.
-
I believe I referred to sin causing the spread of disease if I deviated from this it was inadvertent.
No you didn't you claimed:
'Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.'
Nothing to do with the spread of disease.
But now you have mentioned this, there are 2 things you need to provide:
An example where disability (or illness/medical condition) is specifically caused by that individual sinning.
And
An example where the spread of disease is specifically caused by sinning
-
Sinless, obviously! Do pay attention at the back!
Who says so?
-
I believe I referred to sin causing the spread of disease if I deviated from this it was inadvertent.
And of course the very notion of 'sin' and its definition is entirely subjected and not one I recognise anyhow.
-
When Distillers ltd were taken to court for causing the thalidomide disaster, was their defence that it wasn't them it was the chemical reaction?
And did that court case conclude that Distillers had sinned Vlad? I would be exceptionally surprised if the words 'sin', 'sinned' or 'sinful' appear anywhere in their judgement.
-
No you didn't you claimed:
'Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.'
Nothing to do with the spread of disease.
But now you have mentioned this, there are 2 things you need to provide:
An example where disability (or illness/medical condition) is specifically caused by that individual sinning.
And
An example where the spread of disease is specifically caused by sinning
My manifesto on this is in reply#157 or thereabouts where I talk about the spread of disease
So you have got it wrong again.
Your question is therefore spurious and ignores what I have said.
An example of the spread of disease caused by wrongdoing? AIDs in Africa spread by the Catholic Churches policy on contraception.
-
'Sin' is not always referring to wrongdoing, but something the sky fairy isn't supposed to like. That is ironic, as it is the biggest 'sinner' there ever was, if the things claimed for it were true. >:(
-
And did that court case conclude that Distillers had sinned Vlad? I would be exceptionally surprised if the words 'sin', 'sinned' or 'sinful' appear anywhere in their judgement.
Probably not but the word guilty does I'll wager.
When are you going to answer my questions about general sin and general illness and disability.
-
An example of the spread of disease caused by wrongdoing? AIDs in Africa spread by the Catholic Churches policy on contraception.
Which comes back to my point about the very concept of sin being subjective.
The catholic church would refute that their policy is sinful.
From my perspective the word sin is entirely inappropriate - I think the policy of the catholic church is entirely wrong, but I'd never use the word sinful. But we are talking about individual sin and individual effect in terms of illness and disability - I refer you back to your own quote ''Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.'
So we are still waiting for you to provide an example where:
disability (or illness/medical condition) is specifically caused by that individual sinning
-
Which comes back to my point about the very concept of sin being subjective.
The catholic church would refute that their policy is sinful.
From my perspective the word sin is entirely inappropriate - I think the policy of the catholic church is entirely wrong, but I'd never use the word sinful. But we are talking about individual sin and individual effect in terms of illness and disability - I refer you back to your own quote ''Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.'
So we are still waiting for you to provide an example where:
disability (or illness/medical condition) is specifically caused by that individual sinning
I bet my example threw you though.
-
I bet my example threw you though.
Not really - all it did was confirm the pointless subjectivity of the notion.
Of course the catholic church would claim that a different, but equally subjective, notion of sin is responsible for the spread of HIV infection.
-
I bet my example threw you though.
Nice distraction tactic. Still waiting for you to provide an example where:
disability (or illness/medical condition) is specifically caused by that individual sinning
-
Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.
Make good your claim please.
-
Been trying to get him to for some while, but all we get is the typical Vlad obfuscation and distraction tactics.
-
Been trying to get him to for some while, but all we get is the typical Vlad obfuscation and distraction tactics.
What is entirely clear however, is that Vlad and Steve H are now in full-on justifying mode that there is a link between sin and disability/illness, regardless of whether this is in a generic manner (people sin and therefore people get ill and have disabilities) or a specific manner (this person has sinned and therefore has become ill or developed a disability).
Both notions are grotesque in the extreme. The notion that my father's fatal cancer was the result of his sins or the sins of humanity is a disgusting notion.
-
Nice distraction tactic. Still waiting for you to provide an example where:
disability (or illness/medical condition) is specifically caused by that individual sinning
I hope you aren't holding your breath?
-
I hope you aren't holding your breath?
I'm not
-
OK, ok - my comment about gluttony was ill-thought-out.
-
To suggest illness is caused by 'sin' is a slap in the face to all those billions of people whose illnesses have nothing to do with behaving unwisely. My husband's brain aneurysm was due to no fault on his part. My osteoarthritis, which started in my 30s has nothing to do with gluttony. My badly fractured arm was caused by my stupidity in walking up the bridle path after heavy rain. Whilst that was very unwise, I doubt it could be termed a 'sin'.
-
Which comes back to my point about the very concept of sin being subjective.
There you go again off on a tangent.
Christianity is morally realist and this argument is about Church doctrine and practice which as Steve H has pointed out you seem to be selectively revisionist and frankly confused. It completely ignores the churches healing mission for example.
-
There you go again off on a tangent.
Christianity is morally realist and this argument is about Church doctinr and practice which as Steve H has pointed out you seem to be selectively revisionist and frankly confused. It completely ignores the churches healing mission for example.
What healing mission?
-
What healing mission?
The commission of Jesus to heal the sick from which many healing orders were derived.
-
The commission of Jesus to heal the sick from which many healing orders were derived.
Hocus pocus. ::)
-
Hocus pocus. ::)
The great hospitals are hardly hocus pocus.
-
The great hospitals are hardly hocus pocus.
No but faith healers are!
They are all frauds. Do you see ambulances taking sick people to church or hospital?
-
The great hospitals are hardly hocus pocus.
I assumed you were taking about scam merchants like Benny Hinn.
-
Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.
In your own words, which of course must be obeyed!
Positive assertion, please demonstrate it.
-
I assumed you were taking about scam merchants like Benny Hinn.
No Im not most of Christianity's healing ministry has occured under the principle that the age of charismatic gifts had ended.and only dead saints were alleged to produce miracles.
-
To suggest illness is caused by 'sin' is a slap in the face to all those billions of people whose illnesses have nothing to do with behaving unwisely. My husband's brain aneurysm was due to no fault on his part. My osteoarthritis, which started in my 30s has nothing to do with gluttony. My badly fractured arm was caused by my stupidity in walking up the bridle path after heavy rain. Whilst that was very unwise, I doubt it could be termed a 'sin'.
The Christian view historically has been that suffering in general and sin in general are caused by the fall, but not that specific sufferers are being punished for specific sins.
-
No Im not most of Christianity's healing ministry has occured under the principle that the age of charismatic gifts had ended.and only dead saints were alleged to produce miracles.
Since this whole train of conversation comes from my assertion that the Christian gods can't exist because a lot of what Christianity says is completely barking, perhaps you would like to give a rationalisation as to why God has stopped giving his followers healing powers.
Also why, given God is supposed to be a living god, did he stop inspiring men to write scriptures?
-
Since this whole train of conversation comes from my assertion that the Christian gods can't exist because a lot of what Christianity says is completely barking, perhaps you would like to give a rationalisation as to why God has stopped giving his followers healing powers.
Also why, given God is supposed to be a living god, did he stop inspiring men to write scriptures?
Well if you take the Book of Mormon, A Course in Miracles and Conversations with God (to name but a few) it seems he hasn't stopped. But they are wrong and the others are true because, er, reasons.
-
Since this whole train of conversation comes from my assertion that the Christian gods can't exist because a lot of what Christianity says is completely barking, perhaps you would like to give a rationalisation as to why God has stopped giving his followers healing powers.
Also why, given God is supposed to be a living god, did he stop inspiring men to write scriptures?
Christian gods? There seems to be no level of ignorance about christianity below which antitheism will not fall.
Whether you think healing does not work or does the commission by Jesus and its following contradicts claims that God supports illness etc or that Gods ordinance ends with heres your punishment,minions.
As it happens the Catholic church is the second largest provider of health care in the world after state provision. That wouldnt be the case if the theological basis had been what the unskilled theologians around here suggest.
-
Christian gods? There seems to be no level of ignorance about christianity below which antitheism will not fall.
That was actually a typo, I meant to write “Christian god” but, since you bring it up: We have God the father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and Satan to name but four deities and minor deities in Christianity.
And yet Christians insist their religion is monotheistic as if it really mattered and they cobble together some guff avbout them being three gods but only one god at the same time.
-
That was actually a typo, I meant to write “Christian god” but, since you bring it up: We have God the father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and Satan to name but four deities and minor deities in Christianity.
And yet Christians insist their religion is monotheistic as if it really mattered and they cobble together some guff avbout them being three gods but only one god at the same time.
You forgot Mary.
-
Phyllis was right: the ignorance is alarming.
-
Oh come on. The cult of Mary replaced the old goddess cults. In some places she’s still more important than Jesus. She’s the Divine Feminine in all but name.
-
That was actually a typo, I meant to write “Christian god” but, since you bring it up: We have God the father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and Satan to name but four deities and minor deities in Christianity.
And yet Christians insist their religion is monotheistic as if it really mattered and they cobble together some guff avbout them being three gods but only one god at the same time.
The trinity formulation is that Jesus is no less God than the holy spirit the presence and activity of God than the transcendent father.
Mary is not a person of God. Why persons of God? Because God is never an impersonal force.
-
The trinity formulation is that Jesus is no less God than the holy spirit the presence and activity of God than the transcendent father.
Mary is not a person of God. Why persons of God? Because God is never an impersonal force.
The idea of the so called 'trinity' makes no sense at all, imo.
-
The idea of the so called 'trinity' makes no sense at all, imo.
It describes two ways in which we encounter God and a third way that we have an inkling of but what Jesus shows us.
So God the son, God the Father and God the holy spirit.
-
It describes two ways in which we encounter God and a third way that we have an inkling of but what Jesus shows us.
So God the son, God the Father and God the holy spirit.
Nonsensical.
-
You forgot Mary.
Five gods.
-
Phyllis was right: the ignorance is alarming.
No Steve, everything you are reading on this thread about the irrationality of Christian doctrine comes from one form of Christianity or another. It only sounds silly because we are not reading it through the centuries of obfuscation that has accreted in order to make it sound less bonkers.
-
The idea of the so called 'trinity' makes no sense at all, imo.
It makes perfect sense if you read it as a desperate attempt to make a polytheistic religion seem like a monotheistic one.
Apparently, the fewe gods there are in your religion, the better it is.
-
It makes perfect sense if you read it as a desperate attempt to make a polytheistic religion seem like a monotheistic one.
Apparently, the fewe gods there are in your religion, the better it is.
You could be right.
-
Nonsensical.
You have yet to be enlightened either by the holy spirit or removing your head from that dark and dank place and actually paying attention to what is being said to you.
Same goes for Jeremy.
If you have merely had your parents faitn then it is questionable whether you have been a christian.
-
You have yet to be enlightened either by the holy spirit or removing your head from that dark and dank place and actually paying attention to what is being said to you.
Same goes for Jeremy.
If you have merely had your parents faitn then it is questionable whether you have been a christian.
I wonder if you are a Christian, or you just enjoy being a WUM?
-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Trinity_triangle_%28Shield_of_Trinity_diagram%29_1896.jpg
-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Trinity_triangle_%28Shield_of_Trinity_diagram%29_1896.jpg
The links around the sides of the triangle all say “is not” but the links to the middle say “is”. This is, of course, a logical contradiction unless you want to deny the transitivity of equality, or you want to claim that the verb “to be” has some new magical meaning in Christianity.
-
Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.
A positive statement.
Show your working.
-
A positive statement.
Show your working.
I have done......... Thaldomide. The tragedy occurred because of individuals taking shortcuts leading to culpability.
-
Thalidomide
-
Thalidomide
Thalidomide related disabilities
-
Thalidomide related disabilities
So where is this related to sin?
-
So where is this related to sin?
It is related to wrongdoing or are you going to argue something else.
-
It is related to wrongdoing or are you going to argue something else.
Wrongdoing?
This was a mistake and not a deliberate act.
I think thalidomide is still used as it can help in specific cases.
I do not understand the point you are making about wrongdoing.
-
Wrongdoing?
This was a mistake and not a deliberate act.
I think thalidomide is still used as it can help in specific cases.
I do not understand the point you are making about wrongdoing.
It was short cutting.
There are numerous other cases where individual sins have caused self and others disabilities.
-
It was short cutting.
There are numerous other cases where individual sins have caused self and others disabilities.
Others?
This is not one so you still need to find the first.
Thalidomide was not a sin.
-
Others?
This is not one so you still need to find the first.
Thalidomide was not a sin.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160316085150/http://www.bbc.com/news/health-19448046
-
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/10/nuclear-ghosts-kazakhstan/
-
https://web.archive.org/web/20160316085150/http://www.bbc.com/news/health-19448046
Not sure why you posted the link.
It does not show that thalidomide was a sin.
You are just renaming any tragic event as a sin which is dishonest.
Do you know that thalidomide is still used?
-
Not sure why you posted the link.
It does not show that thalidomide was a sin.
You are just renaming any tragic event as a sin which is dishonest.
Do you know that thalidomide is still used?
victim groups identified what they call wrongdoing and ignoring "red flags"
If you are not happy with thalidomide there is the nuclear testing programme carried out with deliberate suspension of precaution.
-
victim groups identified what they call wrongdoing and ignoring "red flags"
If you are not happy with thalidomide there is the nuclear testing programme carried out with deliberate suspension of precaution.
Where is the sin as you said?
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease
You are just posting nonsense.
Just admit that disease has nothing to do with sin and stop looking so foolish
-
You are just posting nonsense.
Just admit that disease has nothing to do with sin and stop looking so foolish
See replies#157 and #192
Behaviour has consequences including harm
Science makes no moral judgment on behaviour
Scientistic atheists make no moral judgment on behaviour because everything is explained in terms of behaviour containing no moral judgment.
Is the word harm scientific?
-
See replies#157 and #192
Behaviour has consequences including harm
Science makes no moral judgment on behaviour
Scientistic atheists make no moral judgment on behaviour because everything is explained in terms of behaviour containing no moral judgment.
Is the word harm scientific?
In what way have the victims of this disease sinned Vlad?
-
In what way have the victims of this disease sinned Vlad?
They neednt.
They have been sinned against.
-
They neednt.
They have been sinned against.
But you claimed that:
'Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.'
So again I ask (and you have still failed to answer):
Please provide an example of this - i.e. where the disability (or illness/medical condition) is specifically caused by that individual sinning.
-
But you claimed that:
'Some disabilities are linked to individual sin or wrongdoing.'
So again I ask (and you have still failed to answer):
Please provide an example of this - i.e. where the disability (or illness/medical condition) is specifically caused by that individual sinning.
Yes. Other peoples sin.
But since behaviour can also cause harm to self. Individual sin can lead to self disability.
-
They neednt.
They have been sinned against.
Out of idle curiosity, Vlad, how would you define 'sin'?
-
Out of idle curiosity, Vlad, how would you define 'sin'?
Wrongdoing, Gordon.
-
Wrongdoing, Gordon.
Separation from God, Phyllis. Wrongdoing is the result of sin.
-
Separation from God, Phyllis. Wrongdoing is the result of sin.
Yes I can go with that
And wrongdoing is synonymous with sin thesaurus wise so there is sin and sin/ sins.
-
Individual sin can lead to self disability.
Example please where a specific disability is caused by individual sin.
-
Wrongdoing, Gordon.
What is the standard that determines 'wrongdoing'?
-
Not sure why you posted the link.
It does not show that thalidomide was a sin.
You are just renaming any tragic event as a sin which is dishonest.
Do you know that thalidomide is still used?
I think he's referring to the fact that thalidomide hadn't been tested to make sure it was safe for pregnant women to use. This is a sin apparently. So God punished the sinners by ensuring that a lot of babies (mostly unrelated to these particular sinners) were born with malformed limbs and many of whom died fairly quickly.
-
Separation from God, Phyllis. Wrongdoing is the result of sin.
So the speeding ticket I got last week was caused by me being an atheist?
-
So the speeding ticket I got last week was caused by me being an atheist?
Shocking ignorance of theology and shockingly flippant given the gravity of the subject.
I think you'll find that all sorts received similar speeding tickets.....unless you were speeding because you are an atheist of course
I take it you understand why they give speeding tickets out.
-
Shocking ignorance of theology and shockingly flippant given the gravity of the subject.
I think you'll find that all sorts received similar speeding tickets.....unless you were speeding because you are an atheist of course
I take it you understand why they give speeding tickets out.
Still waiting for your example please where a specific disability is caused by individual sin.
-
I think he's referring to the fact that thalidomide hadn't been tested to make sure it was safe for pregnant women to use. This is a sin apparently. So God punished the sinners by ensuring that a lot of babies (mostly unrelated to these particular sinners) were born with malformed limbs and many of whom died fairly quickly.
I think the sin was in harming others. What that means about or does to the perpetrator and any punishment of the perp is between God and the perpetrator and any punishment humanity seems fit to dispense.
-
Shocking ignorance of theology and shockingly flippant given the gravity of the subject.
Yes. It is a grave subject. I will get a fine and three points on my licence which has been otherwise clean for more than ten years.
I take it you understand why they give speeding tickets out.
I was under the impression that passing a speed camera whilst driving in excess of the speed limit was the cause, but, no, Steve H tells me it is because I am separated from God.
-
Still waiting for your example please where a specific disability is caused by individual sin.
Can you place your goalposts in a fixed place and secure them please.
-
I think the sin was in harming others. What that means about or does to the perpetrator and any punishment of the perp is between God and the perpetrator and any punishment humanity seems fit to dispense.
Don't forget that this is supposed to be an example of sin causing a disability. How were the scientists who got it wrong disabled as a result?
-
Yes. It is a grave subject. I will get a fine and three points on my licence which has been otherwise clean for more than ten years.
I was under the impression that passing a speed camera whilst driving in excess of the speed limit was the cause, but, no, Steve H tells me it is because I am separated from God.
You'll have to take that up with Steve.
At the point of speeding you chose to ignore the health and safety of others which can cause harm and disability.You detached yourself from any grace or remnant of Gods will for yourself. Unless of course it was the lesser evil.
-
Don't forget that this is supposed to be an example of sin causing a disability. How were the scientists who got it wrong disabled as a result?
I have never argued what you are suggesting.
Bad luck old boy.
Since you ask though we know that one sin can lead to others and there are effects on a person with a conscience I.e. It causes them to seek atonement. Either that or they could blunt their consciences and debase what they are.
-
Can you place your goalposts in a fixed place and secure them please.
I have asked the same question consistently in replies 173, 176, 185, 188, 195, 198, 254, 260, 265
That is nine time without an answer. So lets make it a round 10.
Please provide an example where a disability (or illness/medical condition) is specifically caused by that individual sinning.
-
I have asked the same question consistently in replies 173, 176, 185, 188, 195, 198, 254, 260, 265
You are to be congratulated on your stamina sir, but not your clarity of meaning.
What is it you think you want? Names? I think naming people is problematic because the examples I have given of sin causing injury are corporate mainly.
I think we can agree that if Jeremy's speeding had been egocentric against the interests of God and man and he had broken his neck, any resulting disability would have er, been the result.
There that was a free one without you promising not to move goalposts and go of at your usual tangent.
-
I think we can agree that if Jeremy's speeding had been egocentric against the interests of God and man and he had broken his neck, any resulting disability would have er, been the result.
Nope - complete rubbish. His broken neck would have caused by him crashing the car, which might have occurred even if he weren't speeding and regardless of the reason why he was speeding. Alternatively he might not have crashed the car even though he was speeding (and being egocentric against the interests of God, in your words).
There is absolutely no justifiable claim that 'sin' caused his disability in this example.
And of course speeding is an entirely subjectively defined parameter - in other words, we as people, via the law define speed limits. It is hard to see how speeding, therefore, somehow fits the criteria for 'sin'.
-
Nope - complete rubbish. His broken neck would have caused by him crashing the car, which might have occurred even if he weren't speeding and regardless of the reason why he was speeding. Alternatively he might not have crashed the car even though he was speeding (and being egocentric against the interests of God, in your words).
There is absolutely no justifiable claim that 'sin' caused his disability in this example.
And of course speeding is an entirely subjectively defined parameter - in other words, we as people, via the law define speed limits. It is hard to see how speeding, therefore, somehow fits the criteria for 'sin'.
Might have beens don't count when a crash caused through egocentric behaviour results in disability.
Since he was only disabled of a few shillings it remains to be seen if there is real repentance or whether he will do it again.
-
Might have beens don't count when a crash caused through egocentric behaviour results in disability.
Since he was only disabled of a few shillings it remains to be seen if there is real repentance or whether he will do it again.
But the crash isn't caused through egocentric behaviour, it is caused by losing control of the car. Someone engaging in egocentric behaviour might not lose control of the car and therefore might not crash so you cannot ascribe cause and effect.
-
But the crash isn't caused through egocentric behaviour, it is caused by losing control of the car.
And what was that piece of behaviour due to?
-
But the crash isn't caused through egocentric behaviour, it is caused by losing control of the car. Someone engaging in egocentric behaviour might not lose control of the car and therefore might not crash so you cannot ascribe cause and effect.
Tell that to the Judge.
-
Tell that to the Judge.
Who will be considering the legal implications, not sinfulness.
-
You'll have to take that up with Steve.
I did take it up with Steve. Are you paying any attention to this thread at all?
At the point of speeding you chose to ignore the health and safety of others which can cause harm and disability.You detached yourself from any grace or remnant of Gods will for yourself. Unless of course it was the lesser evil.
Nobody was in any danger. The road was straight. In fact the national speed limit sign was clearly visible only 200 meters further down. There were no footpaths or entrances and both sides of the road lined with a steep bank and hedges at the top, so no chance of their being any pedestrians to hit.
Note: I’m not saying my conviction is unfair. I knew the camera was there and went through it at over the speed limit because of a slight lapse of concentration. I’m just saying I didn’t put anybody in danger of a disability.
-
I did take it up with Steve. Are you paying any attention to this thread at all?Nobody was in any danger. The road was straight. In fact the national speed limit sign was clearly visible only 200 meters further down. There were no footpaths or entrances and both sides of the road lined with a steep bank and hedges at the top, so no chance of their being any pedestrians to hit.
Note: I’m not saying my conviction is unfair. I knew the camera was there and went through it at over the speed limit because of a slight lapse of concentration. I’m just saying I didn’t put anybody in danger of a disability.
OK by me.....you were the man on the ground.
-
Alternatively he might not have crashed the car even though he was speeding (and being egocentric against the interests of God, in your words).
We can answer that hypothetical. God completely failed to make me crash my car or injure myself or anybody else in any way. I*n fact, as a result of my stupidity, West Yorkshire County Council will receive a little bit extra income this year which they can use on schools or rubbish disposal or something.
And of course speeding is an entirely subjectively defined parameter - in other words, we as people, via the law define speed limits. It is hard to see how speeding, therefore, somehow fits the criteria for 'sin'.
I would argue that, in the scenario, I endangered nobody. In fact, thinking about it, the camera would have been better placed on the other side of the T-junction from which I had just emerged.