"Conservative Bible" draws ire from those who cheered on the "green Bible"

[The Night Owl]

But can you repent without faith? And is faith without repentance real? IOW, in real life can they really be separable?

One may repent transgressions without believing in God and one may believe in God without repenting transgressions but, if the Bible is to be believed, then salvation comes with a number of requirements. The requirements are as follows:

1. God's grace.
2. God's forgiveness.
3. Faith.
4. Repentance.

[Chris_]

One may repent sins without believing in God and one may believe in God without repenting sins but, if the Bible is to be believed, then salvation comes with a number of requirements. The requirements are as follows:

1. God's grace.
2. God's forgiveness.
3. Faith.
4. Repentance.

If one does not believe in God, where does the definition of "sin" come from?  Sin is a strictly religious term, so if one were a nonbeliever, use of that word would be inappropriate, would it not?

Wouldn't an atheist use something like "prior bad acts" (assuming an atheist could even define them thus).?

doc

[The Night Owl]

If one does not believe in God, where does the definition of "sin" come from?  Sin is a strictly religious term, so if one were a nonbeliever, use of that word would be inappropriate, would it not?

Wouldn't an atheist use something like "prior bad acts" (assuming an atheist could even define them thus).?

doc

A good point. I changed the word sins to the word transgressions.

[dutch508]

A good point. I changed the word sins to the word transgressions.

Transgress against whom? In order to 'cross the line' the 'line' has to be there. What is the 'line' based on?

[MrsSmith]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James

Your interpretations of the words of Jesus are heresy, depending on the Christian you talk too.

I didn't interpret, I quoted.  You are the one trying to interpret...and not doing so well.  Christ said what He said.  If you don't believe Him, that's fine...but it doesn't change what He said.

[MrsSmith]

One may repent transgressions without believing in God and one may believe in God without repenting transgressions but, if the Bible is to be believed, then salvation comes with a number of requirements. The requirements are as follows:

1. God's grace.
2. God's forgiveness.
3. Faith.
4. Repentance.

One cannot believe that Christ is the Christ without repentance.  You may believe God exists, and you may even believe that there was a christ, but you cannot believe IN Christ without repenting.  Christ made this quite clear in His words and teachings.  You can argue the point all you want, but, just as with wilbur, His words have not changed in the last 2000 years, your opinion isn't going to change them, either.

[The Night Owl]

Transgress against whom? In order to 'cross the line' the 'line' has to be there. What is the 'line' based on?

Well, to an unbeliever, a transgression may be violation of human laws and codes. To a believer, a transgression may be a violation of human and/or godly laws and codes.

[dutch508]

Well, to an unbeliever, a transgression may be violation of human laws and codes. To a believer, a transgression may be a violation of human and/or godly laws and codes.

Which leads us back to the basic question: "Where did the laws come from?"

[The Night Owl]

One cannot believe that Christ is the Christ without repentance.  You may believe God exists, and you may even believe that there was a christ, but you cannot believe IN Christ without repenting.  Christ made this quite clear in His words and teachings.  You can argue the point all you want, but, just as with wilbur, His words have not changed in the last 2000 years, your opinion isn't going to change them, either.

Well, if you're using this phrase "believe in" as shorthand for acceptance of Christian doctrine then we have no argument but my argument is that the requirements for salvation are not implied by the phrase itself.

[rubliw]

I didn't interpret, I quoted.  You are the one trying to interpret...and not doing so well.  Christ said what He said.  If you don't believe Him, that's fine...but it doesn't change what He said.

I personally don't believe any of the stuff - your beef is with orthodoxy.  To me, the protestant versus the orthodox salvation debate might as well be a debate over what color eyes aliens have.  I'm just pointing out that this particular bit of salvation theory is hardly a settled or uncontroversial area in Christian theology.  You should consider that before talking down to people for not recognzing your  preferred theology on the topic.

[rubliw]

Which leads us back to the basic question: "Where did the laws come from?"

In the case of human laws, they came from humans - obviously.

[dutch508]

In the case of human laws, they came from humans - obviously.

So, in your world, Moses sat up on the mountian thinking of laws and then came down when he had enough to fill a tablet?

[rubliw]

If one does not believe in God, where does the definition of "sin" come from?  Sin is a strictly religious term, so if one were a nonbeliever, use of that word would be inappropriate, would it not?

Wouldn't an atheist use something like "prior bad acts" (assuming an atheist could even define them thus).?

doc

I don't think there is anything wrong with an atheist using the term "sin".  Aside from is theological definition, it sometimes used in non-theological ways to mean something more general.  In those contexts, "to sin" often means little more than "to commit a moral wrong or misdeed".  So if thats all they mean by it, they can use it.   

[rubliw]

So, in your world, Moses sat up on the mountian thinking of laws and then came down when he had enough to fill a tablet?

I hadnt had Moses in mind, but I assume if there's any truth in the narrative of him coming down from the mountain bearing tablets, then yes.  What is so implausible about that?  Humans think of, and craft laws ceaselessly, even before Moses.

[dutch508]

I hadnt had Moses in mind, but I assume if there's any truth in the narrative of him coming down from the mountain bearing tablets, then yes.  What is so implausible about that?  Humans think of, and craft laws ceaselessly, even before Moses.

based on what?- my original question, by the way.

[dutch508]

I don't think there is anything wrong with an atheist using the term "sin".  Aside from is theological definition, it sometimes used in non-theological ways to mean something more general.  In those contexts, "to sin" often means little more than "to commit a moral wrong or misdeed".  So if thats all they mean by it, they can use it.   

what then does the Moral code take it's basis as? (ties into my other question)

You can not say on one hand there is no religious basis for good vs evil, and then reference a moral wrong or misdeed to support your word choice. If there is no God then there is no sin. If there is no moral code then there is no good, nor evil.

[rubliw]

based on what?- my original question, by the way.

Hopefully, based on our best reasonable, rational and well-informed ideas for promoting the well-being of humans and the societies they live in.

[rubliw]

what then does the Moral code take it's basis as? (ties into my other question)

You can not say on one hand there is no religious basis for good vs evil, and then reference a moral wrong or misdeed to support your word choice. If there is no God then there is no sin. If there is no moral code then there is no good, nor evil.

There's no good and evil as Christians define them, of course.  That doesnt mean good and evil can't refer to real things in a naturalist world, however.  I tend to think of good, as what helps or promotes the well-being of people, and what is evil is that which unnecessarily harms people. 

[dutch508]

There's no good and evil as Christians define them, of course.  That doesnt mean good and evil can't refer to real things in a naturalist world, however.  I tend to think of good, as what helps or promotes the well-being of people, and what is evil is that which unnecessarily harms people. 

You are hung up on Christan hating. What about the other religions? Did the Summerians just come up with good ideas and put them on clay tablets?

Your personal feelings as to what is good or bad don't count, as you say- what helps or promotes the well-being of people is what counts.

Among the inventions of the Sumerians, the most persistent and far-reaching was their invention of law. While all cultures have some system of social regulation and conflict resolution, law is a distinct phenomenon. Law is written and administered retribution and conflict resolution. It is distinct from other forms of retribution and conflict resolution by the following characteristics: 


 Administration
Law is retribution that is administered by a centralized authority. This way retribution for wrongs does not threaten to escalate into a cycle of mutual revenge. Sumerian law sits half way between individual revenge and state-administered revenge: it is up to the individual to drag (quite literally) the accused party into the court, but the court actually determines the nature of the retribution to be exacted.
Writing
Law is written; in this way, law assumes an independent character beyond the centralized authority that administers it. This produces a sociological fiction that the law controls those who administer the law and that the "law" exacts retribution, not humans.
Retribution
Law is at its heart revenge; the basic cultural mechanism for dealing with unacceptable behavior is to exact revenge. Unacceptable behavior outside the sphere of revenge initially did not come under the institution of law: it was only much later that disputes that didn't involve retribution would be included in law. 

The Code of Hammurabi 
    Although we don't know much about Sumerian law, scholars agree that the Code of Hammurabi, written by a Babylonian monarch, reproduces Sumerian law fairly exactly. Sumerian law, as represented in Hammurabi's code, was a law of exact revenge, which we call lex talionis. This is revenge in kind: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life," and reveals to us that human law has as its fundamental basis revenge. Sumerian law was also only partly administered by the state; the victim had to bring the criminal to court. Once there, the court mediated the dispute, rendered a decision, and most of the time a court official would execute the sentence, but often it fell on the victim or the victim's family to enforce the sentence. Finally, Sumerian law recognized class distinctions; under Sumerian law, everyone was not equal under the law. Harming a priest or noble person was a far more serious crime than harming a slave or poor person; yet, the penalties assessed for a noble person who commits a crime were often far harsher than the penalties assessed for someone from the lower classes that committed the same crime

Now, Sumerian religion (we think) had at it's core a group of Gods that lived on earth. There biggest regret was making mankind, who they dtried to whipe out in a great flood. One man survived by bulding a boat.

While the destruction of the earth in a great flood is nearly universal in all human mythology and religion, we can't be sure if the Semites had a similar story or took it over from the Sumerians. This is, of course, a question of contemporary significance: according to Genesis, the originator of the Hebrew race, the patriarch Abraham, originally came from the city of Ur.

http://history-world.org/genesis_narrative_in_the_light_o.htm

[rubliw]

You are hung up on Christan hating. What about the other religions? Did the Summerians just come up with good ideas and put them on clay tablets?

I guess at this point, I'm just not sure what the significance of your accounts of ancient law is supposed to be.  Is Sumerian and Babylonian law somehow supposed to render the idea that laws are man-made as non-sensical?  

[MrsSmith]

Well, if you're using this phrase "believe in" as shorthand for acceptance of Christian doctrine then we have no argument but my argument is that the requirements for salvation are not implied by the phrase itself.

I am using the word "believe" in the same sense Christ used it.  Duh.  

[MrsSmith]

I personally don't believe any of the stuff - your beef is with orthodoxy.  To me, the protestant versus the orthodox salvation debate might as well be a debate over what color eyes aliens have.  I'm just pointing out that this particular bit of salvation theory is hardly a settled or uncontroversial area in Christian theology.  You should consider that before talking down to people for not recognzing your  preferred theology on the topic.

What is there about the word "quote" that you don't understand?  Want a definition?  If it helps any, I am not the originator of the salvation theory or the use of the word "believe."   

[dutch508]

I guess at this point, I'm just not sure what the significance of your accounts of ancient law is supposed to be.  Is Sumerian and Babylonian law somehow supposed to render the idea that laws are man-made as non-sensical?  

back to my question- where did the concept of laws come from? You are hung up on tearing down Christianity yet have no concept of where the laws of the bible come from. We do know where the words of Jesus come from. His words lay down the foundation of modern law. But there is a long trail togo before getting there.

The first recorded laws are from Sumeria. The Seminites adopted a majority of the laws and religion from them. The Seminites came upfrom the Arabian coasts and settled in the land between the rivirs, modern day Iraq. Ur, the city that Abraham was from, is in Iraq- then Babalyon. Hammerabi codified the law. Abraham moved to the land of Isreal bringing with him the laws and customs of his homeland, spiced up with the word of God, who spoke to him.
(The entire old testiment is mostly laws and history of the tribes or Isreal.)
Moses, after leaving Egypt, writes the next set of codes for the people. They weren't just ten commandments, therewere a whole set of laws for the people.
The law didn't happen overnight, or in the back room of some govenor's palace.

Now, you could say all this just happened, the same way man just happened. In fact, that is what you are saying. Yet, withoutfaith, there is nothing. Have fun with that.

[The Night Owl]

I am using the word "believe" in the same sense Christ used it.  Duh.  

Had Jesus of Nazareth said that believing in him was the only requirement for salvation and left it at that, the same way you left it at that, then no one would have learned about grace, repentance, or forgiveness. Of course, Jesus had the sense to elaborate.

[The Night Owl]

Hey, Dutch. I don't want to butt in on your convo with Wilbur but before you two go at it further I would like to know something. If prohibitions against things like murder, robbery, rape, etc. make sense to you then why do you have trouble believing that such prohibitions are the product of human reason? Do you honestly believe that humans couldn't have figured out on their own that allowing things like murder, robbery, rape, etc. causes insuperable problems for society? I mean, it's not like we're talking about ancient people figuring out how to go to the Moon. We're talking about people figuring out basic rules for getting along. It's not rocket science... even by ancient standards.