No, I’m not responding to your erroneous and uninformed claims.
Actually you don’t – you present your own opinion that you have forced onto the scriptures.
Since you reject actually addressing the scriptures, any presentation of a part of scripture will fall on deaf ears.
But if you want a reference, try Exodus 20:16.
One that happens every year on the same night is shooting into the air with firearms, not thinking that “what goes up must come down”. I think every year since the Civil War someone in the U.S. has been injured by a bullet returning to the ground (happily, they don’t come down as hard as they went up, though I can recall several years when there was at least one fatal impact), which is not only sad but stupid since the NRA, GOA, SAF, and JPFO – and probably other organizations – plus sheriff’s departments across the nation remind people every year in the last days of the year not to shoot live ammo up in the air.
There are enough reminders that “they are without excuse”, which makes it not only a sin against society but a willing sin.
“without God there is no sin”. I agree
Richard, your comment about me being a god and above the Christian god is silly. Remember, I’m and atheist, so of course I don’t agree with you. It seems nonproductive to impose your religious interpretation on me, but it doesn’t affect me either way. Maybe it helps you categorize people, something we all do in all contexts, so that’s fine.
Dale, I don’t think reckless driving is a sin. It’s just a mistake.
If someone is driving recklessly in a residential or school zone and maims or kills a child, are the parents going to accept “Oops, I made a mistake”? The offender has sinned against the child and the parents.
Not really. Do you have anyoe else to guide you?
I am not imposing anything. If you wish to discuss religion and God then yu have to accpe tthe terminology involved just as you would discussing science with a scientist.
But I beleive that God exists…
Richard
The idea of Truth in this context has been corrupted by a form of so-called “literalism” accompanied by rhetoric pushing the believer to accept an interpretation at odds with truth in the name of “biblical inerrancy” which takes certain words literally and not others.
And then on the other side one finds no shortage of those pushing biblical “errancy”.
I will ignore the latter.
In regards to Noah, I just explained this to my wife the other day as she had the same question.
So let’s get right to it. We are not bound to interpret terms like “the whole earth” to mean the globe. But rather all the earth that Noah was aware of. Noah wrote the book, or his sons did. How was he to know if mount Everest was underwater?
And more importantly why would you define the “whole earth” as “the Globe” if no one was living on mount Everest at the time.
The important detail is that the humans of the day were nearly wiped out, along with their livestock (which they had been working so hard to domesticate)
Importantly genetics has shown that at one point the human population which had been formerly larger was reduced to around 50 people.
This coupled with the prevalence of flood myths in essentially all cultures gives a strong case that what was described in the Bible is true.
Noah had no conception of a Globe. You must consider that if he looked around and saw no land then he would consider that the entire world was flooded.
And for all human intents and purposes, it was. All who didn’t enter the ark were washed away.
Why should this not be considered a “literal” reading?
It is merely rhetoric that demands words be understood to mean what they mean in a modern science-based context.
Even numbers need to be considered not only as literal numbers but as words having a literal meaning in the ancient understanding.
For this example, 40 days is a symbolic number that means “a time of testing”. Trying to apply our modern scientific precision of 40 days = the entire globe was covered in water for 3456000 seconds is so badly conceived as to be deliberately factitious, for if it was but one second more or less one might claim the Bible to be inaccurate.
Yet the Bible is recording a near extinction event in our human past that was only myth to be taken on faith until genetics now suggests that it indeed happened.
We don’t really know many details with certianty, but we can be patient and study the past and have faith the Bible will be vindicated in the end.
Given ancient cultures tended to live near rivers is it any surprise they all had experienced floods at some point in their past?
Of course others guide me.
I understand most of the terms Christians use.
You believe in sin. I don’t.
There are honest mistakes like in doing arithmetic, and then there is another kind. Reckless driving is not an honest mistake. When a politician caught in adultery says “I made a mistake”, neither is that an honest mistake. “Oops, I’m sorry” doesn’t cut it.
But, Dale, that doesn’t mean reckless driving is a sin, it’s just high on the bad spectrum
Sin is just a label for being guilty of offense regardless of whom is offended, a label which most people recognize in common parlance. You may exclude yourself, but English is your first language, right? 
Do you allow yourself to use the word and concept of guilt?
Hmm,
I think you might have trouble defining sin in such a manner.
Strictly speaking, yes it does. That is what repentance is about, assuming it is genuine and not a knee-jerk reaction, you know like barging your way through a crowd shouting
“Sorry, coming through”.
Richard
The smallest number I can find for a genetic bottleneck is about 1200 people; that was about 750k years ago. More recently – 70k years ago – the population crunched down to maybe 7k.
All that the prevalence of flood myths tells us is that humans have tended to live along rivers, and rivers can have very large floods. It’s the presence of quite similar stories in the ancient near east that suggests a common core of truth.
I’d add the word “lazy” in front of “rhetoric”.
IIRC all the numbers in the flood description are symbolic.
That says you don’t believe that people never live up to the highest standards – that’s all that sin is.
You dilute the the religious origin of the concept of sin by calling it “common parlance”. Among your religious pals, of course it is, but the world is big.
I’m offended that you think English may not be my first language. You do so because of my surname. I write and speak English very well. Should I question you because the name “Dale” originates in northern England?
You ask about guilt. Guilt is a reaction to a previous decision. Subsequent, post-decision information reveals that the decider wishes s/he had not chosen that particular course of action.
Maybe I get where you’re coming from, sin-wise.
You believe in sin. Sinners feel guilt for their failure to live up to your god’s standards. The sinner has failed and is vulnerable and contrite, moping about his waddle and daub hut. In comes the priest to coerce him to a lifetime of subservience to god and earthly religious administrative oversight in exchange for the promise that his sins will be redacted in the future and he will cuddle with a blanket and a puppy for eternity.
Oh, sorry! Not at all! I was just teasing because in my experience it is easily used in nonreligious contexts. Maybe it’s because my experience includes more years? (I’m an old man, three score and fifteen. I won’t ask how old you are. ; - )
I certainly grant that it had a religious origin, but as above, it is so easily used in a secular context I think your accusation of me diluting it is misplaced and exaggerated.
That is a silly caricature that has nothing to do with me and my experience with the God who is and his actions into my life. It also doesn’t help me to take you seriously!
Yeah, dang. I was snarky with the puppy line. I’ll do better because on this forum, among scholars, snark and venom don’t add much.
(I wouldn’t be considered a scholar exactly, but I hope I make sense most of the time. ; - )
What do you mean with the word “bad” in this context? Do you think, there is such a thing as “evil”?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.