knowsnothing ur first piont still it would not matter if you accidently killed someone in a car accident you can still be held resposable manslaughter. and how can you say you never sinned on purpose can you tell me that you never lied lusted after a women on purpose. ur second point is a good one i have also thought about that let me think somemore on that
non believers what if your wrong ?
by unstopableravens 546 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Knowsnothing
knowsnothing ur first piont still it would not matter if you accidently killed someone in a car accident you can still be held resposable manslaughter.
How do I put this, unstopable? Accidents are avoidable. Being born with sin isn't. You go into the court house, and you are pressumed guilty until proven innocent. You are never innocent, because you are born. Just being born is a sin. Can you really fathom that?
and how can you say you never sinned on purpose can you tell me that you never lied lusted after a women on purpose.
That's true. I have. We were talking about inherited sin alone. Now you bring up intentional sin. That is where point two is applicable. You can't just have Jesus come in and save the day because you intentionally lied or lusted. How do you pay for that sin? I'm going to start a new topic on sin. I've got an interesting example that I think will be difficult for apologists to deal with.
-
sizemik
how can you say you never sinned on purpose can you tell me that you never lied lusted after a women on purpose.
Your using a conceptual idea (sin) as a moral ruler. That's a stance that needs to be established, and can't be without taking the A&E account as literal. Not everybody sees it through that window.
Statistically, men lie twice as much as women, according to studies. Six times a day as opposed to three. Does that mean men have twice as much inherited sin as women? Or are they just created twice as bad? You see how quickly such a preconception comes undone?
People lie sometimes without even realising. "I've got lot's to do" when they want to depart from a conversation. Self-justification is a form of deceit with the purpose of hiding guilt or protecting ego. That can simply be a natural reaction without the purpose to do harm. We do that sometimes dozens of times in a day without even realising . . . but it has the purpose of protecting self-worth. Sometimes people lie for a good purpose . . . to hide the truth from someone who will use it to do harm to them. The sin concept is too simple to account for all scenarios.
Sexual attraction is a natural response. If it didn't exist we would have been extinct 200,000 years ago. How's that a sin? It has a good purpose. Just because someone of the opposite sex is sexually attractive and stimulates a natural reaction . . . doesn't mean the same as shagging them in the supermarket carpark. Sin creates badness and guilt where it shouldn't exist IMO. Behaviour that either harms or benefit's others without the distorting rules derived from the sin concept, is a more simple and reliable moral guide. Any belief that distorts natural empathy to inflict harm is inferior IMO . . . such as homophobia or gender inequality . . . which some see as OK.
-
unstopableravens
ok whats the example
-
Knowsnothing
Here it is, unstopable. Would this lie count as a sin?
-
stillajwexelder
One thing I am 100% certain of - the WT were right when they say NO HELL FIRE . So it is no big deal if I die.
-
NewChapter
Why do you insert acquittal into it to begin with? Genuine question
It's in the bible. Romans 6:7. You accepted that the wages of sin is death---do you also accept that death brings acquittal of sins? I did not 'insert' it, I was talking scripture.
-
unstopableravens
lol please read the context of romans 6 :1-11
-
sizemik
For one who has died has been set free from sin - NAV
set free = acquittal (free of condemnation)
-
Satanus
I had to leave for a while.
The last i saw, in response to my quote of jesus commanding the slaughter of those who don't want him as their king, both tec and psac stated that this 'slaughter' would be in the after life. Apparently, according to them, those rejectors either just go off somewhere, or they attack jesus in the afterlife. And so, in apparent self defence jesus must 'slaughter' them.
My impression of the after life is it's hugeness and emptiness. Jesus, if he's there, is merely another mote in the eye of god, another speck of space/spirit/pixey dust. Noone would bother. Anyhow, as useless as it is to argue w those 2 about the bible, it's even more useless to argue about the other side w them, or anyone else. My point is that all this religious crap is something of THIS plane, THIS planet. It's an outgrowth of our animal roots. It is tribalism. Tribalism is an endowment from our animal heritage.
S