If neither the blind boy nor his parents sinned, why did Jesus have to come?

[median]

Address the passage or piss off. We know how you feel about the bible generally. But a specific passge is being discussed here.

You aren't my dictator. So stop attempting to tell me what to do. And while you're at it get off your f***ing high horse.

[Jag]

Tiptoes in, ducks to avoid object being hurled through the thread.....

I really don't want to get caught up in the duke-it-out fest you two are enjoying but this caught my eye:

Jesus states or implies that SIN is the CAUSE of illness,is that yes or no?

Not in that specific passage he doesn't, but illness is caused by sin, ultimately. That is correct.

Just to be sure I understand you correctly - are you stating that illness IS, in fact, caused by sin? Or perhaps more broadly, illness is one consequence of man's "sinful nature" as opposed to an individual's (or it's parents, and this is starting to get muddled already) specific sins?

If I'm saying this badly, or misunderstanding what you meant, could you clarify please? I'll wait till you guys are done flinging poo if necessary.

[magicmiles]

Tiptoes in, ducks to avoid object being hurled through the thread.....

I really don't want to get caught up in the duke-it-out fest you two are enjoying but this caught my eye:

Jesus states or implies that SIN is the CAUSE of illness,is that yes or no?

Not in that specific passage he doesn't, but illness is caused by sin, ultimately. That is correct.

Just to be sure I understand you correctly - are you stating that illness IS, in fact, caused by sin? Or perhaps more broadly, illness is one consequence of man's "sinful nature" as opposed to an individual's (or it's parents, and this is starting to get muddled already) specific sins?

If I'm saying this badly, or misunderstanding what you meant, could you clarify please? I'll wait till you guys are done flinging poo if necessary.

The bolded.

[Don_Quixote]

I'd like to see how illness is caused by "sinful nature". This should be fun

[nogodsforme]

In other words, because human beings sin generally, people get sick individually.

Plus, human sin hurts plants and animals, evidently.   If I tell a lie, some coral in the South Pacific is destroyed by sewage from a cruise ship, and a grey egret chokes on a plastic bag and dies. Whew! Human sin is pretty damn powerful.

[Jag]

Thanks for clarifying mm.

Believe it or not, I think I understand what you mean. I don't agree, but I think I can see why this is your answer/belief.

Well, to a point I can - but this looks likely to remain one thing among many that I'll never really understand about the way theists think.

[magicmiles]

In other words, because human beings sin generally, people get sick individually.

Its more that because sin entered the world, the world is now subject to death and disease.

Plus, human sin hurts plants and animals, evidently.   If I tell a lie, some coral in the South Pacific is destroyed by sewage from a cruise ship, and a grey egret chokes on a plastic bag and dies. Whew! Human sin is pretty damn powerful.

Not exactly like that, but human sin certainly does have a very powerful effect. Even if you don't call it sin and call it 'wrongdoing', it is clear that a lot of pain and suffering is caused by human action or inaction. Not all, but a lot.

[jdawg70]

Its more that because sin entered the world, the world is now subject to death and disease.

I suspect it's just a semantics thing, but I may as well ask:
From where did sin enter the world?

[magicmiles]

Its more that because sin entered the world, the world is now subject to death and disease.

I suspect it's just a semantics thing, but I may as well ask:
From where did sin enter the world?

Adam and Eve.

[jdawg70]

I suspect it's just a semantics thing, but I may as well ask:
From where did sin enter the world?

Adam and Eve.

Would it be fair to say, then, that Adam and Eve created sin?

[Jag]

Please don't start channeling skepdude mm. You seem to be trying to have it both ways - the bible IS NOT literal truth (you stated elsewhere that the A&E story may have errors due to the question of Cain's wife and the curse that clearly wasn't - you skated past that altogether, don't think I didn't notice), but it IS literal truth (when it comes to A&E being blamed for sin).

The day you can provide a coherent explanation for a triune god, and how it works, I promise to convert on the spot. And fair warning in advance - "You must have faith" or "it's a mystery" are not answers, they're simply ways of avoiding answering a question that can't be answered but christians must believe.

[magicmiles]

I suspect it's just a semantics thing, but I may as well ask:
From where did sin enter the world?

Adam and Eve.

Would it be fair to say, then, that Adam and Eve created sin?

No. The potential to sin pre-dated them. Sin is simply rebellion against God. Adam and Eve were the first to do that.

[magicmiles]

You seem to be trying to have it both ways - the bible IS NOT literal truth (you stated elsewhere that the A&E story may have errors due to the question of Cain's wife and the curse that clearly wasn't - you skated past that altogether, don't think I didn't notice), but it IS literal truth (when it comes to A&E being blamed for sin).

I didn't state that the Adam and Eve story may have errors. I said that the story is not necessarily recorded chronologically, and it is possible when we read the bible we make some assumptions that are incorrect, assumptions to do with exactly how much time may have elapsed between events.

[jdawg70]

No. The potential to sin pre-dated them. Sin is simply rebellion against God. Adam and Eve were the first to do that.

That doesn't sound right - didn't Lucifer and like 1/3 of the angels rebel against god prior to Adam and Eve's existence?

[Jag]

You seem to be trying to have it both ways - the bible IS NOT literal truth (you stated elsewhere that the A&E story may have errors due to the question of Cain's wife and the curse that clearly wasn't - you skated past that altogether, don't think I didn't notice), but it IS literal truth (when it comes to A&E being blamed for sin).

I didn't state that the Adam and Eve story may have errors. I said that the story is not necessarily recorded chronologically, and it is possible when we read the bible we make some assumptions that are incorrect, assumptions to do with exactly how much time may have elapsed between events.

Am I to understand that you ARE a bible literalist?

[magicmiles]

No. The potential to sin pre-dated them. Sin is simply rebellion against God. Adam and Eve were the first to do that.

That doesn't sound right - didn't Lucifer and like 1/3 of the angels rebel against god prior to Adam and Eve's existence?

Yes. But we're talking about the world we inhabit, and humanity.

[magicmiles]

Am I to understand that you ARE a bible literalist?

Pretty much. I thought that was pretty clear.

That doesn't mean I abandon the rules of context, and it doesn't mean I ignore the various literary devices used throughout the bible.

The parts of the bible which I believe are meant to be taken literally, I believe.

[12 Monkeys]

It is so frustrating having discussions like this with Christians b/c it is so easy for them to make-up their own theology to avoid refutation. It's very easy to spin, rationalize, ignore, toss-away, or forget about clear contradictions and irrational beliefs when those beliefs are based upon non-demonstrable, invisible, non-verifiable, alleged 'supernatural' stuff. This is especially frustrating with Christians because they practice confirmation bias (having started with their conclusion first and trying to work backwards). Nearly every religion does this. The tactics are very much the same with nearly all people of this kind (i.e. - the practicers of superstition).

Yeah, whatever. Do you have this post saved somwhere and just paste it in every few days?

How about you address the passage being discussed and show that I am wrong, if that is what you think?

That bold part is the main reason why I am not inclined at this time. You clearly have done exactly what I stated (started with your conclusion, are working backwards towards confirmation, and refuse to view the bible in any other mind-frame than "the infallible Word of God"). This is, by definition, intellectual dishonesty. It shows that you don't care whether or not your beliefs are actually true. You just want to keep believing and confirming/defending. That is the height of hubris. If a Muslim practiced this toward you, how would you feel about it?

Address the passage or piss off. We know how you feel about the bible generally. But a specific passge is being discussed here.

Go crawl back under the rock in the desert where you came from,you hardly addressed any of my points,but with a simple sentence.You have called people on this forum lazy and stupid,yet you hardly detail a response as to how or why you come to the conclusions you arrive at. Care to explain your simple answers in detail?

[12 Monkeys]

Thanks for clarifying mm.

Believe it or not, I think I understand what you mean. I don't agree, but I think I can see why this is your answer/belief.

Well, to a point I can - but this looks likely to remain one thing among many that I'll never really understand about the way theists think.

What you fail to understand is that it does not matter who sins or how many times they sin,Jesus paid in full for any and all sin,this eliminates illness caused by sin or Jesus has failed to absolve mankind of the PENALTIES of sin with his sacrifice.

[Jag]

Am I to understand that you ARE a bible literalist?

Pretty much. I thought that was pretty clear.

It may have been, and I overlooked it somewhere along the line.

That doesn't mean I abandon the rules of context, and it doesn't mean I ignore the various literary devices used throughout the bible.

Ah yes, this again. Context and subjectivity play a role, but it's still literal truth.

The parts of the bible which I believe are meant to be taken literally, I believe.

How can you tell which parts are meant to be taken literally, and which are not? You personally, not christians in general - how do YOU decide which parts are supposed to be taken literally and which are not? And how do you reconcile the parts which (if I understand the reply from you earlier) do not make sense if you read what the words say in context? Do you seriously just hand wave them away and call it an error of editing?

Example - Cain was cursed by God Himself, and in spite of that, ended up having what reads like a pretty frickin' good life - he got married (so far, I'm not buying the sister for a wife bs precisely because that is NOT what the bible says), had a son, and built a city. Are you sticking to skep's answer that he married and procreated with his sister, even though the bible describes the order of events in a way that makes that IMPOSSIBLE?
****************************************
I've got to bail on this topic to go take a biology final, be back to follow up later. Next semester I'm taking a class exclusively on human origins, you might want to read up a bit cause I'm betting I'll have a LOT of questions for theists after the semester break. Actually, I've been meaning to make this point to you for a while - I haven't been in a science classroom in almost 30 years and had to learn a shit load of new information that has been figured out since my last formal science education in order to be successful in this class. Part of what often gets theists with a normal education in trouble related to science is failure to keep up on new information. skep is a prime example - he doesn't even remotely understand the science he's trying to argue against.

[12 Monkeys]

@magicmiles

I am afraid your answer does not suffice as to the blind kids circumstances. It is inferred that sin causes blindness, not a sin in particular. Theyre not asking how it happened. Its clear to Jesus that sin in and of itself causes blindness. Now when Jesus states neither the child nor the parents sinned he again did not reference any sin in particular, only sin in general. The three of them, according to Jesus, were sinless and thus candidates for the crucifixion and saving us all.

You are quite simply wrong about this. The disciples quite plainly asked Jesus whether the blind man or his parents caused the blindeness through their sin. Jesus responded in that context. He said that the specific sins of none of them had directly caused the blindness.

All sickness and imperfection is due to the world we live in being corrupted with sin, from the very beginning till now. In that sense, the mans blindness is a result of sin. But Jesus is saying that the man wasn't struck blind becauuse of some specific sin committed.

He actually goes on to show that God can work all things to His purposes, by restoring the mans sight.

The world of the Christian should be exempt from this corruption,for even if you sin,though not right  ,it is forgiven,by the sacrifice. At the very least no illness should befall a Christian,because the sins they commit are paid for by Jesus. If the sin is paid for and sin causes illness,does the cancer stricken Christian  not believe properly? or is Sin not really paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus?

 The only way the Christian can get cancer is if he really is not a Christian. If he is truly a Christian the sins that he commits should not result in illness. Do you believe that the sins of non-Christians can make the Christian ill? if yes please explain

[Jag]

Thanks for clarifying mm.

Believe it or not, I think I understand what you mean. I don't agree, but I think I can see why this is your answer/belief.

Well, to a point I can - but this looks likely to remain one thing among many that I'll never really understand about the way theists think.

What you fail to understand is that it does not matter who sins or how many times they sin,Jesus paid in full for any and all sin,this eliminates illness caused by sin or Jesus has failed to absolve mankind of the PENALTIES of sin with his sacrifice.

Are you talking to me? Because as I understand it, the whole thing is nonsense from beginning to end.

[12 Monkeys]

^^ indirectly,sorry Jag

[MadBunny]

Good thing there was that big flood to wipe out all that sin stuff before Jesus came along.  That really worked out well.

The problem of course is that apparently sin is supposed to be hereditary, and if it all comes from Adam and Eve there is no such thing as a sin-less person.  Incidentally this would have to include Jesus since he was half human.

What would that look like anyway?


On that note what was the whole point of Jesus' sacrifice again?  Ask one person and it's that he erased all the sin of mankind, ask another and apparently it's... nothing, or maybe a discount rate to get into heaven which apparently didn't happen till he came around.

Either Jesus 'paid the price' of sin meaning essentially a clean slate or he didn't.  As I've stated elsewhere at BEST the sacrifice of Jesus could be seen as the ultimate scapegoat[1]

1.	The ritual sacrifice of a goat that has been loaded up with sin, thus leaving the sacrificer clean.

[shnozzola]

Its more that because sin entered the world, the world is now subject to death and disease.

I suspect it's just a semantics thing, but I may as well ask:
From where did sin enter the world?

Adam and Eve.

MM,
    I can understand the idea of "sin" as, say, a life of lies and criminal activity, and how that makes a person's life tough.
   

This from wiki"
Sin has also been categorized as an inevitable act that was passed down from generation to generation by the common ancestor, Adam. Like a disease, sin was said to poison the heart of every human thereafter. A controversial belief is that every person is completely full of sin and can't help to think and act on it, but only disguise it.

Is this ^ what you believe about sin?

From New Living Translation:
Matthew 18:6
But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.

I've always interpretted these ^ words to mean - if a parent raises a child that ends up being a criminal, the wrenching heartache that parent will feel is worse than drowning with a millstone around their neck.

But I look at this passed down generation to generation sin idea as the same sort of millstone.

Can't you look at these beliefs objectively ( from outside your beliefs) and realize what a bunch of sad baggage this adds to the lives of children, to the lives of the religious?  We are so fortunate to experience consciousness just as a part of the  universe, but this idea of suffering from Adam's sin, what a convoluted teaching that destroys the human experience.

edit: fixed unclear

[magicmiles]

The world of the Christian should be exempt from this corruption,for even if you sin,though not right  ,it is forgiven,by the sacrifice. At the very least no illness should befall a Christian,because the sins they commit are paid for by Jesus. If the sin is paid for and sin causes illness,does the cancer stricken Christian  not believe properly? or is Sin not really paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus?

 The only way the Christian can get cancer is if he really is not a Christian. If he is truly a Christian the sins that he commits should not result in illness. Do you believe that the sins of non-Christians can make the Christian ill? if yes please explain

I have explained to you the Christian theology on this matter. The assertions you make are incorrect from a theological perspective.  If you believe differently, so be it.

[12 Monkeys]

The world of the Christian should be exempt from this corruption,for even if you sin,though not right  ,it is forgiven,by the sacrifice. At the very least no illness should befall a Christian,because the sins they commit are paid for by Jesus. If the sin is paid for and sin causes illness,does the cancer stricken Christian  not believe properly? or is Sin not really paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus?

 The only way the Christian can get cancer is if he really is not a Christian. If he is truly a Christian the sins that he commits should not result in illness. Do you believe that the sins of non-Christians can make the Christian ill? if yes please explain

I have explained to you the Christian theology on this matter. The assertions you make are incorrect from a theological perspective.  If you believe differently, so be it.

explained where,,,in one sentence answers?

[magicmiles]

   

This from wiki"
Sin has also been categorized as an inevitable act that was passed down from generation to generation by the common ancestor, Adam. Like a disease, sin was said to poison the heart of every human thereafter. A controversial belief is that every person is completely full of sin and can't help to think and act on it, but only disguise it.

Is this ^ what you believe about sin?

Yes.

From New Living Translation:
Matthew 18:6
But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.

I've always interpretted these ^ words to mean - if a parent raises a child that ends up being a criminal, the wrenching heartache that parent will feel is worse than drowning with a millstone around their neck.

But I look at this passed down generation to generation sin idea as the same sort of millstone.

I see these words of Jesus as a warning about how seriously He sees any attempt to have those who trust in Him turn from their faith, particularly those who may be vulnerable.

Can't you look at these beliefs objectively ( from outside your beliefs) and realize what a bunch of sad baggage this adds to the lives of children, to the lives of the religious?

I fail to see how it adds anything negative that isn't already there. The effects of our wrong-doing are obvious. Death is apparent, sad and inevitable. I can;t know what I know, and pretend things will be OK in the end if you 'just do your best and live a good life' when that is not the case. Our best is not enough. That in itself would be incredibly awful to know, if not for the rest of the message: Jesus best was good enough.

[12 Monkeys]

Sin causes disease in your opinion MM? Did Jesus pay the price for all sin MM? Can sin(paid in full by Jesus' sacrifice)still cause illness,if so how?

 Statistics will catch up to you MM and eventually a Christian you know or have known(maybe already passed) will get cancer and die. If Jesus paid for the sins of that person with his sacrifice,and sin results in sickness,how did the sacrifice of Jesus not keep that person healthy?

 Sin if paid for can't cause illness,can it?