100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: There is no sin, there are no commandments | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Yes, religious freedom, it all stems from that pesky First Amendment to the Constitution.
 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 01/02/09 05:37 PM
|
|
So if a man has never read the law Doesn't know it exists and decides to murder someone that man is not a criminal? I mean the law is in place even if he has yet to read it. You know he's a criminal because you know the law However he has never read the law so he doesn't understand what the term is all he knows is it holds a negative context So the term criminal now only applies to you, because he has yet to see the law He may argue he's not a criminal because he never seen the law. You can replace the word 'criminal' with 'sin' Same difference. JMHO The point I am making, is that "SIN" AND "CRIME" are not the same thing. Crimes are laws made by a society. In a society, ignorance of the laws are no excuse they tell us. But that does not apply to "sin" because ignorance of what is a sin is rampant. Everyone seems to have a different opinion on what a sin is. "Sin" means to disobey someone's concept of what they believe is God's law or God's will. It has to do with religion, and opinions ~ not law. It is religion based and it depends on the belief in a God. Society's laws do not depend on the belief in a God. There is the difference between a "sinner" and a "criminal." I am being very general in using the ten commandments as an example. Assuming that most peoples idea of God's law is the "ten commandments" (Which I say are really just "suggestions" due to "free will." HERE I WILL REPLACE THE WORD "THE LAW" WITH "COMMANDMENTS." And the word "criminal" with "sinner." See how that comes out in the wash. So if a man has never read the commandments Doesn't know they exist and decides to murder someone that man is not a sinner? I mean the commandments are in place even if he has yet to read them. You know he's a sinner because you know the commandments However he has never read the commandments so he doesn't understand what the term is all he knows is it holds a negative context So the term sinner now only applies to you, because he has yet to see the commandments He may argue he's not a sinner because he never seen the commandments. I am sure the above makes perfect sense to Christians and to people who do accept the ten commandments as "God's law." But "sin" is more than just "breaking a commandment." It actually means to "disobey God," not just to break one or more of the ten commandments. But you cannot "disobey God" if you accept the premise of free will, and you cannot "disobey god" if there is no god and you cannot accept the premise that God has laws if you don't believe in God. (The only law in place that assures justice is the law of cause and effect. ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Probably been posted before somewhere, but.. To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. ~James 4:17 Not sure if the person who started this thread is Christian or not, but that's to clarify if you are. If not, go ahead and follow your own faith, which can be anything you want it to be these days, it seems. Actually what James says here kind of flies in the face of the idea of a Godhead who makes absolute commandments. For example, according to James, if a person believes that love is good, and they feel love for a person of the same gender then not to act on that love would be a sin. However, if you take the previous statements in the same book of an absolute judgmental God then James would be denying that original aboslute concept and suggesting that we should follow our heart. So this verse of James just contradicts what much of the Bible holds to be true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James is one of the better sections. I could get on board with some of it. Like here;
"Pure religion ... is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." If this is "pure religion" then I am all for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Money thetans are the cause of all your financial problems. I am working on a technique to deal with money thetan infestation and I am going to write a self-help book about it and get rich.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Skad
on
Fri 01/02/09 05:55 PM
|
|
Probably been posted before somewhere, but.. To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. ~James 4:17 Not sure if the person who started this thread is Christian or not, but that's to clarify if you are. If not, go ahead and follow your own faith, which can be anything you want it to be these days, it seems. Actually what James says here kind of flies in the face of the idea of a Godhead who makes absolute commandments. For example, according to James, if a person believes that love is good, and they feel love for a person of the same gender then not to act on that love would be a sin. However, if you take the previous statements in the same book of an absolute judgmental God then James would be denying that original aboslute concept and suggesting that we should follow our heart. So this verse of James just contradicts what much of the Bible holds to be true. Not really. When Jesus came and the Old Testament turned to New Testament, he said, "I did not come to do away with the law (commandments), but to fulfill it." Also, "There is no one perfect, no not one." So where we fail, Jesus made the sacrifice. God is not an absolute judgmental God.. He's a God of grace. "That not of yourselves (and your ability or inability to follow the law), but it is the grace of God." That's the fundamental Judeo-Christian belief that penetrates almost all segments of Christianity in America today. When someone gives their life to Christ, they become a new creature, old things are passed away and all things are become new. This brings on the desire to follow God's commandments, sometimes in an absolute fashion, sometimes failing, but never giving up on trying to give him even half of what he's given us through a love relationship. There's the free will of Christianity. Would really like to see fewer people who aren't Christian making scholarly assumptions on something they've obviously only superficially looked into. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would really like to see fewer people who aren't Christian making scholarly assumptions on something they've obviously only superficially looked into. Oh really? Well, if you're such a scholar perhaps you can explain your following statement? "There is no one perfect, no not one." So where we fail, Jesus made the sacrifice. Could you please show me where it is stated in the Bible that it's a sin to not be perfect? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Skad
on
Fri 01/02/09 06:09 PM
|
|
Would really like to see fewer people who aren't Christian making scholarly assumptions on something they've obviously only superficially looked into. Oh really? Well, if you're such a scholar perhaps you can explain your following statement? "There is no one perfect, no not one." So where we fail, Jesus made the sacrifice. Could you please show me where it is stated in the Bible that it's a sin to not be perfect? That's not what the statement says. It says we're not capable of absolutely, perfectly following the commandments. And when Jesus came, he offered up the ultimate sacrifice (to replace the lambs in the Old Testament) so that we wouldn't have to make another offering for our imperfection to reach God. Someone who is imperfect is incapable of never sinning, and would like to insert.. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would really like to see fewer people who aren't Christian making scholarly assumptions on something they've obviously only superficially looked into. Oh really? Well, if you're such a scholar perhaps you can explain your following statement? "There is no one perfect, no not one." So where we fail, Jesus made the sacrifice. Could you please show me where it is stated in the Bible that it's a sin to not be perfect? That's not what the statement says. It says we're not capable of absolutely, perfectly following the commandments. And when Jesus came, he offered up the ultimate sacrifice (to replace the lambs in the Old Testament) so that we wouldn't have to make another offering for our imperfection to reach God. so why would he put laws up that he knew we could not follow? just to set us up for failure? hmmmm... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skad said;
Not really. When Jesus came and the Old Testament turned to New Testament, he said, "I did not come to do away with the law (commandments), but to fulfill it." Also, "There is no one perfect, no not one." So where we fail, Jesus made the sacrifice. I think what Jesus was referring to was the actual Law of the OT. This is why this particular statement by Jesus is often questioned. What did he mean exactly? We know the OT law was HORRIBLE. They were stoning people for no good reason. I have yet to hear a Christian invent a concise answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would really like to see fewer people who aren't Christian making scholarly assumptions on something they've obviously only superficially looked into. Oh really? Well, if you're such a scholar perhaps you can explain your following statement? "There is no one perfect, no not one." So where we fail, Jesus made the sacrifice. Could you please show me where it is stated in the Bible that it's a sin to not be perfect? That's not what the statement says. It says we're not capable of absolutely, perfectly following the commandments. And when Jesus came, he offered up the ultimate sacrifice (to replace the lambs in the Old Testament) so that we wouldn't have to make another offering for our imperfection to reach God. so why would he put laws up that he knew we could not follow? just to set us up for failure? hmmmm... No Sea.. He sent His only son to die for you instead.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's not what the statement says. It says we're not capable of absolutely, perfectly following the commandments. And when Jesus came, he offered up the ultimate sacrifice (to replace the lambs in the Old Testament) so that we wouldn't have to make another offering for our imperfection to reach God. This is actually just another reason that I give why the Bible can't be from any supposedly all-wise divine God. The assumption is: "we're not capable of absolutely, perfectly following the commandments" Yet, the conclusion is that we would somehow be responsible for what we're not capable of doing. As far as I'm concerned that concept alone totally flies in the face of a supposedly all-wise creator. An all-wise creator would know better than to hold us responsible for what he failed to give us the ability to do. A truly graceful God would bestow his creation the power to overcome everything on their own. This is especially true if he was going to judge them on their ability to do so! The simple fact that this God supposedly created us with a lack of this ability and then continues to judge us for nothing having this abiltiy is truly an ignorant concept. The idea that an all-wise creator would pull such a nasty stunt on use is unthinkable. It flies in the face of the creator supposedly being all-wise, etc. However, if you recoginize this nonsense for what it is it becomes perfectly clear what's going on. Man wrote the Bible telling people that they must obey the laws of their God. So people probably said, "Fine, I already do!" But that won't work for men who need to have control over their flock! You can't have people going around thinking that they can behave themselves on their own. And so they added this utter foolishness that all men are sinners and no one can resist sin without the grace of God. But that flies in the very face of the idea that people are supposed to be responsible for their own choices! You just can't have it both ways. It's nonsense. It's just utter nonsense. It's a brainwashing scheme designed to make people believe that there is no way to escape this religion. No matter how good you are, no matter how great your intentions are, no matter how saintly you are, you fail in this God's eyes because you haven't appeased the Christians and you refuse to support their cult of bigotry against everyone who doesn't support their agendas. That's what it's all about. Religion was indeed a political force in the past. And today people are still under the influence of its utterly absurd brainwashing schemes. There's no justification for the violence in the Old Testament, nor for a divine God lusting for blood sacrifices in the first place. There's no justification for this God who can supposedly intervent to have just sat by and watched all of the atrocities carried out in his name by the very people who were worsthiping him and using "his book" as a guide. Such an intervening God would have every responsibility to blow the whistle and say to them, "Hey! That's not what I meant!". The very existence of the Malleus Maleficarum is proof positive that the supposedly intervening bibilcal God cannot possible exist. Any supposedly intervening God who would just sit by and watch hundreds of thousands of women being tortured and burned alive at the hands of Christians in the name of the Bible would be no God at all. Such an entity would be a demon in his own right. Clearly the biblical God is a myth. You can support all that hatred and violence in the name of God all you want. I refuse to beleive that God is a demon. If the biblical God truly does exist and I am sent to hell for beliving that God was actualy nice then so be it. I still would have been right, and that God would indeed be worse than any Satan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Xenu made up all the religions to control us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's not what the statement says. It says we're not capable of absolutely, perfectly following the commandments. And when Jesus came, he offered up the ultimate sacrifice (to replace the lambs in the Old Testament) so that we wouldn't have to make another offering for our imperfection to reach God. This is actually just another reason that I give why the Bible can't be from any supposedly all-wise divine God. The assumption is: "we're not capable of absolutely, perfectly following the commandments" Yet, the conclusion is that we would somehow be responsible for what we're not capable of doing. As far as I'm concerned that concept alone totally flies in the face of a supposedly all-wise creator. An all-wise creator would know better than to hold us responsible for what he failed to give us the ability to do. A truly graceful God would bestow his creation the power to overcome everything on their own. This is especially true if he was going to judge them on their ability to do so! The simple fact that this God supposedly created us with a lack of this ability and then continues to judge us for nothing having this abiltiy is truly an ignorant concept. The idea that an all-wise creator would pull such a nasty stunt on use is unthinkable. It flies in the face of the creator supposedly being all-wise, etc. However, if you recoginize this nonsense for what it is it becomes perfectly clear what's going on. Man wrote the Bible telling people that they must obey the laws of their God. So people probably said, "Fine, I already do!" But that won't work for men who need to have control over their flock! You can't have people going around thinking that they can behave themselves on their own. And so they added this utter foolishness that all men are sinners and no one can resist sin without the grace of God. But that flies in the very face of the idea that people are supposed to be responsible for their own choices! You just can't have it both ways. It's nonsense. It's just utter nonsense. It's a brainwashing scheme designed to make people believe that there is no way to escape this religion. No matter how good you are, no matter how great your intentions are, no matter how saintly you are, you fail in this God's eyes because you haven't appeased the Christians and you refuse to support their cult of bigotry against everyone who doesn't support their agendas. That's what it's all about. Religion was indeed a political force in the past. And today people are still under the influence of its utterly absurd brainwashing schemes. There's no justification for the violence in the Old Testament, nor for a divine God lusting for blood sacrifices in the first place. There's no justification for this God who can supposedly intervent to have just sat by and watched all of the atrocities carried out in his name by the very people who were worsthiping him and using "his book" as a guide. Such an intervening God would have every responsibility to blow the whistle and say to them, "Hey! That's not what I meant!". The very existence of the Malleus Maleficarum is proof positive that the supposedly intervening bibilcal God cannot possible exist. Any supposedly intervening God who would just sit by and watch hundreds of thousands of women being tortured and burned alive at the hands of Christians in the name of the Bible would be no God at all. Such an entity would be a demon in his own right. Clearly the biblical God is a myth. You can support all that hatred and violence in the name of God all you want. I refuse to beleive that God is a demon. If the biblical God truly does exist and I am sent to hell for beliving that God was actualy nice then so be it. I still would have been right, and that God would indeed be worse than any Satan. You are free to believe whatever you want Abra, no matter how long it takes you to say it all.. No one jumped you for that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are free to believe whatever you want Abra, no matter how long it takes you to say it all.. No one jumped you for that. Of course I am, as are you. I'll just never understand why so many people are so anxious to believe in such a violent hateful picture of God on pure faith. There are so much wiser pictures of God that you can choose from. Why choose such an ugly picture of God? Why put your faith in the idea that you have failed your creator? Such a dismal picture. You are only saved by 'grace' because you are totally unworthy of God's love. That's truly a pathetic picture IMHO. It would be truly sad if we had no choice but to know that this was our pathetic reality. But to believe in on pure faith can only imply that you actually like that picture. Very strange indeed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Fri 01/02/09 06:48 PM
|
|
I was doubting some of that woman's interpretations that’s for sure. How come they are all so different?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are free to believe whatever you want Abra, no matter how long it takes you to say it all.. No one jumped you for that. Of course I am, as are you. I'll just never understand why so many people are so anxious to believe in such a violent hateful picture of God on pure faith. There are so much wiser pictures of God that you can choose from. Why choose such an ugly picture of God? Why put your faith in the idea that you have failed your creator? Such a dismal picture. You are only saved by 'grace' because you are totally unworthy of God's love. That's truly a pathetic picture IMHO. It would be truly sad if we had no choice but to know that this was our pathetic reality. But to believe in on pure faith can only imply that you actually like that picture. Very strange indeed. There are many things I don't understand myself. But I don't seek people out who believe differently than I do and ridicule them. If it was an honest attempt to understand, I could see that, but it's clearly not. No hard feelings, but anyone looking at these topics objectively can see that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who ridiculed anyone on this thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who ridiculed anyone on this thread? Krimsa, I normally make a habit of skipping your remarks, but I'll make an exception this one time.. "There are so much wiser pictures of God that you can choose from. Why choose such an ugly picture of God? Why put your faith in the idea that you have failed your creator? Such a dismal picture. You are only saved by 'grace' because you are totally unworthy of God's love. That's truly a pathetic picture IMHO. It would be truly sad if we had no choice but to know that this was our pathetic reality." That was what I was referring to. That and many statements like it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 01/02/09 07:07 PM
|
|
I am not sure if what I am actually attempting to discuss is being understood as the conversation has gotten off track.
I would like to know what people think about the idea of HOW "free will" fits into God and the "commandments." It is not as if these were just laws that had set punishments. And the old testament obviously had a bunch of other so called "laws" besides the ten commandments. To break any of Gods laws was a "sin" and the Bible states that the wages of "sin" is death. Therefore by stating that all humans were sinners, all humans are or could be by law, sentenced to death. These were old Judaic laws. These were the laws of the Jews. ************************* But today, I hear people, (even Christians) claim or admit that we have "free will." Christians claim that "free will" is a gift from "God." (Their God of course.) But if we do have "Free will" then there can logically be no "commandments" which will result in "sin" for their disobedience which comes with the punishment of death. So either we don't have "free will," or there are no commandments which are enforceable by the punishment of death. ************************* I believe we do have free will and that it comes with no strings. There are no commandments, therefore there can be no sin. There can only be the true law of God which is the unwritten law of cause and effect. No man can wield this law against his fellow man as religions try to do. All men are subject to the true law of God, the law of cause and effect. It has little to do with religion. But we are subject to the law, and we all do have to suffer death. So perhaps "the law" (God's law) is simply the law of cause and effect, not the ten commandments or some other written law. |
|
|
|
|
