9 ms·

> Where "sin" means essentially not being Christian enough... "sin" in Christian theology is disobedience (and therefore rebellion) against God. Defining it as

> Where "sin" means essentially not being Christian enough... "sin" in Christian theology is disobedience (and therefore rebellion) against God. Defining it as "not being Christian enough" is problematic for at least two reasons: 1. If people self-identify as Christian, how do we identify the liars and the self-deluded? 2. If we can't trust people to identify themselves properly, how do we identify each other as Christians? What is the standard? The Bible actually says that we can know Christians by how well they follow the commandments of Christ (a). Among the commandments of Christ is the commandment to be at peace with each other; we are supposed to reconcile with each other even before we perform (therefore insincere) religious rituals (b). ...the Bible doesn't say that "sin" is the cause of violence since violence (and hate generally) is itself sin. Instead, Paul teaches that sin, including murder, is a result of rejecting God for other things (c). So given all that, it's tautological from Biblical principles that violent people are not followers of Christ. In fact, the Bible is full of warnings about people who claim to be Christian and are actually false teachers. It's actually where the "wolf in sheep's clothing" metaphor comes from. (a) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A4-5&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A4-5&... (b) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A21-24&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A21-... (c) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A28-31&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A28-3...

notdonspaulding 11y ago
> So given all that, it's tautological from Biblical > principles that violent people are not followers of > Christ. Then, given that all wars are inherently violent, is it your opinion that all wars are unjust? Would you also consider that every human life that is ended prematurely by another "murder" (capital punishment, war, abortion)?
- humanrebar 11y ago
  I have opinions, of course, but I aspire to have them grounded in scripture. However, you asked, so I'll try to share my take on violence and sin. Keep in mind that I'm not an expert theologian. I'm willing to be wrong on these points if someone can show me how I'm missing some detail or theme in the teaching of the Bible. Also, since the importance of sin is in the intention behind the thoughts and actions and not in the actions themselves, it's possible for both violent and nonviolent acts to be sinful (a). To start, most forms of violence are currently illegal, and Christians are supposed to submit to their government, even oppressive ones. There are quite a few references for this (b) (c). Finding more examples isn't difficult if you want more. So for violence to be OK, it has to be legal, at a minimum, which is a reasonably high bar in Western countries. In the Bible, it is made clear that governments are supposed to enforce justice, including with violence (d). It's not clear if "the sword" must extend all the way to capital punishment, but given the fact that capital punishment was prescribed in the Mosaic Law, it seems to be in the picture in some contexts. That being said, I think people can argue in good faith that modern Western countries are civilized and rich enough to afford every possible chance at rehabilitation. But to insist that capital punishment is necessarily murder is ethnocentric at best and possibly false teaching if someone claims to speak for God. As far as war, it's clearly not sinful in itself (e). Neither is being a soldier or general. Many (most?) of the judges in Judges were involved in battle in one way or another. As were Abraham and Moses. As was King David (he killed Goliath, remember?). But can countries sin by prosecuting unjust wars? Certainly. Can soldiers sin in their behavior on the battle field? I'm sure it's difficult not to. Ultimately in any behavior, violent or not, God promises rewards and punishments will be fair at the end of the day (f). Christians are supposed to live without sin, with truth, and in love. Of course they have failed and continue to fail in this. But God promises to make everything right, with his blood if necessary. And according to the Bible, it was necessary, because Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it (g). Is abortion murder? It's a sin in the cases that it's motivated by self-interest, callousness, or even fear. For a Christian that should be reason enough not to do it. What would the point be in calling it murder? To damn people? We don't have to reach far to find that we are all flawed (h). Lust, lying, hate, despising people, neglecting charity, being unforgiving, envy, greed, addiction, gossiping, cheating, consumerism, coveting... everyone does these things already. There's not much point in trying to rub peoples' noses in how they don't follow God's commandments. They either already know they're not following God or don't care (which is basically the same thing). (a) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14 (b) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13 (c) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A13-25&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A13-... (d) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13%3A4&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13%3A4&v... (e) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+3%3A1-8&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+3%... (f) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=collosians+3%3A23-25&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=collosians+3%3A... (g) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+3%3A17&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+3%3A17&ver... (h) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-30 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-...
  - ordinary 11y ago
    First of all, thank you for your contributions to this thread. They've been very interesting. I noticed a couple of points in this post that I would like some clarification on, if you have the time and inclination. Christians are supposed to submit to their government, even oppressive ones. There are quite a few references for this (b) (c). Finding more examples isn't difficult if you want more. Where does this sentiment come from, considering that Christianity was illegal in the Roman empire at the time? To an extent, I can understand requiring submission to persecution for reasons unrelated to the faith, but it seems strange to me that early Christians would be required to submit to a government that is persecuting those that attempt to obey God, for attempting to obey God. They either already know they're not following God or don't care (which is basically the same thing). Is it really impossible to be 'good' if you don't follow God, according to scripture? Is an atheist sinful by definition?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - gjm11 11y ago
      > Is an atheist sinful by definition? In typical Christian theology, everyone is sinful -- "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves", etc. As to whether not being Christian is itself a variety of sin, or makes you especially bad, or guarantees damnation rather than salvation, the tradition (even the particularly important subset of it called the Bible) is not perfectly consistent. A few examples: For": the "Letter to the Hebrews" says something like "Without believing in God it is impossible to please him". Against: one of St Paul's letters speculates that pagans' consciences will "accuse or perhaps excuse" them when they are judged. For: There's a rather nasty idea embedded in the Christian tradition, that deep down everyone knows* that God is real and is the way Christians say he is, and therefore people who aren't Christians are being dishonest with themselves. The main source for this in the Bible is early in the "Letter to the Romans" where St Paul says something along these lines: "God's anger is being revealed against people who wickedly suppress the truth. For since the creation of the world God's existence and nature have been apparent just from looking at what he made, but some people deny it." He goes on to link this with gay sex, weirdly enough. Anyway, I think most Christians have the decency not to assume that everyone who doesn't share their religion is a liar, and most of the rest have at least enough decency not to say it out loud, but the point is that if you think that everyone really knows that Christianity (or at least something like it) is right then it becomes more reasonable to think that those who reject it are doing so out of wickedness. (But unless my memory is deceiving me, which it might be, the Pauline letter speculating about pagans' consciences excusing them is in fact the same one as the one that says pagans are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Make of that what you will.) Disclaimer 1: I'm not a Christian, but I'm pretty familiar with this stuff. Disclaimer 2: Christians do not all agree about any of this, and in particular some will disagree with any given bit of the above. (Probably quite a lot will disagree either with my characterization of the thinking in Romans 1 as a "rather nasty idea" or with the idea that it's "embedded in the Christian tradition".)
Grue3 11y ago
This entire post is an amazing textbook example of "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  I actually realize things appear that way. I started discussing it but thought it would be a tangent and deleted it. First, just because there is a fallacy doesn't mean the conclusion is false. It just means that the middle part is not a strong logical argument. Second, the final judge for who receives eternal life is Christ. There is no circular reasoning as far as that goes, assuming you believe the Bible is true. To have a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you need to have moving goalposts. The goalposts on this are very clear but not very useful for several purposes. Third, some of those purposes are legitimate from a Christian, or even non-Christian, perspective. People do lie, including to themselves (cognitive dissonance, even). How do you know if your pastor or fiance believes in Christ? The Bible gives us some heuristics for determining how spiritually mature a person is. One of those is the presence and absence of certain character traits and behaviors. Humility, peace, truth, love, selflessness, and absence of sin are all part of that heuristic. And that heuristic, again, has been fixed for two thousand years. No moving goalposts, so no "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Anyway, maybe all that is not convincing to you and you still think it all adds up to a No True Scotsman fallacy. If so, maybe we should leave it at that. The labeling of the strength of argument is not very interesting to me. I do find, however, that for the intents and purposes I've experienced, looking for evidence of a Christ-like character, or at least growth towards one, has proved to be useful as long as I understand that I'm working with partial information since I'm not omniscient. But I don't really need a full set of information to know Pol Pot didn't really follow the teachings of Christ.
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  This is my least favorite logical fallacy, because it's misapplied as an argumentative shortcut in almost every case, including this one. In particular, with No True Scotsman being flung about as carelessly as it is these days, there's no way for any group to exclude certain positions or ideas as outside their own. As an example, the US Army has certain eligibility requirements regarding age, citizenship, and physical fitness. Imagine an ISIL member dresses in fatigues, goes into a shopping mall, and blows himself up. The news headlines might read "Suicide bomber was Army Soldier". Under most applications of No True Scotsman I see today, any attempt by the Army to differentiate themselves from the terrorist would be met with howls of "No True Scotsman!". Indeed, even if the terrorist was active duty Army, I believe the Army should have able to claim, "This action and these beliefs are demonstrably inconsistent with ours as a group." but that too would be met with "No True Scotsman!". It seems to me that the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning leaves mankind with no ability to organize itself in groups around certain ideas without also allowing anyone to define the group as they see fit.

notdonspaulding 11y ago

> So given all that, it's tautological from Biblical > principles that violent people are not followers of > Christ. Then, given that all wars are inherently violent, is it your opinion that all wars are unjust? Would you also consider that every human life that is ended prematurely by another "murder" (capital punishment, war, abortion)?

humanrebar 11y ago
I have opinions, of course, but I aspire to have them grounded in scripture. However, you asked, so I'll try to share my take on violence and sin. Keep in mind that I'm not an expert theologian. I'm willing to be wrong on these points if someone can show me how I'm missing some detail or theme in the teaching of the Bible. Also, since the importance of sin is in the intention behind the thoughts and actions and not in the actions themselves, it's possible for both violent and nonviolent acts to be sinful (a). To start, most forms of violence are currently illegal, and Christians are supposed to submit to their government, even oppressive ones. There are quite a few references for this (b) (c). Finding more examples isn't difficult if you want more. So for violence to be OK, it has to be legal, at a minimum, which is a reasonably high bar in Western countries. In the Bible, it is made clear that governments are supposed to enforce justice, including with violence (d). It's not clear if "the sword" must extend all the way to capital punishment, but given the fact that capital punishment was prescribed in the Mosaic Law, it seems to be in the picture in some contexts. That being said, I think people can argue in good faith that modern Western countries are civilized and rich enough to afford every possible chance at rehabilitation. But to insist that capital punishment is necessarily murder is ethnocentric at best and possibly false teaching if someone claims to speak for God. As far as war, it's clearly not sinful in itself (e). Neither is being a soldier or general. Many (most?) of the judges in Judges were involved in battle in one way or another. As were Abraham and Moses. As was King David (he killed Goliath, remember?). But can countries sin by prosecuting unjust wars? Certainly. Can soldiers sin in their behavior on the battle field? I'm sure it's difficult not to. Ultimately in any behavior, violent or not, God promises rewards and punishments will be fair at the end of the day (f). Christians are supposed to live without sin, with truth, and in love. Of course they have failed and continue to fail in this. But God promises to make everything right, with his blood if necessary. And according to the Bible, it was necessary, because Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it (g). Is abortion murder? It's a sin in the cases that it's motivated by self-interest, callousness, or even fear. For a Christian that should be reason enough not to do it. What would the point be in calling it murder? To damn people? We don't have to reach far to find that we are all flawed (h). Lust, lying, hate, despising people, neglecting charity, being unforgiving, envy, greed, addiction, gossiping, cheating, consumerism, coveting... everyone does these things already. There's not much point in trying to rub peoples' noses in how they don't follow God's commandments. They either already know they're not following God or don't care (which is basically the same thing). (a) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14 (b) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13 (c) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A13-25&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A13-... (d) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13%3A4&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13%3A4&v... (e) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+3%3A1-8&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+3%... (f) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=collosians+3%3A23-25&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=collosians+3%3A... (g) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+3%3A17&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+3%3A17&ver... (h) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-30 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-...
- ordinary 11y ago
  First of all, thank you for your contributions to this thread. They've been very interesting. I noticed a couple of points in this post that I would like some clarification on, if you have the time and inclination. Christians are supposed to submit to their government, even oppressive ones. There are quite a few references for this (b) (c). Finding more examples isn't difficult if you want more. Where does this sentiment come from, considering that Christianity was illegal in the Roman empire at the time? To an extent, I can understand requiring submission to persecution for reasons unrelated to the faith, but it seems strange to me that early Christians would be required to submit to a government that is persecuting those that attempt to obey God, for attempting to obey God. They either already know they're not following God or don't care (which is basically the same thing). Is it really impossible to be 'good' if you don't follow God, according to scripture? Is an atheist sinful by definition?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - gjm11 11y ago
    > Is an atheist sinful by definition? In typical Christian theology, everyone is sinful -- "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves", etc. As to whether not being Christian is itself a variety of sin, or makes you especially bad, or guarantees damnation rather than salvation, the tradition (even the particularly important subset of it called the Bible) is not perfectly consistent. A few examples: For": the "Letter to the Hebrews" says something like "Without believing in God it is impossible to please him". Against: one of St Paul's letters speculates that pagans' consciences will "accuse or perhaps excuse" them when they are judged. For: There's a rather nasty idea embedded in the Christian tradition, that deep down everyone knows* that God is real and is the way Christians say he is, and therefore people who aren't Christians are being dishonest with themselves. The main source for this in the Bible is early in the "Letter to the Romans" where St Paul says something along these lines: "God's anger is being revealed against people who wickedly suppress the truth. For since the creation of the world God's existence and nature have been apparent just from looking at what he made, but some people deny it." He goes on to link this with gay sex, weirdly enough. Anyway, I think most Christians have the decency not to assume that everyone who doesn't share their religion is a liar, and most of the rest have at least enough decency not to say it out loud, but the point is that if you think that everyone really knows that Christianity (or at least something like it) is right then it becomes more reasonable to think that those who reject it are doing so out of wickedness. (But unless my memory is deceiving me, which it might be, the Pauline letter speculating about pagans' consciences excusing them is in fact the same one as the one that says pagans are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Make of that what you will.) Disclaimer 1: I'm not a Christian, but I'm pretty familiar with this stuff. Disclaimer 2: Christians do not all agree about any of this, and in particular some will disagree with any given bit of the above. (Probably quite a lot will disagree either with my characterization of the thinking in Romans 1 as a "rather nasty idea" or with the idea that it's "embedded in the Christian tradition".)

Grue3 11y ago

This entire post is an amazing textbook example of "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

humanrebar 11y ago
I actually realize things appear that way. I started discussing it but thought it would be a tangent and deleted it. First, just because there is a fallacy doesn't mean the conclusion is false. It just means that the middle part is not a strong logical argument. Second, the final judge for who receives eternal life is Christ. There is no circular reasoning as far as that goes, assuming you believe the Bible is true. To have a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you need to have moving goalposts. The goalposts on this are very clear but not very useful for several purposes. Third, some of those purposes are legitimate from a Christian, or even non-Christian, perspective. People do lie, including to themselves (cognitive dissonance, even). How do you know if your pastor or fiance believes in Christ? The Bible gives us some heuristics for determining how spiritually mature a person is. One of those is the presence and absence of certain character traits and behaviors. Humility, peace, truth, love, selflessness, and absence of sin are all part of that heuristic. And that heuristic, again, has been fixed for two thousand years. No moving goalposts, so no "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Anyway, maybe all that is not convincing to you and you still think it all adds up to a No True Scotsman fallacy. If so, maybe we should leave it at that. The labeling of the strength of argument is not very interesting to me. I do find, however, that for the intents and purposes I've experienced, looking for evidence of a Christ-like character, or at least growth towards one, has proved to be useful as long as I understand that I'm working with partial information since I'm not omniscient. But I don't really need a full set of information to know Pol Pot didn't really follow the teachings of Christ.
notdonspaulding 11y ago
This is my least favorite logical fallacy, because it's misapplied as an argumentative shortcut in almost every case, including this one. In particular, with No True Scotsman being flung about as carelessly as it is these days, there's no way for any group to exclude certain positions or ideas as outside their own. As an example, the US Army has certain eligibility requirements regarding age, citizenship, and physical fitness. Imagine an ISIL member dresses in fatigues, goes into a shopping mall, and blows himself up. The news headlines might read "Suicide bomber was Army Soldier". Under most applications of No True Scotsman I see today, any attempt by the Army to differentiate themselves from the terrorist would be met with howls of "No True Scotsman!". Indeed, even if the terrorist was active duty Army, I believe the Army should have able to claim, "This action and these beliefs are demonstrably inconsistent with ours as a group." but that too would be met with "No True Scotsman!". It seems to me that the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning leaves mankind with no ability to organize itself in groups around certain ideas without also allowing anyone to define the group as they see fit.