Sophistry, coach, pure sophistry.

Like any talented politician, you neatly sidestep the core issue by pretending that you have solved the dichotomy, when in fact all you have done is to restate it...

>>I will attempt to answer your misconceptions of “sin”<<

Well, as an opening gambit, not too bad. You posit that I am somehow mistaken about the nature of sin. However, nothing you then put forward supports this position - in fact, everything you say emphasises the fact that I have the concept of sin nailed:

>>Atrocities are but the result of sin.<<

Yep, happy with that.

>>All Christians are sinners<<

Er... that was exactly my point.

>>As Christians we are commended to love our enemies – not kill them<<

Agreed. But they do, don't they?

>>atrocities in the name of Christ cannot be classified as Christian behaviour<<

Hang on a second. That was my point too, wasn't it? That was the reason I put that story in about the pre-battle speech from the padre.

Let us see if we can follow your thought processes.

Atrocities are the result of sinning. All Christians are sinners.

But Christians who kill are by definition, sinners (which all Christians are), but also, according to you, by definition not Christians.

There is a logical fallacy right there

You can apparently only be a Christian if you are a sinner, but if you sin, you cannot be a Christian.

I suggest that I am not the only one around here with “misconceptions”.

And while I am here... numbat, I have to warn you that Boaz is going to be very, very cross with you.

Your entire argument seems to rest on the proposition that “we may be bad, but we're not as bad as they are.”

Boaz will tell you – any minute now – that you have fallen into the post-modern trap of relativism, and you must therefore be “making it up as you go along”.

Shame on you.

This thread has really degenerated into nonsense.

with notable exceptions:

Wobbles - for your honesty
R0bert - for your common sense
Aziliz - for your most recent post - I wish I'd written that one!

Pericles - why are you trying to reason with the likes of Coach & Numbat? You know they are only interested in promoting Muslim stereotypes and flogging the rest of us with their warped version of christianity. Calling on Boaz to support you will prove to be rather like waiting for Godot.

Coach:"The real lesson here is you shouldn't always believe opinions even when they're disguised as facts"

Be careful coach--yes--there are many wild statements around claiming unsubstantiated facts--but also many people dedicated to finding the truth without 'fear or favour' who've brought to us highly accurate information. Archaeology and translations of numerous ancient texts shouldn't be dismissed flippantly.

Some Christians on this list reject knowledge, facts and opinion--even their own bible--claiming believing in God is enough--they invent their own God pushing their opinions disguised as the word of God to make them unassailable--the isolated and frail opinion of one human being who won't listen or learn from others.

Zero--I've heard many times zero was developed by muslims and have erroneously said so myself. But:

http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/biograph/biozero.htm

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Zero.html

Zero as a place holder in a numbering system was developed by Babylonians and later used by Greeks(only by a handful of astronomers, it didn't get established). Zero as an individual number was first used by the Hindus. The Moslems took the concept from the Hindus and brought it to the west where, at that time, there was no zero.

But if one culture adopts a cultural advance then transmits it to another for their enlightenment, that's still worthy of note--and appreciation.

Pig praises Greek advances but the Greek language, although Indo-European, has a high use of semitic words from a very ancient influence. The latest theory is the 'Greek' Ionians were the 'Luwian' culture, which lived in Turkey. Related to the Hittites and living adjacent to them--when the Hittite Empire collapsedthey took over. Its well-attested in ancient documents Ionians lived on the mainland of Asia Minor, the Pelopponese and Greece.

The Greeks were in a postion to learn from the Middle East, that great melting pot of cultures where the trade routes from three continents crossed--fertile ground for innovation.

SBS last night had a documentary where the DNA of bones of ancient Canaanites were compared with Jewish and Arabic--they're related. They should be proud of it instead of calling the Canaanites evil.

Oh! scout: You ask of pericles 'why are you trying to reason with numbat and coach' As if we were/are unreasonable. Maybe you are hearing the provable truth and maybe it is making you somewhat uncomfortable.
It's not 19 plus Baptists being held in custody in Melbourne on terrorist charges.
It's not the Christian Bible which has enshrined LYING to non-Christians.
It's not the Presbyterians who send their children of as cowardly, incredibly stupid suicide bombers.
It's not the Methodists who detonate car bombs amongst their own.
It's not United Church members who take hostages and while these hostages are held in restraint and outnumbered saw their heads off - so bloody brave! eh?.
It's not the Seventh Day Adventists who callously murder their female relatives and sickenly called this murdering "honour?" killing.
It wasn't Anglicans who attacked, making sure they outnumbered them first, volunteer life savers.
It's not COG members who go out to rape middle eatern women because these woman are middle eastern only.
It's not because of Christian, buddhist, hindu or even atheist beliefs and probable actions that this nation now has anti-terrorist laws. scout maybe you should cease taking your pills for a while. numbat

Pericles,

"Simplicity is the ultimate design” I think that was one of Mercedes campaign slogan a few years back…

I confused you more by trying to simplify. I was not evading the issue at all. Sorry if I gave you that impression.

"Sin” is such a core theological concept and a corner stone in Christendom. Explaining it in this monologue fashion here on olo is hard.

To compile to the problem is our separate terms of reference to "sin" as a believer and a non-believer (in God). This could really cloud communication - plus I am not a theologian.

But here goes.

"SIN - Take 2":

There is SIN (singular) and SINS (plural) - two different things:

The singular "SIN" as a theological term means alienation or separation from God, His will and His plans for our individual lives. It is a state of disobedience/ a rebellious phase, but not the "behaviour" (action of commiting sins).

Man is born in that state of “SIN” because of Adam & Eve' rebellion against God. Thus, as their descendants, we are all in SIN at birth - also called 'the original sin'.

Being born in that state of separation from God predisposes all of us to commit "SINS" plural – which is the familiar understanding of disobedience of the 10 commandments (stealing, adultery, etc…)

So everyone commits SINS. Christians are not any different. It is human, no exception. Being “good” is a false expectation often imposed on Christians.

The only way we can be reconcilled to God, and enjoy a full relationship with Him again, is if we were perfect and SIN-less (God's standards). A pure impossibility – left to our own devise.

But God by His Grace extends His Pardon through His Son Jesus - who is blameless - and the only way back to eternal life.

Without Jesus there is no life. He is our saviour.

This is why we are so glad to be born again in Jesus. He died a horrible death taking the full punishment for us all. Forgiving the “SINS” of humanity and abolishing “SIN” forever.

I'll accept for the moment that you have nailed the definition of sin and sins, coach. But let me see if I also understand it in the broader context of life - i.e. as an outsider looking in, rather than your position as an insider looking... er, in.

Let me take again this image of the regimental padre addressing the troops before a battle - let's imagine it to be one of the more futile efforts, say, Ypres or Mons, or the "big push" on the Somme.

Our padre has a difficult task. His job is spiritual nourishment - there would have been a preponderance of churchgoers back then - to reassure the troops that they were "on a mission from God", so to speak. On the other hand, he has Boaz's rule book, that says quite specifically, thou shalt not kill.

Who is the sinner in this little scenario, if any?

Let's assume the chaps now go over the top and kill a couple of the enemy before they themselves are blown to smithereens.

Who has sinned in this picture, and what might their punishment be?

Let us also take a peek over the trenches to the other side. What do we find... oh, look, a German padre, giving the same pep-talk to those fellows in the spiky helmets. They are about to perform a mirror image of the first scene.

Leaving aside the foot soldiers for the moment, what is the theological position of the padres here? Have they sinned? What will be their punishment if they have? Will their sins be expunged next time they go to church - a luxury not extended to many of those to whom they gave spiritual comfort before the battle?

It would be nice - but unlikely, I know - if you could abandon the speech-book for a moment, eschew the cut-and-paste job from the "how to baffle a non-believer with jargon" web site, and simply answer, as a member of the human race, some straightforward questions.

I know they are difficult questions, but that doesn't excuse you from answering them.