The Misunderstood and Mistranslated Bible

[albeto.]

Under what definition of fact can "sin" be considered to fit?

Well it can't. It's not a fact, thus the quotation marks around the word.

 

You suggested that "sin," as used in my earlier post, is used as an organizing concept rather than a supernaturally revealed "fact." If it's used as an organizing concept, then its accuracy as an explanation is assumed. If "sin" is a thing that is real, then it can be used to organize other things, concepts, ideas. Does that make sense?

 

"Sloth is a sin" is a fact. (Could be true or false, but is a statement of fact.) "Sin" isn't. It's a concept.

"Sloth is a sin" is a claim. The claim may be factual or not. "The concept of sin accurately explains human behavior" is a fundamental claim that is implied when people refer to sin.

 

Edit: to put that in a way more applicable to the conversation, it is possible to use the concept of sin to think/talk about human behavior without assuming any supernaturally revealed facts about the natural world.

In the Abrahamic religions, sin is understood to be a violation of God's will in some way (details may vary). As such, when used in context with Abrahamic religious concepts and claims (sloth is a sin), it refers to the supernatural God, the one whose will has been violated in some way. Unless, are you referring to words and concepts that have been borrowed but not used in a religious context?

[albeto.]

No, I am refusing to rule out as non-religious people who declare themselves to be members of the Abrahamic religions but do not look for supernatural explanations. It's the other side of the "no true Scotsman" dilemma.

 

More directly, I'm asking you to reconsider your use of the term "religious methodology" because I think it's flawed. Religious people have as much epistemological variety as non-religious people.

 

I think I understand your point now. I didn't consider the community of non-religious people who are members of the Abrahamic religions. I was limiting my argument to religious thinking.

 

Your point is taken. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

[Heidi]

.

 

 

[Teannika]

That's one of the reasons I like conversing with you. There's no assumption of a hidden message through tone (mockery or ridicule, for example). I don't get the impression you're trying to be a "smarty pants," but rather that you're trying to communicate a particular idea. You say what you mean, and you keep it on topic. If I come across as mocking you, please know it's not my intent. I too try to just "get straight to the point."

 

Thankyou for saying so. Yes, there's no ill intent my end.. (I'm pretty easy going in real life (if I can say that about myself ha :laugh: ), don't like upsetting people or fighting...) Actually I do try to communicate carefully online as much as possible, especially in these types of more serious conversations.

 

There's also the part of me that likes to get somewhere at the same time too, so that some meatier discussions can be had, so I will take a few risks in what I share, knowing it won't be popular. I think you do the same thing too Albeto..

 

Anyway, I wasn't well after my last post on here yesterday, so I didn't come back on and fell behind on the discussion. Kinda lost my focus on it now..

[Teannika]

See, though -- this just goes to prove my point.  Even this reply is opinion not fact. You're bringing your definition and understanding into it and making it the foundation, but that doesn't mean it's the only, right one. It's foundational for your thought/interpretation/understanding. But that's just it ... it's yours; other people have different opinions/thoughts/understandings that form the foundation of their beliefs about what it means to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I don't think there are "two forms" of believing in the written words of God even though you do. I think the written word is secondary to the divine Word of God (the living Jesus) and the Church through whom He is now presented to the world (His "Body"). You don't have to agree with me, that's fine.  I accept that you see it differently through the lens you use and that you're wholehearted and sincere and that according to what you believe, what you're saying makes sense for you. What I wholeheartedly believe (described above) creates the foundation of my faith and I believe it to be true (and believe there's more historical, spiritual and Scriptural backing for approaching it this way rather than the way you describe). We can't both be right, but we can both accept that what each of us believes is based on a chosen perspective/interpretation.  

 

Anyway, peace to you, peace to all. 

 

I absolutely agree with the bolded. :thumbup:  I have no problem with others having their own convictions, and basing it on what they have learned and the conclusions they come to.

 

Regarding the word of God, I really only thought (when I was typing it) that there were those two options when it comes to believing what the bible is from a Christian viewpoint. What I was highlighting is that before you can even discuss interpretation, it must be understood what the individual Christians involved actually believe the bible is. Ie God's words, or man's words. Maybe an inbetween view could be that they were God's words, but are now man's words as they have come down to us through time.

 

 

"there are "two forms" of believing in the written words of God"

 

 

 

Apologies if I wasn't clear, but I wasn't really talking of believing in the written words, but of the understanding of what the bible is. For example, a bible translator may believe that they are translating God's own words, what God actually said. Or, a bible translator may believe that they are translating what a man wrote down on behalf of God to record beliefs and events.  Again, I'm bringing it down to two options. But I'd welcome other options if you would like to provide them.

[Teannika]

 

 

 

 

What Joanne said.

 

As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I've actually been moving closer toward Christianity in the last few years. But posts like the ones Teannika has shared here make me feel I'm moving in the wrong direction.

 

If, as she says, there's only one "right" way to read and understand the bible and that way is the one she describes, then it's clear I'm not welcome in that club.

 

I guess I really didn't understand the whole thing, after all.

 

 

Why would you want to be in a club? Wouldn't your main goal be to find the truth for yourself? My advice would be that you seek out truth for yourself so that you can come to peace and find your place, it's between you and God. I'm an outsider and not relevant to the equation.

 

In regards to the "one right way", that is my personal conviction of what the bible tells me, for salvation, and for how to read his word so that I don't become confused. To me this makes sense that God has only one way, not many. Scripture calls it the narrow way. I believe it is God's wisdom by design, to protect me from going down multiple wrong paths.

 

Personally, I left my church to find truth. I was so lost and hurt when I was attending because nothing seemed to add up and make sense. And people fail you. God doesn't do that. Please don't let me be a cause for discouragement. I only hope to share things that I learned in my spiritual journey in case it helps someone else. If it doesn't, then they are well and truly free to reject it as false, no pressure from me.