The Christianity Thread

[Frownland]

an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Key word: considered.

[DwnWthVwls]

Key word: divine law.

Please demonstrate it to me. Bet ya cant. Belief is not evidence.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Key word: divine law.

Please demonstrate it to me. Bet ya cant. Belief is not evidence.

The church that establishes that law also writes it down. Evidence.

I agree with your point that it is without authority. I just think that determining what is and isn't a sinner does not rest on that concept because when it comes to descriptors like that, the definition of the word is not irrelevant upon disagreement with the validity of the concept.

[Xurtio]

Goung to have to go with Frowny here, human laws, religious laws, etc. Do exist as social structures. You can fully recognize the existence of that social structure, study it, and comment on it, without accepting its authority.

[DwnWthVwls]

Please explain to me how humans writing something down is evidence of divine law existing in reality. Sin is breaking the law of the divine, show me something divine mandated the laws that religion is pushing, and I'll acknowledge their existence even if I don't accept their authority.

You can't just WRITE something into existence and then claim it's evidence of the existence.. That's circular bullshit.

Originally Posted by Frownland

The church that establishes that law also writes it down. Evidence.

I agree with your point that it is without authority. I just think that determining what is and isn't a sinner does not rest on that concept because when it comes to descriptors like that, the definition of the word is not irrelevant upon disagreement with the validity of the concept.

I disagree, and I don't see a way to settle that difference. If the concept does not hold up in reality, I don't understand how you can justify to yourself that any claim surrounding it is valid or worth recognizing.

Originally Posted by Xurtio

Goung to have to go with Frowny here, human laws, religious laws, etc. Do exist as social structures. You can fully recognize the existence of that social structure, study it, and comment on it, without accepting its authority.

The difference between sin and every other social construct like race, isms, etc.. is that there is actually evidence for their existence. Even if they are manmade they point to something that we experience in reality, similar to us giving gravity a name. There is nothing to actually support the claim of what sin is. We have no evidence or way of experiencing divine justice or the consequences of being a sinner.

[Frownland]

It's worth recognizing for communicative purposes. It's far from an acknowledgement of the validity of said divine law.

And no, it's not circular reasoning in the slightest. My point was that divine law is something that's more or less clear cut and definable, which is evidence of the divine law existing. It's not evidence of it being a valid law genuinely written by God, but it is evidence that divine law exists as a communicable concept that you can use to define sinners by regardless of your opinion on it.

I'm reminded of my "dats not music" discussions on here.

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by JacquelineDeane55

Will you receive Jesus Christ right now?
 



I'll receive him, but only on approval. If I'm not satisfied after 90 days, I assume I can return him for a full refund, yes?

[Xurtio]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Please explain to me how humans writing something down is evidence of divine law existing in reality. Sin is breaking the law of the divine, show me something divine mandated the laws that religion is pushing, and I'll acknowledge their existence even if I don't accept their authority.

You can't just WRITE something into existence and then claim it's evidence of the existence.. That's circular bullshit.



I disagree, and I don't see a way to settle that difference. If the concept does not hold up in reality, I don't understand how you can justify to yourself that any claim surrounding it is valid or worth recognizing.



The difference between sin and every other social construct like race, isms, etc.. is that there is actually evidence for their existence. Even if they are manmade they point to something that we experience in reality, similar to us giving gravity a name. There is nothing to actually support the claim of what sin is. We have no evidence or way of experiencing divine justice or the consequences of being a sinner.

You're being impossible.

[Xurtio]

Frownland didnt write the social construct into existence. Its not just the writing of it thay makes it so. It's the large body of people adhering to it and preserving it and making up stories about it. And it does correspond to human struggles with morality.

[DwnWthVwls]

I just disagree with the way youre both approaching it. Perhaps im explaining my position poorly.

Let me ask you: is it possible for an atheist to pray to a divine being? I dont even know what a divine being is other than the arbitrary attributes assigned to one by various religions.