NationStates Jolt Archive

A week ago on this site in a thread called 'Bible Bashers' I had a very interesting discussion about whether a sin commited in total ignorance is still a sin in Christianity. I said that it was. To be precise here, what I mean is that Christianity says that if a person does something that they had no idea was a wrong thing to do, but that act was still wrong in the eyes of the Lord, was it still a sin? Regardless of whether God forgives that person or not, are they responsible for that action?
After I said that I thought Christianity implies that an ignorant sin is still a sin, several people disagreed with me. I was intending to do some research into this at the time, but I had no time. I have now just started looking in the Bible for anything related to this. I have not got that far, but so far I have found one instance of tis which is quite interesting.

From Genesis 20:
2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.
3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man, because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a man's wife."
4 Now Abimelech had not approached her; so he said, "Lord, wilt thou slay an innocent people?
5 Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this."
6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me; therefore I did not let you touch her.

Now, I think the key point there is 'it was I who kept you from sinning against me'. This suggests that had Abimelech gone through with the act, it would have been a sin. Incidentally it also suggests that God can indeed interfere with free will when He wants to. Abimelech had no knowledge of the sin he was about to commit, nor did he make some mistake, that while it would not have been intentional, would still have placed the fault as his. Yet, had God not stepped in, it would have been a sin.

At the same time though, God also says 'I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart.'
This suggests that in the morality of humans, an ignorant sin is not a sin in the Christian morality. Had Abimelech done it, his personal integrity would have remained intact, but he would have sinned against God.

I am very curious to see what other people think of this, whether they agree or disagree with my conclusions, or have others of their own, and whether anyone knows of any other examples in the Bible or other Christian teachings that suggest whether an ignorant sin is still a sin.

Interesting.

Still to me it seems entirely pointless.

As far as I'm concerned any God that can judge unknowing transgressors deserves to be laughed at, not worshipped.

So much for the all loving all forgiving christian god eh?

Lol, sounds almost like getting pulled over for a speeding ticket.

Man:
"God I didn't realise I was sinning, I thought I was only doing 28"

God:
"Well that might be sonny jim, but you were really doing 33, off to hell with you!"

Depends how you choose to define sin, really.

The words, in both Hebrew (chata) and Greek (hamartia), that are translated "sin" in English translations, have the sense of "missing the mark" (like missing the bullseye in archery, see Judges 20:16) rather than "breaking a rule", a concept covered precisely by the word "transgression" (from the Latin: "trans" - across, "gressus" - having gone; so, crossing the line, overstepping the boundary).

There are, of course, Christians that disagree with this interpretation. ;)

Interesting.

Still to me it seems entirely pointless.

As far as I'm concerned any God that can judge unknowing transgressors deserves to be laughed at, not worshipped.

So much for the all loving all forgiving christian god eh?

Lol, sounds almost like getting pulled over for a speeding ticket.

Man:
"God I didn't realise I was sinning, I thought I was only doing 28"

God:
"Well that might be sonny jim, but you were really doing 33, off to hell with you!"sin done in in ignorance is still sin, just like ignorance is no exscuse for doing a crime.

note that God is Forgiving, but that means you have to ask for forgiveness. to do so means you have to acknowledge the sin.

so for your speed limit thing...

Man: "God, can you forgive me? I didn't know I was speeding"
God: "there are signs posted... people telling you, you cannot claim ignorance, however, if you are truly sorry and will adhere to the posted speed, yes, you are forgiven. don't do it again. have a nice day."

given that you can repent at any time, a sin is a sin even if you dont know about it. a person who is not in touch with his/her denomination enough to know when s/he is sining is kinda doomed anyway?

sin done in in ignorance is still sin, just like ignorance is no exscuse for doing a crime.

note that God is Forgiving, but that means you have to ask for forgiveness. to do so means you have to acknowledge the sin.

so for your speed limit thing...

Man: "God, can you forgive me? I didn't know I was speeding"
God: "there are signs posted... people telling you, you cannot claim ignorance, however, if you are truly sorry and will adhere to the posted speed, yes, you are forgiven. don't do it again. have a nice day."

That's all well and good, but my point is that with so many varying denominations of christianity and differing interpretations of the bible that can be conflicting, that's like driving down a road with dozens of speed limit signs posted, some at varying distances from others.

Where this becomes particularly problematic however is when you get two speed limits posted directly next to each other. One says its ok to drive at 30 mph, the other says 60. What are you going to choose?

given that you can repent at any time, a sin is a sin even if you dont know about it. a person who is not in touch with his/her denomination enough to know when s/he is sining is kinda doomed anyway?
People who are not in regular contact with the Police, Judges or Lawyers still have to obey the law.

There is a story of a man sent to Hell. when God approached him, he claimed ignorance of Gods laws, and God did say that he sent his prophets, and they had his written word, so that igorance was not an exscuse. Looking for that story now...

sin done in in ignorance is still sin, just like ignorance is no exscuse for doing a crime.

note that God is Forgiving, but that means you have to ask for forgiveness. to do so means you have to acknowledge the sin.
Man: "God, I didn't realize I was sinning, can you forgive me?"
God: "Now that you know what you did was wrong in mine eyes, yes, you are forgiven. don't do it again. you may go."

But an ignorant sin is not a sin in most human forms of morality. Few people would say that, for example, a small child who has not yet been taught right and wrong, would be sinning if they did something wrong like stealing something. Yet if Christianty preaches that an ignorant sin is still a sin, then that child was sinning. Is that right?

Ignorance is bliss is what i would have said but in this case nope a sin is a sin.

But an ignorant sin is not a sin in most human forms of morality. Few people would say that, for example, a small child who has not yet been taught right and wrong, would be sinning if they did something wrong like stealing something. Yet if Christianty preaches that an ignorant sin is still a sin, then that child was sinning. Is that right?unfortunatly... yes. and if the child is ignorant of right and wrong, the sin also falls on the parents who are suppose to teach and guide the child. And what do most parents teach their children what to do when they do something wrong? They tell them to Apologize. To ask for forgiveness.

A week ago on this site in a thread called 'Bible Bashers' I had a very interesting discussion about whether a sin commited in total ignorance is still a sin in Christianity. I said that it was. To be precise here, what I mean is that Christianity says that if a person does something that they had no idea was a wrong thing to do, but that act was still wrong in the eyes of the Lord, was it still a sin? Regardless of whether God forgives that person or not, are they responsible for that action?
After I said that I thought Christianity implies that an ignorant sin is still a sin, several people disagreed with me. I was intending to do some research into this at the time, but I had no time. I have now just started looking in the Bible for anything related to this. I have not got that far, but so far I have found one instance of tis which is quite interesting.

From Genesis 20:
2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.
3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man, because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a man's wife."
4 Now Abimelech had not approached her; so he said, "Lord, wilt thou slay an innocent people?
5 Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this."
6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me; therefore I did not let you touch her.

Now, I think the key point there is 'it was I who kept you from sinning against me'. This suggests that had Abimelech gone through with the act, it would have been a sin. Incidentally it also suggests that God can indeed interfere with free will when He wants to. Abimelech had no knowledge of the sin he was about to commit, nor did he make some mistake, that while it would not have been intentional, would still have placed the fault as his. Yet, had God not stepped in, it would have been a sin.

At the same time though, God also says 'I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart.'
This suggests that in the morality of humans, an ignorant sin is not a sin in the Christian morality. Had Abimelech done it, his personal integrity would have remained intact, but he would have sinned against God.

I am very curious to see what other people think of this, whether they agree or disagree with my conclusions, or have others of their own, and whether anyone knows of any other examples in the Bible or other Christian teachings that suggest whether an ignorant sin is still a sin.


Is not Christianity a demonstration of ignorance? You have faith in something that has not been proven, therefore a superstition, therefore ignorance. I'm not saying atheism is any better etc. Just a point I thought I'd make. Is Christianity therefore a sin by its own definitions?

Ok, people now seem to agree that Christianity implies that an ignorant sin is still a sin, now here's my next point. Isn't that a very bad philosophy to have?
It goes against most forms of human morality. Here's an example for you.

I once read a fictional story about a girl who was raised by her father in isolation. As an experiment, he taught her the English language back to front. He taught her that yes meant no and no meant yes, and tree meant lampost and lampost meant tree, all sorts of things like that. Through the story, someone begins to try to teach the girl the truth, and that her father has been deceiving her. She finds it impossible to understand. At the end, the girl's father is trapped inside their house, which is burning. The fire brigade are with the girl outside and they ask her if their is anyone left inside, and she replies no. It's all very well written there, and there is the faintest suggestion that she now understands and wants to be rid of the father who has ruined her life. But leaving that aside, assuming she had no idea about what her father had done, and she had replied no, would she have been responsible for her father's death? If ignorance is no defence in moral terms, not in terms of laws, then she would be responsible. How many people would say that she was?

A week ago on this site in a thread called 'Bible Bashers' I had a very interesting discussion about whether a sin commited in total ignorance is still a sin in Christianity. I said that it was. To be precise here, what I mean is that Christianity says that if a person does something that they had no idea was a wrong thing to do, but that act was still wrong in the eyes of the Lord, was it still a sin? Regardless of whether God forgives that person or not, are they responsible for that action?
After I said that I thought Christianity implies that an ignorant sin is still a sin, several people disagreed with me. I was intending to do some research into this at the time, but I had no time. I have now just started looking in the Bible for anything related to this. I have not got that far, but so far I have found one instance of tis which is quite interesting.

From Genesis 20:
2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.
3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man, because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a man's wife."
4 Now Abimelech had not approached her; so he said, "Lord, wilt thou slay an innocent people?
5 Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this."
6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me; therefore I did not let you touch her.

Now, I think the key point there is 'it was I who kept you from sinning against me'. This suggests that had Abimelech gone through with the act, it would have been a sin. Incidentally it also suggests that God can indeed interfere with free will when He wants to. Abimelech had no knowledge of the sin he was about to commit, nor did he make some mistake, that while it would not have been intentional, would still have placed the fault as his. Yet, had God not stepped in, it would have been a sin.

At the same time though, God also says 'I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart.'
This suggests that in the morality of humans, an ignorant sin is not a sin in the Christian morality. Had Abimelech done it, his personal integrity would have remained intact, but he would have sinned against God.

I am very curious to see what other people think of this, whether they agree or disagree with my conclusions, or have others of their own, and whether anyone knows of any other examples in the Bible or other Christian teachings that suggest whether an ignorant sin is still a sin.
All I can say is that in my 12+ years of attending Catholic schools my religion instructors have always said that sin is when one freely choses to do somthing one knows is wrong, though I couldn't say if this is due to Tradition or any certain biblical interpertation.

To be precise here, what I mean is that Christianity says that if a person does something that they had no idea was a wrong thing to do, but that act was still wrong in the eyes of the Lord, was it still a sin? Regardless of whether God forgives that person or not, are they responsible for that action?

Leviticus is quite clear on this: yes. Since Leviticus is very popular amongst Christians that like gaybashing I'm surprised they did not know that..

Leviticus 4:
13 " 'If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty.

22 " 'When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the LORD his God, he is guilty.

27 " 'If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, he is guilty.

Leviticus 5:
2 " 'Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean-whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground-even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty.

I don't like this whole concept, which is a reason I don't like Chrisitanity. I mean, taking it to its logical conclusion, every person who is not a Chrstian will go to hell (that is written). Every Christian who accidentally screws up and doesn't know it, therefore doesn't ask for forgiveness, goes to hell. Hell is looking pretty crowded. Wouldn't that just irk God, like, he creates Man and then 90% of Man (throughout history) goes to hell? What about those before Christ even came along? What about those before monotheism?

I don't like this whole concept, which is a reason I don't like Chrisitanity. I mean, taking it to its logical conclusion, every person who is not a Chrstian will go to hell (that is written). Every Christian who accidentally screws up and doesn't know it, therefore doesn't ask for forgiveness, goes to hell. Hell is looking pretty crowded. Wouldn't that just irk God, like, he creates Man and then 90% of Man (throughout history) goes to hell? What about those before Christ even came along? What about those before monotheism?

As I said, given not only conflicting beleifs between the different faiths of major world churches, but that of individual christian denominations, I would be suprised if anyone is in heaven.

Or ever will be in heaven... period...

As I said, given not only conflicting beleifs between the different faiths of major world churches, but that of individual christian denominations, I would be suprised if anyone is in heaven.

Or ever will be in heaven... period...

Anyone saved by one religion is damned by another.

It's ludacris.

Reincarnation, anyone?

I don't like this whole concept, which is a reason I don't like Chrisitanity. I mean, taking it to its logical conclusion, every person who is not a Chrstian will go to hell (that is written). Every Christian who accidentally screws up and doesn't know it, therefore doesn't ask for forgiveness, goes to hell. Hell is looking pretty crowded. Wouldn't that just irk God, like, he creates Man and then 90% of Man (throughout history) goes to hell? What about those before Christ even came along? What about those before monotheism?ahh... but there are people trying to spread the Word and God's Law, you have books, Television and Radio Programs, places where people gather to discuss and learn, even a cable station devoted to Christian living, Even this thread is attempting to tell you. The question is, do you listen or do you ignore? If you choose to turn away and renforce your ignorance, how can you say "you were not told?" how can you justify your ignorance?
As you say, you don't like the concept... neither do Christians. which is why we try to inform as much people as we can so that they can avoid the worst fate possible. Imagine how we feel when we try to inform, but get verbally slapped in the face for our efforts. We can't force you, but we can provide as much opportunity to learn and know as possible.

As I said, given not only conflicting beleifs between the different faiths of major world churches, but that of individual christian denominations, I would be suprised if anyone is in heaven.

Or ever will be in heaven... period...actually, there are a few things you need to do... and they are universal in all Christian Faiths.

Interesting.

Still to me it seems entirely pointless.

As far as I'm concerned any God that can judge unknowing transgressors deserves to be laughed at, not worshipped.

So much for the all loving all forgiving christian god eh?

Lol, sounds almost like getting pulled over for a speeding ticket.

Man:
"God I didn't realise I was sinning, I thought I was only doing 28"

God:
"Well that might be sonny jim, but you were really doing 33, off to hell with you!"


'Ignorance of The Law is no excuse' happens to be one of the corner strones of all legal systems on the planet no?

ahh... but there are people trying to spread the Word and God's Law, you have books, Television and Radio Programs, places where people gather to discuss and learn, even a cable station devoted to Christian living, Even this thread is attempting to tell you. The question is, do you listen or do you ignore? If you choose to turn away and renforce your ignorance, how can you say "you were not told?" how can you justify your ignorance?
As you say, you don't like the concept... neither do Christians. which is why we try to inform as much people as we can so that they can avoid the worst fate possible. Imagine how we feel when we try to inform, but get verbally slapped in the face for our efforts. We can't force you, but we can provide as much opportunity to learn and know as possible.

So is everyone who was born before Jesus damned? I believe that idea was suggested in some poem.

ahh... but there are people trying to spread the Word and God's Law, you have books, Television and Radio Programs, places where people gather to discuss and learn, even a cable station devoted to Christian living, Even this thread is attempting to tell you. The question is, do you listen or do you ignore? If you choose to turn away and renforce your ignorance, how can you say "you were not told?" how can you justify your ignorance?
But there are also people spreading Islam as well other religions. If we listen to you the muslims will tell us we will go to hell. If we listen to the muslims the cristians will say we will go to hell. If one of these groups (chrisians or muslims) are right, theres no way to be sure who is right (if any of the religions are right anyway). That way, everyone will still be ignorant as to what the "true" faith is...

I don't like this whole concept, which is a reason I don't like Chrisitanity. I mean, taking it to its logical conclusion, every person who is not a Chrstian will go to hell (that is written). Every Christian who accidentally screws up and doesn't know it, therefore doesn't ask for forgiveness, goes to hell. Hell is looking pretty crowded. Wouldn't that just irk God, like, he creates Man and then 90% of Man (throughout history) goes to hell? What about those before Christ even came along? What about those before monotheism?

You just dont understand. All men are sinners, we just cant help it were not perfect and god knows it because he made it that way on purpose. The whole idea of christianity is that we can be forgiven. Our sins are placed on the shoulders of jesus christ. IE "He died for our sins". Through sin, forgiveness, praise we learn how to be better people. You just dont go to hell because you sin and didnt have time to ask forgiveness. We will each be judged accordingly, and god is perfectly fair. He knows our hearts, minds, and motivations.

You just dont understand. All men are sinners, we just cant help it were not perfect and god knows it because he made it that way on purpose. The whole idea of christianity is that we can be forgiven. Our sins are placed on the shoulders of jesus christ. IE "He died for our sins". Through sin, punishment, forgiveness, praise we learn how to be better people. You just dont go to hell because you sin and didnt have time to ask forgiveness. We will each be judged accordingly, and god is perfectly fair. He knows our hearts, minds, and motivations.

If he's perfectly fair, a witch who honestly belives that Wicca is the way to go, and who lovingly and devotedly serves the Goddess, would be judges as though she were doing the same to the proper God. After all, if one tries to live a good life, why does it matter which denomination they are?

Because wiccans don't contribute to the collection plate at church

Why did everyone ignore my post, stating the the Catgolic Churches definition of sin? I mean I think its kind of funny how people say that the Catholic Church teaches that if you aren't Catholic you are damned when it teaches the exact oppisit. I repeat what I said before current Catholic teaching states that sin is only when one freely choses to turn away from God, and you can't make a free choice if you are ignorant of making a choice.

ahh... but there are people trying to spread the Word and God's Law, you have books, Television and Radio Programs, places where people gather to discuss and learn, even a cable station devoted to Christian living, Even this thread is attempting to tell you. The question is, do you listen or do you ignore? If you choose to turn away and renforce your ignorance, how can you say "you were not told?" how can you justify your ignorance?
As you say, you don't like the concept... neither do Christians. which is why we try to inform as much people as we can so that they can avoid the worst fate possible. Imagine how we feel when we try to inform, but get verbally slapped in the face for our efforts. We can't force you, but we can provide as much opportunity to learn and know as possible.

Do you know how many religions there are in the world?

Are you seriously so smug that you say "turn away" when really, maybe someone turns TOWARDS something they belive as much as you belive Christ is the way and the truth?

So is everyone who was born before Jesus damned? I believe that idea was suggested in some poem.there were... rituals you needed to do to gain forgiveness before Jesus. Jesus made the process easier. don't believe me? read the Old Testament.

Even if it is a sin, it doesn't matter. All that matters in most versions of Christianity is belief in God.

Why did everyone ignore my post, stating the the Catgolic Churches definition of sin? I mean I think its kind of funny how people say that the Catholic Church teaches that if you aren't Catholic you are damned when it teaches the exact oppisit. I repeat what I said before current Catholic teaching states that sin is only when one freely choses to turn away from God, and you can't make a free choice if you are ignorant of making a choice.

So do you reject the passage of the Bible in my first post?

there were... rituals you needed to do to gain forgiveness before Jesus. Jesus made the process easier. don't believe me? read the Old Testament.

So all the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Romans (pre-christianity), are all in hell? All the pagans, the polytheists, the hindus, the muslims?

Everyone who was born before Judeism is now in hell?

If ignorance was an excuse for sinning, wouldn't we be burning all the Bibles and stopping preaching etc. instead of hoping to convert you?

Why did everyone ignore my post, stating the the Catgolic Churches definition of sin? I mean I think its kind of funny how people say that the Catholic Church teaches that if you aren't Catholic you are damned when it teaches the exact oppisit. I repeat what I said before current Catholic teaching states that sin is only when one freely choses to turn away from God, and you can't make a free choice if you are ignorant of making a choice.

Because I like it and have no problem with it?

You wanted a kudos and a fluffle?

Kudos :fluffle:

Even if it is a sin, it doesn't matter. All that matters in most versions of Christianity is belief in God.

Not really. Sinners get cast into the lake of fire...


you know what? I'm gonna go dig out my mom's bible.

In law, a mistake as to the nature of the law is no defence to the commission of a criminal offence.

So you for example if you were driving while on your mobile, you can't claim innocence on the basis you werent aware a law existed that prohibited you speaking on your mobile.

Why did everyone ignore my post, stating the the Catgolic Churches definition of sin? I mean I think its kind of funny how people say that the Catholic Church teaches that if you aren't Catholic you are damned when it teaches the exact oppisit. I repeat what I said before current Catholic teaching states that sin is only when one freely choses to turn away from God, and you can't make a free choice if you are ignorant of making a choice.then why have churches. why have pastors or the printing of the bible. If ignorance can be used to get you into heaven, why inform the masses at all? after all, as you state, if you cannot make a free choice because of Ignorance, then by keeping everyone ignorant, they won't sin because they are not Freely choosing to sin.

So all the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Romans (pre-christianity), are all in hell? All the pagans, the polytheists, the hindus, the muslims?

Everyone who was born before Judeism is now in hell?
God is not a simple formula, he will judge all people fairly.
before jesus it was very hard to please god. Remember noahs ark. Obviously it is very hard to please god without jesus. Noah did it, abraham did it, and so did many other old testament prophets. I am a christian, I try to live a good life but am I on par with noah, is my faith and obedience that strong. Not even close. That's why jesus is my savior, without him I just dont measure up. The good news is that jesus is there for anyone who will accept him.

Not really. Sinners get cast into the lake of fire...


you know what? I'm gonna go dig out my mom's bible.
Agiain your mistaken were all sinners yet we dont all go to hell.

God is not a simple formula, he will judge all people fairly.
before jesus it was very hard to please god. Remember noahs ark. Obviously it is very hard to please god without jesus. Noah did it, abraham did it, and so did many other old testament prophets. I am a christian, I try to live a good life but am I on par with noah, is my faith and obedience that strong. Not even close. That's why jesus is my savior, without him I just dont measure up. The good news is that jesus is there for anyone who will accept him.

Again, so all those except the ones mentioned specifically in the Old Testiment are in hell?

Why hasn't Chrisitianity been around from day 1, if God created everything and Adam and Eve knew aout God. Why wasn't there monotheism for centuries?

Agiain your mistaken were all sinners yet we dont all go to hell.
That is because we accepted God and Jesus as our Lord and Savior. with the Blood of the Lamb, our sins are washed away. that is why those who have accepted Jesus as lord and savior will not be damned.

however, we still need forgiveness for our sins and transgressions.

Agiain your mistaken were all sinners yet we dont all go to hell.

If you sin, and your sins are washed away, to me, you're not a sinner anymore, since there's no sin on you.

I'm not talking about people whose nature is to sin (IE, everyone), I'm talking about those who sin and still have the sin on them at their time of death

In law, a mistake as to the nature of the law is no defence to the commission of a criminal offence.

So you for example if you were driving while on your mobile, you can't claim innocence on the basis you werent aware a law existed that prohibited you speaking on your mobile.

This is about morality! I don't care about the law side of it. I don't care whether you get into Heaven or not. If you were not aware of a law about driving while on the moblile, you might be in the wrong in the eyes of the law, but you would not be morally in the wrong. You would not have a reason to feel guilty. But Christianity implies that on issues regarding God, you would have to feel guilty about your ignorance.

So do you reject the passage of the Bible in my first post?
The Catholic church does recognize that parts of the old Testement have been replaced through Jesus' teachings and that many of the stories can be interperted metaphoricaly. That passage could be seen to me that God will look out for us and try and help keep us fro doing things we will later regret, which I'm sure would be the reaction of most people at learning they had slept with a married individual. I mean look at society, that would still be frowned on to an extent, just not as badly as if one had done it knowingly.

Again, so all those except the ones mentioned specifically in the Old Testiment are in hell?

Why hasn't Chrisitianity been around from day 1, if God created everything and Adam and Eve knew aout God. Why wasn't there monotheism for centuries?
No, you are just being thick headed now. Those were just the ones I personally know about because their stories are in the bible. There was monotheism in the beginning, god walked in the garden with adam and eve before they sinned, they knew he was god.

Again, so all those except the ones mentioned specifically in the Old Testiment are in hell?

Why hasn't Chrisitianity been around from day 1, if God created everything and Adam and Eve knew aout God. Why wasn't there monotheism for centuries?If those people didn't offer a burnt sacrifice and did the rituals in the old testament... yep. lake of fire.

God was around from day 1. But because of the original sin, that placed the barrier between man and God. Jesus's sacrifice made it easier for man to reaffirm his faith in God.

Alone without God's presence, the rise of other Religions and idol worship occured. (I mention them separate for a reason)

actually, there are a few things you need to do... and they are universal in all Christian Faiths.

Many of the major ideas are common between differing denominations, but many of the minor items are not. Sinning even minorly is still a sin, so by definition it is unlikely that any one denomination will have things right, so it is unlikely that their followers will be going to heaven.


'Ignorance of The Law is no excuse' happens to be one of the corner strones of all legal systems on the planet no?

This is one point that is fine for a human law in a human world. When it comes to religious law in a post-life world, what law exactly are you supposed to follow? It's common knowledge that parts of the bible are in fact contradictory, certain items stating that its ok for you to do something, and other items stating the opposite.

An extreme example, One law says it's ok to hit your wife, the other doesn't, both come from an equally reliable authority, which do you beleive?

If you say, you play it safe and abide by the law that says you don't, that's one thing, but you're not going to live a very happy life if you never do something because you're afraid it might mean you commit a sin you've never heard of. Additionally, what if the bible states that you SHOULD do something in one passage, and then states the opposite in another. I don't know if such a paradox exists in the bible, I'm not a biblical expert, but what would you do then?

But an ignorant sin is not a sin in most human forms of morality. Few people would say that, for example, a small child who has not yet been taught right and wrong, would be sinning if they did something wrong like stealing something. Yet if Christianty preaches that an ignorant sin is still a sin, then that child was sinning. Is that right?

Heck yeah it's a sin! The reason that child thought up the idea of stealing something was because they, like all of us, were born with sin in us!

Hence the need for constant forgiveness.

When asking for forgiveness, it makes sense that if you sin in ignorance you should also ask God to forgive you for any sins you have committed unknowingly.

I don't, however, believe that a young child would go to hell for their sins. Or at the least hell is not as much of a torment for those who have not reached the so-called "Age of Accountability."

The Age of Accountability is different for every individual. Let's just assume it is seven. By the age of seven, a child should have had some exposure to the gospel, and the ability to understand it, so they are now accountable to God for any sin that is committed from that point on.

No, you are just being thick headed now. Those were just the ones I personally know about because their stories are in the bible. There was monotheism in the beginning, god walked in the garden with adam and eve before they sinned, they knew he was god.

I'm talking from a historical standpoint. Polytheism was the norm across the board, until some people decided to break off and start a monotheistic "cult", divinely inspired by a single god. I'm not going to argue that Jehovah didn't come to them or anything, that's just my understanding of the general trends of history.

And there were entire cultures who never knew Jehovah, who existed before the bible was written. My question was simply, what happens to them? You responded with, "well, before Jesus it was just hard to please God." So how are they supposed to please this difficult god they'd never heard of?

then why have churches. why have pastors or the printing of the bible. If ignorance can be used to get you into heaven, why inform the masses at all? after all, as you state, if you cannot make a free choice because of Ignorance, then by keeping everyone ignorant, they won't sin because they are not Freely choosing to sin.
Because we all ready have those and for those who have learned those teachings to reject them by not passing them on as they were instruct would be a sin on their part? Thats the best explination I have been given, I'm really just trying to play devils (or should that be Jesus' :p ) advocate, I can't say I agree with everything the Church does, but I willing to admit that they are more reasonable than in the days of burn the witch.

No, you are just being thick headed now. Those were just the ones I personally know about because their stories are in the bible. There was monotheism in the beginning, god walked in the garden with adam and eve before they sinned, they knew he was god.

They can't have known He was good though, could they? They had no knowledge of good or evil. They can only have known that He was a powerful being. If being good is a key part of God, then they can not have really known He was God.

If those people didn't offer a burnt sacrifice and did the rituals in the old testament... yep. lake of fire.

God was around from day 1. But because of the original sin, that placed the barrier between man and God. Jesus's sacrifice made it easier for man to reaffirm his faith in God.

Alone without God's presence, the rise of other Religions and idol worship occured. (I mention them separate for a reason)

But what about cultures before 1400 BC (the beginnings of the writings of the scriptures)? They had religion, it was polytheistic. Where was God then? Where was his Law then? Did God get so pissed off at Adam and Eve he vanished for thousands of years? Why isn't this mentioned in Genesis?

[QUOTE=Kusarii]Many of the major ideas are common between differing denominations, but many of the minor items are not. Sinning even minorly is still a sin, so by definition it is unlikely that any one denomination will have things right, so it is unlikely that their followers will be going to heaven.

QUOTE]
Yes, put thats were God's Grace forgivness come in, b/c no one's perfact so it is not necessary to be perfect to get into heaven, or at least not after time in purgatory.

[QUOTE=Kusarii]Many of the major ideas are common between differing denominations, but many of the minor items are not. Sinning even minorly is still a sin, so by definition it is unlikely that any one denomination will have things right, so it is unlikely that their followers will be going to heaven.

QUOTE]
Yes, put thats were God's Grace forgivness come in, b/c no one's perfact so it is not necessary to be perfect to get into heaven, or at least not after time in purgatory.

Where is purgatory mentioned in the bible?

They can't have known He was good though, could they? They had no knowledge of good or evil. They can only have known that He was a powerful being. If being good is a key part of God, then they can not have really known He was God.
Yes but the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphore, you could look at it as having the apple represent the point were humans became aware or sapient, as the point were we gained the ability to graple with the idea of right and wrong, of mortality, and of the nature of existance.

I'm talking from a historical standpoint. Polytheism was the norm across the board, until some people decided to break off and start a monotheistic "cult", divinely inspired by a single god. I'm not going to argue that Jehovah didn't come to them or anything, that's just my understanding of the general trends of history.

And there were entire cultures who never knew Jehovah, who existed before the bible was written. My question was simply, what happens to them? You responded with, "well, before Jesus it was just hard to please God." So how are they supposed to please this difficult god they'd never heard of?
You didnt have to know his name, the knowledge of god is innate theres no excuse for not believing in him. He is god you dont have to read any book to know it. All cultures in the history of mankind have understood the concept of GOD. Why, because its self evident. We also know right from wrong, so whats your argument. They just had to try to do what they knew was right. God is a fair and loving judge, the good ones were saved

Yes but the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphore, you could look at it as having the apple represent the point were humans became aware or sapient, as the point were we gained the ability to graple with the idea of right and wrong, of mortality, and of the nature of existance.


People ned to grasp the concept of "frame of reference."

I asked a question based on a particular way of looking at the bible, and in that particular scope, expected an answer. The answer, then, is not to say that the scope is wrong. Personally, I think Christianity is untrue and simplistic. But I'm asking and answering questions withen the scope of the religion, even though I don't belive.

This is about morality! I don't care about the law side of it. I don't care whether you get into Heaven or not. If you were not aware of a law about driving while on the moblile, you might be in the wrong in the eyes of the law, but you would not be morally in the wrong. You would not have a reason to feel guilty. But Christianity implies that on issues regarding God, you would have to feel guilty about your ignorance.

You would feel stupid if you got put in jail for something you didn't know about but should have, same goes for Christianity.

The reason it is guilt is because there are plenty of signs and you have choosen a) not to read them or b) to ignore them

[QUOTE=The Psyker VTwoPointOh]

Where is purgatory mentioned in the bible?
I'm arguing the Catholic perspective from which both the Bible AND Tradition are important parts used in the process of deciding doctrin. As to what the history of the development of purgatory is thats is an interesting question that I might just try and find out more about, though if you want to look on your own it might have something in the Catholic Catachism(sp)

They can't have known He was good though, could they? They had no knowledge of good or evil. They can only have known that He was a powerful being. If being good is a key part of God, then they can not have really known He was God.

Some would argue that knowledge of good or evil is not necessary to know god. I personally think that when it comes to the God I beleive in, good and evil is irrelevant.

In a scenario such as that described in genesis, where it is said they knew he was god, it may be that his power was evident.

One thing I do think is curious about the adam and eve story though, is that without knowing the difference between good and evil, how is it really possible to know right from wrong? If god tells you to do something, but you have no conception that not doing what says is bad, how can you really be blamed for doing it any way? Surely that is the fault of he who created you than a fault in yourself?

Because we all ready have those and for those who have learned those teachings to reject them by not passing them on as they were instruct would be a sin on their part? Thats the best explination I have been given, I'm really just trying to play devils (or should that be Jesus' :p ) advocate, I can't say I agree with everything the Church does, but I willing to admit that they are more reasonable than in the days of burn the witch.then why the parables of Lazarus in Luke? and the mentioning of serving two masters?

People ned to grasp the concept of "frame of reference."

I asked a question based on a particular way of looking at the bible, and in that particular scope, expected an answer. The answer, then, is not to say that the scope is wrong. Personally, I think Christianity is untrue and simplistic. But I'm asking and answering questions withen the scope of the religion, even though I don't belive.
I'm not sure I following what scope you are looking at it from, but I'm looking at it from the scope of current Catholic teaching which says that the creation stories are metaphorical, although I'll admit that the interpertation I presented is not one I got directly from the church.

Yes but the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphore, you could look at it as having the apple represent the point were humans became aware or sapient, as the point were we gained the ability to graple with the idea of right and wrong, of mortality, and of the nature of existance.

Yes, and I love the idea that God told them not to get that ability.

You didnt have to know his name, the knowledge of god is innate theres no excuse for not believing in him. He is god you dont have to read any book to know it. All cultures in the history of mankind have understood the concept of GOD. Why, because its self evident. We also know right from wrong, so whats your argument. They just had to try to do what they knew was right. God is a fair and loving judge, the good ones were saved

no.

All cultures in the history of mankind have understood the concept of a god. Most before 1400 BC worshiped GODS. Plural. and goddesses! They did what they knew was right, and what they thought was right is NOT what Jahovah thinks is right.

"Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you rest"
"You shall have no other gods before me"
"You shall make no molded god for yourself"
"But you shall destroy their altars,break their sared pillars, and cut down their wooden images"
"he Feast of Unlevened Bread you shall keep"
"All that open the womb are Mine, and every male firstborn among your livestock, whether ox or sheep. But the firstboorn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb"
"And you shall observe the Feast of Weeks.. and the Feast of Ingathering"
even "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

Some of those sound like holdovers from the earlier polytheistic religions, others are things no polytheist did. No polytheistic religion did all of them. What then? how to please this "hard to please" god nobody knew existed?

But what about cultures before 1400 BC (the beginnings of the writings of the scriptures)? They had religion, it was polytheistic. Where was God then? Where was his Law then? Did God get so pissed off at Adam and Eve he vanished for thousands of years? Why isn't this mentioned in Genesis?

Just because something isn't written about it before a point, doesn't mean it didn't exist before that point. And the thing with God is that if you don't want him, he behaves like a gentleman and goes away (to an extent), just like you wanted him too.

You would feel stupid if you got put in jail for something you didn't know about but should have, same goes for Christianity.

The reason it is guilt is because there are plenty of signs and you have choosen a) not to read them or b) to ignore them

So should someone living on a remote island who has never heard of Christianity feel guilty when they die?

then why the parables of Lazarus in Luke? and the mentioning of serving two masters?
If its the Lazarus story I'm thinking of the rich man was condemed, b/c he did know that his treatment of Lazarus was wrong since it would have also been contradictory to the Jewish morality he would have known. As for the one of two masters could you please elaborate I'm not sure I can rebember which story you are talking about of the top of my head.

So should someone living on a remote island who has never heard of Christianity feel guilty when they die?

Indeed, what about people living on the american continents before 1500 AD

Should they all have felt guilty when they died?

Just because something isn't written about it before a point, doesn't mean it didn't exist before that point. And the thing with God is that if you don't want him, he behaves like a gentleman and goes away (to an extent), just like you wanted him too.

And damns you to hell in the meantime.

We have writings of older religions, it wasn't unheard of to set down the beliefs on paper. What people fail to realize was that Christianity was one religion among MANY, one God among MANY. They were probably laughed at for having only ONE God, where their neighbors could count on a whole plethora of gods to preotect them

Yes, and I love the idea that God told them not to get that ability.
A case might be made that people would have been happier if they weren't aware of sufering and our own mortality to the extent that we are, you know the old saying ignorance is bliss. Not that I agree with that necesarily I'm just saying.

People ned to grasp the concept of "frame of reference."

I asked a question based on a particular way of looking at the bible, and in that particular scope, expected an answer. The answer, then, is not to say that the scope is wrong. Personally, I think Christianity is untrue and simplistic. But I'm asking and answering questions withen the scope of the religion, even though I don't belive.what way of looking at the Bible are you using?

what way of looking at the Bible are you using?

The fact that it claims to chronical a narritive from day 1 of creation (whether that day be 24 hours or thousands of years) on down to the firm establishment of Christianity.

And it acts as though Christianity existed all along. (Judeaism, technically)

Which it probably didn't

Not the way of looking at it that it's a long story that is a big parable to life, that nothing in it nessicarily happened but we can use the teachings. That way invalidates my point. I'd be happy to discuss that but then my question vanishes.

Indeed, what about people living on the american continents before 1500 AD

Should they all have felt guilty when they died?

More importantly, should they all burn in hell?

It's like, if there's a law in Kentucky about not washing your pigs on Tuesdays (or something), and I wash a pig in California on a Tuesday, should I go to jail?

If you dont want to believe, then you probably never will and you'll probably look back on all of the opportunities you had to accept jesus with very much grief. When you accept Jesus as your savior, you recieve the comforter, which is the holy spirit as a gift and a guide for life. I hope some of you soften you hearts someday so that you can hear the lord calling. Good luck and god bless, I'm out of this discussion.

Heck yeah it's a sin! The reason that child thought up the idea of stealing something was because they, like all of us, were born with sin in us!

Hence the need for constant forgiveness.

When asking for forgiveness, it makes sense that if you sin in ignorance you should also ask God to forgive you for any sins you have committed unknowingly.

I don't, however, believe that a young child would go to hell for their sins. Or at the least hell is not as much of a torment for those who have not reached the so-called "Age of Accountability."

The Age of Accountability is different for every individual. Let's just assume it is seven. By the age of seven, a child should have had some exposure to the gospel, and the ability to understand it, so they are now accountable to God for any sin that is committed from that point on.

Forgiveness does not change the fact that a sin was commited, it simply eases responsibility. But for people who do not worship the Christian God, His forgiveness means nothing. What matters is the actions that we choose to make.

The fact that it claims to chronical a narritive from day 1 of creation (whether that day be 24 hours or thousands of years) on down to the firm establishment of Christianity.

And it acts as though Christianity existed all along. (Judeaism, technically)

Which it probably didn't

Not the way of looking at it that it's a long story that is a big parable to life, that nothing in it nessicarily happened but we can use the teachings. That way invalidates my point. I'd be happy to discuss that but then my question vanishes.
All right than that completly invalidates pretty much every thing I've said regarding current Chatholic views on the issue, so I'm not sure what o say, other than that I think such literal interpertation is impossible due to numerous contradictory teachings.

If you dont want to believe, then you probably never will and you'll probably look back on all of the opportunities you had to accept jesus with very much grief. When you accept Jesus as your savior, you recieve the comforter, which is the holy spirit as a gift and a guide for life. I hope some of you soften you hearts someday so that you can hear the lord calling. Good luck and god bless, I'm out of this discussion.

that is so arrogant. I accepted the Goddess into my life and I recieved comfort, a guide, blessings, love... there's more than one way to feel spiritually fulfilled.

Personally, I'll never be converted. Doesn't mean I can't discuss religions. Things like this are fascinating to me, I like to know how people think. I'm curious about the world.

A case might be made that people would have been happier if they weren't aware of sufering and our own mortality to the extent that we are, you know the old saying ignorance is bliss. Not that I agree with that necesarily I'm just saying.

Anyone at all who agrees with 'Ignorance is bliss' in a religious sense should read His Dark Materials.

All right than that completly invalidates pretty much every thing I've said regarding current Chatholic views on the issue, so I'm not sure what o say, other than that I think such literal interpertation is impossible due to numerous contradictory teachings.

This has been the motivation behind my points all along. If you use the bible as a reference for declaring "religious laws" then you will constantly break them, even with strict adherance, because some are contradictory.

Anyone at all who agrees with 'Ignorance is bliss' in a religious sense should read His Dark Materials.

His Dark Materials?

That sounds interesting, who's it by and what's it about?

The fact that it claims to chronical a narritive from day 1 of creation (whether that day be 24 hours or thousands of years) on down to the firm establishment of Christianity.

And it acts as though Christianity existed all along. (Judeaism, technically)

Which it probably didn't

Not the way of looking at it that it's a long story that is a big parable to life, that nothing in it nessicarily happened but we can use the teachings. That way invalidates my point. I'd be happy to discuss that but then my question vanishes.so you know you are taking the view point most people who argue against the bible take. that it is a literal document and thus needs to be taken literally.

Look at the laws and the constitution the same way... it will be just as stupid if looked at literally.

now my question. you seem to know something of the Christian faith. what specificly made you denouce the Christian faith... or is it just the Catholic Teachings you find... unacceptable?

All right than that completly invalidates pretty much every thing I've said regarding current Chatholic views on the issue, so I'm not sure what o say, other than that I think such literal interpertation is impossible due to numerous contradictory teachings.

yeah, which is why the question wasn't directed to you. If anyone has an answer, I'd like to hear it. But nobody seems to have one.

Question for you, then... *thinks* well, what about Matthew 18:9

"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eys, to be cast into hell fire "

That to me implies that if you sin, you'll be cast into hellfire

His Dark Materials?

That sounds interesting, who's it by and what's it about?

The Golden Compass, by Philliup Pullman, and its sequals, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass are known as the His Dark Materials series

If you dont want to believe, then you probably never will and you'll probably look back on all of the opportunities you had to accept jesus with very much grief. When you accept Jesus as your savior, you recieve the comforter, which is the holy spirit as a gift and a guide for life. I hope some of you soften you hearts someday so that you can hear the lord calling. Good luck and god bless, I'm out of this discussion.

Do you know the effort required to avoid flaming this post? Smug Christians who refuse to believe that anyone can get anything out of life without conforming to their religion! Argue with atheists, insult us, mock us, but don't patronise us!

People who are not in regular contact with the Police, Judges or Lawyers still have to obey the law.

There is a story of a man sent to Hell. when God approached him, he claimed ignorance of Gods laws, and God did say that he sent his prophets, and they had his written word, so that igorance was not an exscuse. Looking for that story now...

exactly. with the added benefit of when you realize that you have sinned you can immediately repent and all is forgiven. that doesnt work all that well in court.

The Golden Compass, by Philliup Pullman, and its sequals, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass are known as the His Dark Materials series

The Golden Compass? I think you mean Northern Lights, unless you have read some different version of them.

If its the Lazarus story I'm thinking of the rich man was condemed, b/c he did know that his treatment of Lazarus was wrong since it would have also been contradictory to the Jewish morality he would have known. As for the one of two masters could you please elaborate I'm not sure I can rebember which story you are talking about of the top of my head.but Lazarus' owner was being punnished because he did not know... and when he told Abraham to send Lazarus to his kin to warn them... the response was, the prohets and teachings are there already. if they do not listen, they will not listen when the dead appears before them.

so is Ignorance really a Sheild as you say?

and the "Man cannot serve two masters" is in the same book and chapter. basically saying we cannot serve two Gods.

Indeed, what about people living on the american continents before 1500 AD

Should they all have felt guilty when they died?

*nods* yep
I can't remember where it is but there is enough signs in the natural world and other such stuff.

so you know you are taking the view point most people who argue against the bible take. that it is a literal document and thus needs to be taken literally.

Look at the laws and the constitution the same way... it will be just as stupid if looked at literally.

now my question. you seem to know something of the Christian faith. what specificly made you denouce the Christian faith... or is it just the Catholic Teachings you find... unacceptable?

Laws are generally read literally. I only take that viewpoint because it raises the interesting question. I want an answer, and my former sunday-school teachers are probably sick of me by now XD

For me.. I never felt comfortable with the whole Christianity thing. I felt like, why should I go worship someone I don't really belive exists int he sense that the preacher is talking about, who says I'm a horrible person, and who hates me? It seemed stupid. This was at a young, young age, mind. Later as I read more and more of the bible, more and more of it felt...wrong. Then when I found Wicca it felt right. That's really all that matters to me, you know?

yeah, which is why the question wasn't directed to you. If anyone has an answer, I'd like to hear it. But nobody seems to have one.
err sorry what post was your this question?

The Golden Compass? I think you mean Northern Lights, unless you have read some different version of them.

It distinctly says Golden Compass... dammit, lemmie Amazon it, I'll edit this post when I find out for sure

But what about cultures before 1400 BC (the beginnings of the writings of the scriptures)? They had religion, it was polytheistic. Where was God then? Where was his Law then? Did God get so pissed off at Adam and Eve he vanished for thousands of years? Why isn't this mentioned in Genesis?

in other words, why doesn't the historical record and Genesis match up at all?

His Dark Materials?

That sounds interesting, who's it by and what's it about?

Who's it by has already been answered.
It's about the second war in heaven. It is described as a war of knowledge against ignorance. Those who want humanity to know and explore it's nature, and those who want it to remain in the innocence that we had before Eve fell. You should definately read it.

*nods* yep
I can't remember where it is but there is enough signs in the natural world and other such stuff.

Signs in the natural world led the Native Americans to discover Shamanism and Totem Animals

yeah, which is why the question wasn't directed to you. If anyone has an answer, I'd like to hear it. But nobody seems to have one.

Question for you, then... *thinks* well, what about Matthew 18:9

"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eys, to be cast into hell fire "

That to me implies that if you sin, you'll be cast into hellfire
Yes, but the pluking out of your eye that caused you to sin could represent exspressing fellings of sorrow at having done wrong, meaning that if you commit a sin, knowing it is a sin, you risk hell if you don't feel repentint for doing what you know is wrong. Again thats just my take, not official church teachings.

It distinctly says Golden Compass... dammit, lemmie Amazon it, I'll edit this post when I find out for sure

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440238609/qid=1112560728/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-3248250-2298349

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0590660543/qid=1112560799/sr=1-13/ref=sr_1_13/104-3248250-2298349?v=glance&s=books

looks like its both

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440238609/qid=1112560728/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-3248250-2298349

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0590660543/qid=1112560799/sr=1-13/ref=sr_1_13/104-3248250-2298349?v=glance&s=books

looks like its both

Well it was originally Northern Lights. It must have been renamed just for that particular collection of the three.

but Lazarus' owner was being punnished because he did not know... and when he told Abraham to send Lazarus to his kin to warn them... the response was, the prohets and teachings are there already. if they do not listen, they will not listen when the dead appears before them.

so is Ignorance really a Sheild as you say?

and the "Man cannot serve two masters" is in the same book and chapter. basically saying we cannot serve two Gods.
Righ I think I might have been thiking of either a diferent Lazarus or a diferent translation. I'd really have to look the story up before I could respond I'm afraid. Listen I'm afraid I really ought to go I have about three diferent Lit papers I have to write out befor the days out and I'm not the quickest when it comes to such things. Been fun talking..er typing to you all.

Well it was originally Northern Lights. It must have been renamed just for that particular collection of the three.

No, because I had a copy of The Golden Compass before I knew it was a trilogy

It looks like (go Google) it was origionally publised as The Northern Lights, maybe in hardover or something, then published as The Golden Compass later on. Anyway, either one, they're identicle

No, because I had a copy of The Golden Compass before I knew it was a trilogy

It looks like (go Google) it was origionally publised as The Northern Lights, maybe in hardover or something, then published as The Golden Compass later on. Anyway, either one, they're identicle

Well anyway, everyone should read them they're amazing.

Well anyway, everyone should read them they're amazing.

yes, there are many well-put points in the trilogy, things about most aspects of christianity....especially original sin, the temptation and fall...it discusses many moral issues to do with religion..

in other words, why doesn't the historical record and Genesis match up at all?try taking into account when the Bible was written. unlike all documents that recount History, the bible isn't updated. To everyone, a day was when the sun rose until it set. night was a separate time. In those days, the world was the city you're from and the neighboring ones. take a history book of the 1800 and compare them to current history books and you'll see that even they don't match up. which is why to argue the bible as a Historical Document is actually wrong. I will say the Bible isn't a historical document. it cannot and should not be taken literally.

Edited for using wrong words...

try taking into account when the Bible was written. unlike all historical documents, the bible isn't updated. To everyone, a day was when the sun rose until it set. night was a separate time. In those days, the world was the city you're from and the neighboring ones. take a history book of the 1800 and compare them to current history books and you'll see that even they don't match up. which is why to argue the bible as a Historical Document is actually wrong. I will say the Bible isn't a historical document. it cannot and should not be taken literally.

but then you must ask yourself about the true origins of parts of the Bible; and how foolproof our beliefs of when they were written are.

try taking into account when the Bible was written. unlike all historical documents, the bible isn't updated. To everyone, a day was when the sun rose until it set. night was a separate time. In those days, the world was the city you're from and the neighboring ones. take a history book of the 1800 and compare them to current history books and you'll see that even they don't match up. which is why to argue the bible as a Historical Document is actually wrong. I will say the Bible isn't a historical document. it cannot and should not be taken literally.

You'd think they'd know better than to assume that eveyrone was Christian to start out with.... especially the founders of the faith... which makes me wonder a bit.

So should someone living on a remote island who has never heard of Christianity feel guilty when they die?

yes, and possibly God could present Himself to that person in order for them to know about Him, and his rules as it were.

but then you must ask yourself about the true origins of parts of the Bible; and how foolproof our beliefs of when they were written are.and those that place their faith in science... that which is constantly changing?

and those that place their faith in science... that which is constantly changing?

yes I agree....did I put myself forward as an ambassador for science in my last post? don't assume anti-religion means pro-science.

:mad: My mouse is playing up and the computer is playing up

I shall answer it again another day as well as 82, 87 and 92..I think

Right I need a nice long bath

Arrivederci!

yes I agree....did I put myself forward as an ambassador for science in my last post? don't assume anti-religion means pro-science.Never said you were, and never said I did. However, we are getting off point. the thread is asking about ignorance as an exscuse for Sin.

Thus we are not arguing the Validity of God or Science.

To answer all those previous questions... yes. without God in their life, those poor souls are doomed. Do wonderful and good deeds and still not beileve in God and your soul is doomed. Believe in God but commit evil acts, and your soul is doomed.

That is why people try to convert others to their religion. to 'save' them. That is why we confess our sins. That is why Jesus died for our sins.

So that more people can have access to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Never said you were, and never said I did. However, we are getting off point. the thread is asking about ignorance as an exscuse for Sin.

Thus we are not arguing the Validity of God or Science.

To answer all those previous questions... yes. without God in their life, those poor souls are doomed. Do wonderful and good deeds and still not beileve in God and your soul is doomed. Believe in God but commit evil acts, and your soul is doomed.

That is why people try to convert others to their religion. to 'save' them. That is why we confess our sins. That is why Jesus died for our sins.

So that more people can have access to the Kingdom of Heaven.

but _ALL_ monotheistic religions say that. Which is true?

but _ALL_ monotheistic religions say that. Which is true?is there any monotheistic religion that does not worship God/Allah/Jehova/Yahweh that claims this?

is there any monotheistic religion that does not worship God/Allah/Jehova/Yahweh that claims this?

If I could think of one that doesn't worship some form of the same God, I'd be able to find places where they say their God is the only real God, the only right and true God.

Give me an example, I'll google it and find specific quotes, I've been sitting in this room for 3 days straight and my ability to think about anything but Christianity and Dungeons and Dragons is waning

If I could think of one that doesn't worship some form of the same God, I'd be able to find places where they say their God is the only real God, the only right and true God.

Give me an example, I'll google it and find specific quotes, I've been sitting in this room for 3 days straight and my ability to think about anything but Christianity and Dungeons and Dragons is waningdon't know of any... I think (and this is my opinion baised on what I know of the larger remaining Monothestic religions) they all worship the same God... just in different ways and with different Names. there are similar stories and lessions in all, similar figures. and a basic truth. However, some of them did get twisted... like the whole "kill the heretics and be serviced by 74 virgins in heaven" may not be in the original lessions... but that's another argument.

btw...you play D&D too? :D

In summary, non-Christian religions can (1) represent man's response to the truth about God that he knows. It can also (2) represent man's attempt to suppress the truth and substitute his own speculations. Finally, it can (3) represent the deception of Satan, who replaces the truth with a lie.

--http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com/nonchristianreligions.html

Yes, I play DnD, I've been trying to make an online roleplay channel based on DnD, and the only other thing I've done in the past few days besides work on that is post on these rediculous forums. Literally. I've been wearing the same pajamas 3 days now (alright, I did go take a shower and am now dressed, but yeah.)

So my brain != working at highest capacity

In summary, non-Christian religions can (1) represent man's response to the truth about God that he knows. It can also (2) represent man's attempt to suppress the truth and substitute his own speculations. Finally, it can (3) represent the deception of Satan, who replaces the truth with a lie.

--http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com/nonchristianreligions.html

Yes, I play DnD, I've been trying to make an online roleplay channel based on DnD, and the only other thing I've done in the past few days besides work on that is post on these rediculous forums. Literally. I've been wearing the same pajamas 3 days now (alright, I did go take a shower and am now dressed, but yeah.)

So my brain != working at highest capacityThank you for that image... :D
and let me know when you're done... version 3.5 i take it?

Thank you for that image... :D
and let me know when you're done... version 3.5 i take it?

yeah, actually, if you want to drop by, irc.darkmyst.org #archipelago_ooc

and those that place their faith in science... that which is constantly changing?

Science is a way of looking at the world and trying to explain it. The method does not change, merely the things it finds. If for instance evolution is proven wrong, that would be a victory for the scientific method. If evolution is proven right, that too would be a victory for the scientific method.

Of course, if the scientific method itself is proven to be invalid (which can be the case if we are a Gods playtoy) science has a problem.

Although by the look of this thread now I would normally let one like this drop by now, I don't think I've quite finished making my point here, so I want to try to explain again.

Going back to morality, lets first assume that humans do have free will and ignore the idea of deterministic ness (is that a word?) That means that humans can do acts that are good, and acts that are evil. So, regardless of what you consider to be good or evil, how do you measure the good or evil nature of an act? You could either look at the consequences of it, or the intentions of the person who did the act. Looking at the act itself alone is not enough.

To show this in an example, lets take 2 similar acts and look at which would be widely accepted to be a worse act, and whether you would arrive at that conclusion using different methods of judging an act. Suppose that two people tell a lie. The first person tells someone who has just cooked a meal for them that the meal was delicious, even though they hated it. The second person tells someone that shark infested water is safe, when they know it isn't.

If you were to use a sytem of simply looking at the act itself to judge morality, both acts would be the same, as they are both a lie (regardless of whether you judge a lie to be a good or evil thing to do).

Looking at intentions, the first act is clearly good while the second is clearly evil. However, looking at consequences, both acts could have good or evil outcomes.

The person who cooked the meal may be able to tell that the person lied, and be upset that they were not honest. Thus, a slightly bad outcome. Or, they could be pleased that they liked the meal, a slightly good outcome.

The person who was told the water was safe could be eaten by a shark, a very bad outcome. Or they could get some good exercise and be lucky, a slightly good outcome.

My point is that if you were to ask people which of the two acts was better or worse than the other, just about everyone would say that the second was a far worse act than the first. Now, how does this link in with Christianity you ask. This thread now seems to have established that in Christianity an ignorant sin is still a sin. So from that, which of the three moral ways of judging an act does Christianity use? It cannot be the one of intentions, because that system relys on looking at what a person expects to happen from an act. So if they expect something different to happen from an act than actually happens, in this system, it is what they expect to happen that they are judged by. In other words, ignorance is a defence. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge, and without knowledge, a decision is less well informed and can be good intentioned even though it has bad outcomes or vice versa.

So that leaves Christianity a choice of two options for moral judging; looking at the act itself only or the outcomes. The Commandments would suggest that it is the former. A sin is easliy defined, and is a sin no matter how it is commited or what the outcomes are. A sin with good outcomes is also still a sin. However, something I want to make clear is that what matters is not whether doing an act is against certain laws, but its morality. Will other people look at an act and say that it was a good or bad thing to do. In Christianity, this is replaced by the more important factor of God looking at an act and saying whether it was a good thing to do or not.

Regardless of whether God agrees with a sin that has good outcomes or not, the fact is that no matter which moral judging system Christianity uses, it does not use the same one that most people use by instinct. This is why saying an unknowing sin is still a sin is dangerous. If God exists, then his opinion on moral issues matters more than the opinions of humans. But the opinions of humans matter a bit. If God does not exist, then the opinions of humans is all that matters. Therfore, seeing as we do not know whether God exists or not, it is logical to take the opinions of humans as a higher priority. So a dangerous situation exists when millions of people belong to a religion that subtly disagrees with the moral system of most people.

Although by the look of this thread now I would normally let one like this drop by now, I don't think I've quite finished making my point here, so I want to try to explain again.

Going back to morality, lets first assume that humans do have free will and ignore the idea of deterministic ness (is that a word?) That means that humans can do acts that are good, and acts that are evil. So, regardless of what you consider to be good or evil, how do you measure the good or evil nature of an act? You could either look at the consequences of it, or the intentions of the person who did the act. Looking at the act itself alone is not enough.

To show this in an example, lets take 2 similar acts and look at which would be widely accepted to be a worse act, and whether you would arrive at that conclusion using different methods of judging an act. Suppose that two people tell a lie. The first person tells someone who has just cooked a meal for them that the meal was delicious, even though they hated it. The second person tells someone that shark infested water is safe, when they know it isn't.

If you were to use a sytem of simply looking at the act itself to judge morality, both acts would be the same, as they are both a lie (regardless of whether you judge a lie to be a good or evil thing to do).

Looking at intentions, the first act is clearly good while the second is clearly evil. However, looking at consequences, both acts could have good or evil outcomes.

The person who cooked the meal may be able to tell that the person lied, and be upset that they were not honest. Thus, a slightly bad outcome. Or, they could be pleased that they liked the meal, a slightly good outcome.

The person who was told the water was safe could be eaten by a shark, a very bad outcome. Or they could get some good exercise and be lucky, a slightly good outcome.

My point is that if you were to ask people which of the two acts was better or worse than the other, just about everyone would say that the second was a far worse act than the first. Now, how does this link in with Christianity you ask. This thread now seems to have established that in Christianity an ignorant sin is still a sin. So from that, which of the three moral ways of judging an act does Christianity use? It cannot be the one of intentions, because that system relys on looking at what a person expects to happen from an act. So if they expect something different to happen from an act than actually happens, in this system, it is what they expect to happen that they are judged by. In other words, ignorance is a defence. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge, and without knowledge, a decision is less well informed and can be good intentioned even though it has bad outcomes or vice versa.

So that leaves Christianity a choice of two options for moral judging; looking at the act itself only or the outcomes. The Commandments would suggest that it is the former. A sin is easliy defined, and is a sin no matter how it is commited or what the outcomes are. A sin with good outcomes is also still a sin. However, something I want to make clear is that what matters is not whether doing an act is against certain laws, but its morality. Will other people look at an act and say that it was a good or bad thing to do. In Christianity, this is replaced by the more important factor of God looking at an act and saying whether it was a good thing to do or not.

Regardless of whether God agrees with a sin that has good outcomes or not, the fact is that no matter which moral judging system Christianity uses, it does not use the same one that most people use by instinct. This is why saying an unknowing sin is still a sin is dangerous. If God exists, then his opinion on moral issues matters more than the opinions of humans. But the opinions of humans matter a bit. If God does not exist, then the opinions of humans is all that matters. Therfore, seeing as we do not know whether God exists or not, it is logical to take the opinions of humans as a higher priority. So a dangerous situation exists when millions of people belong to a religion that subtly disagrees with the moral system of most people.
So does the same apply to laws? Ignorance of the law would then be a defence.

So does the same apply to laws? Ignorance of the law would then be a defence.

Laws in effect use the system of morality of looking at the act in itself, regardless of situation. This is because the law is not trying to identify how good or evil acts are, but simply to reduce the number of evil acts that are made. People can disabey the law and yet people might have sympathy for them and see that it was not really their fault, and people can do things that other people say are very bad things to do, and yet they are not breaking the law. That is not a fault in the law, it is because of its function.

So does the same apply to laws? Ignorance of the law would then be a defence.

the basis of most laws (I would say ALL, but you never know..) is morality; the accepted right and wrong, good and bad, positive and negative, of society. thus, it is the same matter; it still deal with morality.

Yes but the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphore, you could look at it as having the apple represent the point were humans became aware or sapient, as the point were we gained the ability to graple with the idea of right and wrong, of mortality, and of the nature of existance.

surely Christians believe it is a true story...if not, that poses many, MANY questions..

yhou get... http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm

sorry I was in a rush so I did not find th exactly correct one

the basis of most laws (I would say ALL, but you never know..) is morality; the accepted right and wrong, good and bad, positive and negative, of society. thus, it is the same matter; it still deal with morality.

The basis of laws may be morality, but because they have a function to affect good and evil, not just observe it, they cannot be perfect, and must take an approach of using the act itself, rather than outcomes or intentions, even though that is a less accurate form of looking at morality. So they are not exactly the same matter.

without God in their life, those poor souls are doomed.

I can absolutely assure you that no non-believer in God wants and/or needs your sympathy....these 'poor souls' are quite content without the love of Him.