Is mental illness always related to sin?

Allah: The Concealer of Sins [Featuring Sheikh Assim al-Hakeem]

How Can There Be Real Love in Heaven Without the Possibility of Sin?

Porn & Free Will @The Provisionist Perspective

I just can't agree with Leighton Flower's idea that human inability to be sinless means that we are not responsible for our sins but makes God responsible. This is why he says he rejects Calvinism. The problem is that scripture does not teach that God pre-ordains our sins. Dr Flowers is right about that but I do not think that Calvinists like James White and John McArthur are saying or implying what Flowers says they are. 

God clearly does not ordain our sins or causes us to sin or pushes us to do or be evil.

13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. 

-  James 1: 13-15

However God does ordain our good and righteous deeds. You cannot prepare something without also ordaining it as well. 

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. - Ephesians 2: 8 - 10

We can argue and debate about the origin of evil, but one thing that is completely beyond question: God is not the source of our evil or our sins. 

How Did the Fall Affect Humanity?

Dead like Lazarus or the Prodigal?

I have noticed several videos from Leighton Flowers in which he concisely explains why he believes Calvinism is wrong regarding specific scripture passages and arguments. In this video he, tackled the argument many Calvinists favor in that many use the story of God raising Lazarus from the dead ((John 11) as a picture of how people are dead to the things of God and unable to respond to God's offer of Salvation through Jesus without being regenerated by God first. He tries to argue that Jesus' Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15: 11-32) is a more apt comparison. In this article I am going to use terms and jargon that are common part so this discussion. If any of them are unfamiliar, please feel free to ask about them - or where you can get more information.


 Professor Flowers raises these arguments as an objection to the way many Calvinists view the concepts of "Original Sin" and "Total Depravity".  He is a Christian so he does not reject either but he does have the view point that although people are sinners and undeserving of Salvation, we still retain the same kind of Free Will that Adam and Eve possessed before they fell under the curse of sin and death. Although he agrees that we are sinner but does not believe that makes us unable to respond to Jesus' out-stretched hands to us.

This leads Professor Flowers to argue against the idea that physical death does not mirror the spiritual death of unrepented sinners. The problem with all parables and symbols when it comes to the nature God's relationship with humanity is always going to be incomplete. It is impossible to come up with a single simple picture capturing it all at once. That is why I think Jesus told so many different Parables so we can look at things from different perspectives.

The reason why many people look at the death of Lazarus as a picture for what being dead in sin is like is because scripture describes the lost as being "dead in sin".

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, ² in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. ³ All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh^[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. - Ephesians 2:1-3

The way this reads to me is as a description of being caught in something that you can't get free of and so hopelessly entrapped you don't even know you are caged. 

Jesus describes people in this state as being enslaved. And although I have been in Christ for many years I did not realize that this had been my state to that degree before I was in Christ.

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. - John 8:34

This is why I think the scripture is saying the sinner is more than just separated from God by their sins. When Professor Flowers appeals to scriptures about how believers should be separated from sin considering themselves dead to sin (ie Romans 6:11) I do not think that this means the same thing as  being "dead in sin" but describe being separated from sin - which describe the Elect of God. The Elect are those who have attained salvation by faith. The argument comes up when we ask, "where did this faith come from - a gift from God or grasped by our own free will?"  I am going to skip the question right now about whether this "will" is just described as "libertarian" and/or "autonomous" because it should be covered and distinguished in greater detail not just conflated together. It matters.


Instead, I think it's important to point out that I think Prodigal son parable should not be used here. if the Father in the story represents God, then one who had always been sinner  would not be a son. This isn't the story of a sinner having a "come to Jesus" moment but of a back-slider coming home and how other believers should treat the ones that are coming back.The man had been a son. He knew his father not coming to home for the first time. A sinner coming to Jesus for the first time becomes adopted not having been a part of the family before that time of adoption. Such a person was deserving of the wrath of God.

Again, the reason why all of this resonates so strongly for me was that I missed the part that this was me. I would read these passages for  years and never once connected it to me. I knew it described sinners deserving of hell, but I never really had owned that for me. I mean I was a sinner and I repented but never really thought I deserved to go to hell...that next guy sure....but me? Hitler? Of course. White colonist raping, stealing, enslaving and murdering my ancestors? Oh I just knew they should all burn,  Me? Nah.  Come to find out that the scripture was talking about me too.

Here is one of many scriptures about our inability to turn to Christ on our own terms and our own power.

⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

Sorry, Professor Flowers, but in that analogy of trying to climb up the rope to safety given in the video does not fit the above scripture. Paul points out that if  you are living according to your flesh you are not just dead to (or separated from)  the things of  God, you are dead - unable to even see the rope that have been let down for you let alone to climb it. Not just that - we are so hopelessly depraved we don't even want to get out of the situation. Even the desire to be free is a gift from God because without it we have nothing but enmity (as the King James Version puts it) towards God. Like Joseph Stalin on his death bed, we shake our fist at God with hatred and a rebellious heart.

I think that there is a modern parable that can be used here: The Matrix from the  Matrix movies. Remember how  Morpheus explains to Neo how the people who are still plugged into the Matrix are a danger to them? Sounds like being trapped in sin to me. 



So, how is it that any human being gets past ourselves and makes it to God? It's a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. This discussion is far from over, but I think that describing the event of human beings coming to Jesus and obtaining salvation  - freedom from sin and death -  as being just as miraculous as Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is a very good comparison.

Antichrist Memes:Definition of Sin

To deny that sin exists is the same as denying that lying, cheating, murder, stealing, and all the other horrible things that people do to one another do not happen either. The only reason you would not need a cure is if you like evil.

Atheist Memes: Forgiveness of Sin

Uh no. My sins were forgiven and atoned for once and for all when Jesus died on the cross. What about your sins?

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Neuroscience is Destroying the Notions of Free Will, Sin and Salvation by Faith

It's posts like this that makes me question if John Loftus was ever really a Christian. I mean it's like he has no idea what Christians believe or what the Bible teaches that Christians should believe. Take a look at his intro paragraph.

Neuroscience is making it extremely difficult for believers to still claim that by freely choosing to believe we are saved (or condemned), that we freely choose to sin, or that there is a wrathful God who will judge us on the last day. Case in point, girls and boys, are the following two essays, the last of which I will quote from. The first is Grandma’s Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes. Now for the second one, "The Brain on Trial." [Be sure to read this essay at least as far as the highlighted money quote in red!].

Where does the Bible say that we freely choose sin? But I want to hold off on that a moment and point out what Loftus considers the main point.

The crux of the problem is that it no longer makes sense to ask, “To what extent was it his biology, and to what extent was it him?,” because we now understand that there is no meaningful distinction between a person’s biology and his decision-making. They are inseparable. 

Has Loftus ever read the Bible? I ask because he seems to fail to recognize that the Bible does not teach that people are "all adults possess the same capacity to make sound choices." We don't. We, by default, are broken and hostile to God and God's ways. We are not good outside of God's mercy and influence - even the atheist who does something good for someone else. This is not new information. Sin is hardcoded in us - post fall. Adam and Eve are the only other human beings other than Jesus Christ who know what it is like not to be driven to commit sin. Therefore neuroscience does not destroy what Christians believe about sin or salvation but instead underscores why we need it. Everyone is broken to different degrees and in different ways. You might not desire to kill others, but just like the articles point out, given the circumstances you don't really know what you would or would not do. Everyone needs a savior because we are not free or independent. We are held hostage by sin - which is even a part of our biology.

⁵ Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. - Psalm 51:5


²² This righteousness is given through faith in^[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. - Romans 3:22-24


¹² Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—  - Romans 5:12



⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

I can already hear the objection because people have been using it since Adam messed up in the Garden of Eden. If we are slaves to sin, and God allowed us to come here that way, why does he hold us responsible? Asked and Answered along time ago.

¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”^{[h] 21} Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³ What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 8:19-24

It's tight but it's right. You can fool yourself into thinking that you just happen to be better than the people you like compare yourself with or you can admit your own failing and be free of your prison. If you want to be free that is God drawing you to Jesus. Reach out and take the salvation Jesus is offering you.

Debunking Christianity: Neuroscience is Destroying the Notions of Free Will, Sin and Salvation by Faith

High Five of the Day - Calvinistic "Quotes": Man's idolatrous estimation of his self as

This is an awesome quote:

Nothing quite reveals man's idolatrous estimation of his self as being preeminent then his acceptance of Christ dying for sins of others while he refuses to accept that men should die for their own sins!

~ Julius Mickel

This point is what separates born-again Christians from all other people - it is the recognition that salvation is not because we deserve it - we deserve death (physical death and eternal separation from God) because of our sins. Jesus saved us from the consequences of what we did, do, and will do.

Calvinistic "Quotes": Man's idolatrous estimation of his self as

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Sin: An Imaginary Problem with an Invented Solution

Harry McCall continues to faceplant. Just before the end of  2012, he posted the following post.  I recognize what he's trying to do. If he can explain that there is no such thing as "sin" then the Christian message fails.  There is no need to for Jesus, atonement, or anything Christianity offers. In order for him to make his point McCall is going to have to prove that there is no sin and nothing to atone for. Will he be able to do that?

Picture right is the typical Salvation Gospel Tract found at bank ATM’s, left on tables at restaurants and ironically, in restrooms. This one was left under a wiper blade on my wife’s car at work by Freedom Baptist Church (as stamped on the back) located just a quarter mile from where she works.




McCall should be thanking God that God sent another opportunity for him and his family to hear the Gospel.

(Click on Tract to read)

Let’s briefly review some of the major problems with, not only on this Gospel Tract, with but everyone I’ve found:

First, like any good sales pitch, it needs have a product to sell. In Christianity the product (whether you need it or not) is an imaginary problem: Sin

How does McCall know that sin is an imaginary problem?

Secondly, after a person is pitched the imaginary problem, then and invented solution is offered to solve the problem of sin: Atonement

Too bad McCall is into invented problems based on assertions he can't prove. 

Thirdly, to prevent the imaginary problem and the invented solution from being empirically examined, a dogma is used to glue the problem to the solution: Faith

How can he equate "faith" and "dogma" with a straight face?

Fourthly, once a religious consumer has been exposed to the third step and by now to have swallowed the sales pitch hook, line and sinker; the entire imaginary dogma is sealed by: Damnation (Hell’s fire awaits those who reject or even doubt this sales pitch!)

McCall's ignorance of Christianity is extremely evident. He doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.  Hell is the final destination of everyone because we are all sinners. You escape hell because of what Jesus did for us. Hell is default. This is why the denial of sin is so important. McCall so far has failed to explain how he knows he is not a sinner.

Now let’s examine the tract’s statements:

A. They are rambling statements from eclectic writings in the New Testament. Of the 27 religious texts that make up the New Testament, only 7 could be used to prove this point and most from a man who never even saw nor heard the earthly Jesus preach: Paul Like most Gospel Tracts, much of the sales pitch comes from Paul’s last perfected theological views , Romans. Reality proves that this salvation sales pitch is nothing more than a cut and paste theory created by the tract's author to fish for converts!

Any examples or proof that there is no sin? Nope. Without this, McCall is the one who is rambling, not Paul. 

B. Notice too, that nowhere does God (the one who is demanding atonement for the imaginary problem of sin) makes a single statement!

You want a statement from God demanding atonement for sin? 
 Ezekiel 18 is a good example of God demanding repentance and and atonement for sin. Being that God punishes sin, why would anyone of us think that God would let our sin just go ignored? He wouldn't.

C. Notice also that Jesus - the center of which the entire Christian faith built upon – makes any statements either (except a rambling statement taken from the Gospel of John made to other Jews) since Jesus hated gentiles.

McCall neither proves nor demonstrates that Jesus hated Gentiles. And If I can point to another passage in Matthew, Mark, or Luke where Jesus tells us how bad sin is, McCall illustrates a faceplant and not a valid point. 

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. ² Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? ³ I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ⁴ Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? ⁵ I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
⁶ Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. ⁷ So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
⁸ “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. ⁹ If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’” - Luke 13:1-8

And there are many, many other passages I could have brought up. Looks like McCall faceplants again.

D. Finally, notice that this whole eclectic rambling sales propaganda assumes the person reading the tact understands completely the concepts of sin, atonement and salvation as found in Jewish Covenantal Theology as drawn from the Hebrew Bible!

Obviously, McCall doesn't understand the concepts of sin, atonement, salvation, and Jewish Convenantal Theology. Maybe he should re-read the New Testament, especially Romans and Hebrews.  

E. In short, Gospel Tracts are little more than “fishing” for human guilt trips build on ignorance.

Yes, let's examine whose ignorance is on display here. McCall writes an article assuming that there is no such thing as sin but never once explains why he rejects the existence of sin. How does he know he is not a sinner? Given that there isn't a sin human being who talks who has not lied, stolen something, or has failed to live selflessly I'd say that sin is an established reality. If that is not enough proof, I'd say that the fact that there is so much suffering and pain (like a man walking into an elementary school and killing 26 human beings) is amply explained by the existence of sin. And God's restraining mercy and grace for why it doesn't happen more often.

 ⁹ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰ If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. - 1 John 1:9,10

So whose lying? Is it God or McCall. Since it is not God, we are forced to the conclusion that if lying is a sin (and it is) then McCall is just a much a sinner as the rest of  humanity and need a savior to atone for his sins. It sure is a good thing the at God sent him a tract to remind him. Too bad he has not listened yet.

Debunking Christianity: Sin: An Imaginary Problem with an Invented Solution

FacePalm of the Day - The Meaninglessness of Sin | The Hammer That Speaks

John Loftus posted a link to the following article. The article shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible says sin is. People might argue that showing how the article twists and distorts the Bible is using circular reasoning but it is not. Showing how the Bible contradicts the claims being made against it based on what it says is not assuming the Bible is true before proving it true. If you want to show the Bible is not true, then you have to show that you at least understand what the Bible says.

Sin, and the forgiveness from it, is one of the main tenets of the Christian faith–but what exactly does “sin” mean to a Christian? Sin is said to be a transgression of God’s law, but if that is the case, then it cannot be said that Jesus saved believers from the “law.” If Jesus saved believers from the laws, then there can no longer be “sin,” as there are no laws to break. Sin then becomes a paradox, and cannot be easily defined.

No. Jesus did not save us from the Law. Jesus saved us from God's wrath. He saved us from the consequences and penalty we deserve because we have transgressed God's Law. Sin is not a paradox because Law is not Sin just because the authors of this article have wrongly conflated the two.

⁷ What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 
^Romans7:7
 

Furthermore, if Jesus paid for all the “sins” of mankind, then believers would no longer have to “pay” for their sins, as Jesus already did that on the cross, absolving believers from having to take responsibility for their actions.  As long as a believer has “faith” in Jesus and repents, they believe they will still gain entrance into paradise, without having to pay for their own mistakes.  In other words, “sin” is meaningless, as there are no consequences for believers even if they do commit any so-called “sins.”

Wrong! There were consequences for my sins and the sins of everyone who trusts in Christ. Jesus suffered and died in our place. The price for our salvation was paid by Jesus' voluntary death on the cross in the place of those He chose to save. 

 ⁴³ “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. ⁴⁴ “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’^[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. ⁴⁶ No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. ⁴⁷ Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. ⁵⁰ But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”- John 6:43-51

This is an area where I think the King James version really shines in putting forth the idea the Bible is really saying. Jesus is our propitiation. 

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. - 1 John 4:10

However, even if we consider that sin is defined as an act of lawlessness as it states in 1John 3:4–whose laws do Christians follow?

God's.

Is it considered a sin to break man’s law, or God’s laws? If it is considered a sin to break God’s laws, then the laws were not eliminated and they still stand, as Jesus himself stated in the fulfillment passages of Matt 5:17-20. Paul would be wrong to have claimed that believers were no longer under the law–but that is exactly what he did. Paul forgoes the law in favor of “grace” and preached that once a believer offered themselves to Jesus they were “set free” from sin, and they become slaves to righteousness. i.e., they would be “slaves” to doing what is right—while at the same time being taught that they are “born sinners” and cannot help but to not do what is not right, as it is not possible for them to be perfect.–a double bind. In fact, it’s a double, double bind, as the Bible does claim that it is possible to be perfect!  (In our previous post, we explained what “double binds” are, and how they lead to confused thinking, and/or psychosis, and also what “perfect” really means.)

"Perfect" does not mean "sinless" in the context of what Jesus said. There is no contradiction. We are born sinners and that is why we need a savior. The Bible is totally correct that we are slaves to sin until we are freed through Jesus Christ. If you were not a slave to transgressing God's law, they why do you continually break them? And you do continue to break them. Someone who denies scripture or the existence of God categorically break the first and second of the "Ten Commandments". When Paul claimed that we are no longer under the Law he was arguing that you could not follow the Law to be justified before God not that the Law does not have a place.


In Romans, Paul wrote:

For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. Romans 6:14-18

If it is considered a sin to break man’s laws, then God’s laws are redundant, and there is no such thing as “sin,” as a sin is defined as immoral act which is considered to be a transgression against divine (God’s) law.

Nope. Paul is not saying the God's laws are redundant. It's not just an immoral act. Breaking man's law is not necessarily a sin because some of man's laws are in direct contradiction with God's Law. For example, abortion is legal in the United States but there in no way anyone could argue that abortion would be legal under the Old Testament Law.

“Where there is no law, there is no transgression.” Romans 4:14.

Paul implied that once one believes in Jesus Christ, they are under “grace” and not the law, while at the same time promoting the idea that all of humanity is burdened with the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. According to Paul, salvation from sin came through through the blood of Christ, as he states in both Romans and 1Corinthians:

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”  Romans 5:2
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”. 1Cor 5:22

Salvation does indeed come to us through Christ but not because the Law has been thrown away, but because Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Law. 

Through Paul, Christians have been taught that they are “tainted” by Adam and Eve’s  “original sin” and they sin due to their innate “human nature.” If this was the case however, God would still be responsible for their actions as he created them with this “innate human nature” as, “…every decision is from the Lord.”( Prov:16:33). Logically, if  “every decision is from the Lord” as the Bible states, then Yahweh decides everything, including which babies suffer and die from hunger, and which women get raped and murdered, and he also decides who the murderers are–humans have no free will. Even if Christians claim that Satan brings evil thoughts to their minds–this too negates their free will and makes Satan more powerful than God.

Does God  really decide such things? Yes. But no one does evil against their will. The reason you haven't killed anyone or raped anyone (if you haven't) isn't because you are so wonderful or moral. It's because God had restrained your evil. When Adam and Eve were created they were sinless and perfect. They only became sinners when they made the decision to disobey God. I would argue that the only people who can claim to have a human nature as God intended it would be pre-fall Adam and Eve and Jesus himself.

However, let us look at one of the main Christian responses against my argument, if not the only one. Some Christians claim that the fall of man was included in God’s plan for the very purpose of demonstrating and manifesting his “love” via the “ultimate sacrifice” of Jesus.  They claim that in order to demonstrate the very greatest part of his nature of love, God/Jesus would have to die for us, and this could not be done if there was no one for him to die for, and no reason for Jesus.  Christians claim this is why there is sin, as there could be no reason for God/Jesus to die if there were no need for an atonement.  However, if causing such suffering in the world in order for his love to be recognized, and to show his “love” is the best God can do, then he is not all-powerful, or, he is not all knowing because if he was all powerful, then he could have found a better way to show his “love” as opposed to having “sin” in the world, and he would know how to do it. 

There is something missing from the above logic. How do you know that there was a better way that would also meet all the other design constraints  that God has in mind. For example, if everything has not gone the way it had, would you even exist? I'd wager not.

²⁴ God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
²⁵ Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
²⁶ And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
²⁷ That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
²⁸ For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. - Acts 17:24-28

This included the suffering and pain you and everyone experiences.

According to this claim, then he would not be all powerful, or he would not be all knowing.

Wrong as I already pointed out.

 But perhaps he is all powerful and all knowing, which would lead us to another alternative–that is, the Christian god is selfish, and is a masochist and a sadist.

Nope. What we really get is the following:

¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”^{[h] 21} Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³ What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:19-24
Nevertheless, let us assume that the Christian claim above is true, and the argument is valid and sound, and that the conclusion is true.  That is,  it is necessary to have sin in the world in order for the love of God to be recognized as without sin, there would be no suffering, and we could not “see” the goodness of god.  How absurd that is!!  In fact, a good father who loves his children would rather go unrecognized rather than have his children suffer so that he could be recognized by them for loving them.  It would be selfish on the father’s part to make his children suffer merely so that he could be recognized.  This argument is also similar to a wife being beaten by her husband so that he can then show his “love” to her afterwards.  It is ridiculous and absurd.  If the Christian god were truly a loving god, then he would rather go unrecognized rather than cause suffering to his children.  Instead, the Christian god would rather be “known” by causing his children pain and suffering–making him sadistic.

Wrong. God doesn't just want us to know Him to soothe his own ego. He is so perfect that just because he is he deserves the adulation and glory. All the analogies with the abusive parent or husband  just don't cut it. It isn't about God needing us. It is about knowing Him because we need Him. What child does not want to know who his/her father is? To know His ways and character  so that they can know themselves. 

It is disturbing that Christians believe there really isn’t much any of them can do about their so-called “sinful nature” because they believe they don’t have the ability in themselves to overcome this so-called powerful law of what they believe to be their human nature–which is why they rely so heavily on the blood of Jesus Christ to save them from their sins. This means then, that they continue to “sin” believing they cannot help themselves. (Again, this means they believe they have no “free will” to stop themselves.)

 Hold up. No one can live up to God's standards without God's help. Go ahead and try. Read the Law codes in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy and see if you can follow them for an hour without violating them in thought or deed. Go ahead and try. Dare you. The problem is that our human nature is broken yet we are still accountable. Once we are saved we are free of the consequences of those constraints but that does not mean you get to sin all you want. You can choose to obey God and have it be a choice of your own will. That's freedom. Here is a start but you really should read all of Romans.

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? ² By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? ³ Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴ We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
⁵ For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. ⁶ For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,^[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin — ⁷ because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
⁸ Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. ⁹ For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has master - Romans 6:1-9

 If Christians believe that their “human nature” is responsible for their evil deeds (and not their own free will) then instead of worshiping Yahweh, Christians should be blaming him, as according to the Bible, it was Yahweh who gave them their “human nature” in the first place–which, as they say, is prone to sin and most importantly, according to the Bible, “…EVERY decision is from the Lord.” (Proverbs 16:33) 

No the Bible does not tell us that our evil is due to our human nature. It is because of our enslaved will. God did not give us a broken human nature. We inherited from Adam. We should worship God because he chose to redeem us and not leave us broken. If you end up staying broken that is on you. 

The logic indicating Yahweh is responsible for the problem of evil is in the form of Modus Ponens, and is as follows:
P1. If God created us as Christians claim, then God gave us “human nature.”
P2. If human nature allows us to sin, then God is to blame for the problem of evil.
C. Therefore, God is to blame for the problem of evil.
So, we see by their own admission that the christian god, if he existed, is to blame for the problem of evil. He is also to blame for humans being disobedient due to their “human nature” that he himself created.

 God did not give Adam a nature such that he disobeyed God. Premise 1 is flawed because Adam began sinless and perfect. We are not. You can't back trace sin to Genesis 1.  Premise 2 is flawed because it flows from Premise 1. Complete fail. 

 Furthermore, after setting humans up to fail by giving them human nature, he then chooses at his whim whom he gives grace to. How cliquey and sadistic of him to “pick and choose” who suffers for eternity, and who is “saved.”:

“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” Proverbs 16:33
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—” Ephesians 2:8

Add Romans 9 to that list. 

Our “human nature” aside, without the belief of the fall of Adam and Eve, there would be no such thing as original sin, and no need for redemption at all.

If one is to be honest either you have to agree that we are all flawed and do evil things (human nature in other words)  or that some of us are better or more moral than others,  Who's  arrogant again?

 In other words, there would be no need for the religion known as Christianity if the story of Adam and Eve was not taken literally, as there would be nothing to be redeemed from.  Therefore, if what Christians say is true, their god creates the suffering and the “sin” so that he can be “recognized”–making him a sadistic god, or, there was no “fall of man” or “original sin” and we as humans can decide for ourselves to do what is right.

And just how do we agree on what is right and what is wrong? Because we don't agree and we know we do things all the time that hurt ourselves and others - as a species - obviously we need some kind of redemption. I don't just need God to fix you. I need God to fix me.

It is after all, just a matter of choice.  We can choose to do right, or we can choose to do wrong, but it makes it so much easier for Christians to do what is wrong when they have a “fall guy” named Jesus to take the punishment for their bad choices upon his shoulders, thereby absolving believers of any responsibility for their actions.  How convenient–and how treacherous.   Ultimately, we must all take responsibility for our own actions, or see the demise of civilization, and/or humanity itself.

When a Christian does wrong it should not be easy at all. If you find it easy to do wrong or think that you can just think of Jesus as a fall-guy or your get-out-of-hell-free card, you not only don't understand what scripture says but I don't think you are a Christian. Neither would Apostle Paul.

¹⁵ “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles ¹⁶ know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in^[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
¹⁷ “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸ If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
¹⁹ “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” - Galatians 2:15-21
The Meaninglessness of Sin | The Hammer That Speaks

Faceplant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Who goes to heaven? Who goes to hell?

It is so amazing that an atheist could post a video as an argument against Christian theology while admitting that it is not a logical argument. It is full of false presuppositions and a thoroughly misunderstanding of what the Bible truly teaches about sin and redemption.

If Christianity is true, then reaching the correct belief (about Jesus) is necessary to avoid damnation. Here is a brief video highlighting one of the more unpleasant implications of Christian theology. Admittedly it is not a logical argument, however since most believers tend to believe for emotional reasons, bringing up issues like this can be very effective at "putting cracks in the shell" of faith.



Here is the main problem: the assumption that some people deserve to go to heaven and others deserve to go to hell. People think that just because they haven't raped or murdered someone or broke into someone's own house and stole their property illegally that they are better than other people who have done things that they would not do themselves. They think that if there is a God their standard  of morality is good enough to warrant their right to be in heaven. It's not. God's standard is not just moral..it is Holy. Not one of us measures up! This is why we we can only be in heaven through Christ. You might not be a serial killer....but we are all serial sinners. I agree with all the scriptures in the video. We are only saved through Christ. However I can't look at anyone's life and gauge with absolute certainty whether or not they have given their life in Christ or if they ever will become born-again.  I don't know what the 15 year-old girl's relationship with Christ was. If she didn't have one, she didn't make it. Same with  her killer. I deserve hell just as much as he does.  If God saves him, why should I be angry with God? He takes sinners and makes them better - transforms them from evil doers to good doers. 

One of the comments on the post really cracked me up!

harry mccallCollapse

Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer both accepted Christ before they were executed. At the resurrection, they’ll have a warm reception from the victims and their families who will rejoice in their salvation. (Yes, even mass murder John Wayne Gacy will be there too.)

So did the thief on the cross. If God chose to save them what is the problem? I think it's a bigger problem for you if they end up in heaven with you in hell - all because they humbled themselves and accepted Jesus but you rejected Jesus. That's a really stupid reason to miss heaven just because you don't like who might be there. 

Debunking Christianity: Who goes to heaven? Who goes to hell?

UPdate: A Reply to "So You Still Think Homosexuality is Sinful"

I saw the following graphic on Facebook and I think that it not only explains the standard arguments against homosexual lifestyle on Biblical grounds. The following link is a great essay to explain why the Bible should not be ignored. Take a look at the link.

A Reply to "So You Still Think Homosexuality is Sinful"

UPDATE:

Dr  James White has weighed in on the graphic on his Dividing Line webcast August 16, 2012.

Covered a bunch of stuff, starting off examining this really bad pro-homosexual argument, discussed a little about the LGBT terrorist in Washington, D.C., and then discussed the appearance of non-Trinitarian singing group PC&D at a local church (Scottsdale Bible Church) and the very odd response from the "Worship and Creative Arts Pastor" of the church. Then we moved back to examining Paul Williams' comments and, quite honestly, abuse of the biblical text, in the recent debate in London. Here's the program. 

A Wide Ranging Dividing Line Today

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible such that people think that before Jesus returns it is possible become sinless. However when one tries to live this out they quickly discover that they still can't measure up. Does this mean that the Bible is contradictory or does that means that we don't understand what the scriptures are saying? One of the scriptures that are often quoted to substantiate the claim that God expects us achieve sinless perfection  in this life is found from Jesus.

⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.- Matthew 5:48


But let's look at the whole context of the verse.


⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor^[i] and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.- Matthew 5:53-48


What does Jesus mean about being "perfect". If none are good and sinless but God, then what does it mean to be perfect considering that we will never be God? The context with the Greek tells us what the answer is. The context is Jesus drawing a distinction of behavior showing how inconsistent it is to love your neighbor but neglect loving your enemies. He points out that if you don't love your enemies you are doing no more than what people you look down as being less moral than you do. If you want to be perfect you have to love and greet not just your friends but people who hate you and don't care for you. It isn't about being sinless, it is about being a complete person under God's definition.


A short little word study bears this out.  The word here translated "perfect" is "tevleioß" it is defined as:

1. brought to its end, finished
2. wanting nothing necessary to completeness
3. perfect
4. that which is perfect
   1. consummate human integrity and virtue
   2. of men
      1. full grown, adult, of full age, mature  (source)

Nothing to necessarily be referring to sin. 


Is this word used in any other places? Yes. A related word "teleiovw" is also translated "perfect" in the following passage


⁷ During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. ⁸ Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered ⁹ and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him ¹⁰ and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.- Hebrews 5:7-10


Is the author of Hebrews implying that Jesus had to be made perfect by purging his sins? No. Given all the passages we have about Jesus' sinlessness, we can't conclude that the passage is referring to sins. "Perfect" in this case is like in Matthew 5:48. Jesus was made complete in his role as the source for our salvation by the suffering he endured for us!


There is another passage, I just love, that uses a similar word. Jesus last words on the cross before He died saving all those who believe in Him. 


30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said , It is finished : and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. - John 19:30

 Here "It is finished." is translated from "Teleo".

1. to bring to a close, to finish, to end
   1. passed, finished
2. to perform, execute, complete, fulfil, (so that the thing done corresponds to what has been said, the order, command etc.)
   1. with special reference to the subject matter, to carry out the contents of a command
   2. with reference also to the form, to do just as commanded, and generally involving the notion of time, to perform the last act which completes a process, to accomplish, fulfil
3. to pay
   1. of tribute

"It is finished or paid" John 19:30  (Source)



It was truly finished on the cross. All my sins paid for. The term is so amazing because it is also the same idea of saying "it's perfect" or "It doesn't get any better than this". It's like when a painter or an artist finishes a piece of art and is fully satisfied with what is produced. It was equivalent to saying "Voilà!!!" or "Check mate." And all I can say is "Amen."

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day by Kayt Sukel

John Loftus posted the following quote:

Technology and science have now advanced to the point that disciplines like biology, genetics, epidemiology, evolutionary science, psychology, philosophy, computer science, and medicine have converged into the catchall field of neuroscience. More and more, neuroscientists are demonstrating that the brain is behavior—the two simply cannot be teased apart.

Sukel is author of Dirty Minds: How Our Brains Influence Love, Sex, and Relationships. This reminds me of Helen Fisher's TED talk on Why We Love and Cheat, as well as Jesse Bering on the Klüver-Bucy Syndrome and Nymphomania. I think the days of faith talk, sin talk, and final divine judgment talk are over.

Here is the problem: Loftus and Sukel are arguing that people are hard-wired to cheat on people they love. In other words, sinning isn't something everyone has control over. In other words people are held captive by their own passions and lust. Some people even go as far as arguing that one can't be held accountable for such things beyond their control. John Loftus seems to think that this means that Christian theism is undermined. This isn't true in the slightest. If anything it confirms what the Bible says about sin:

 ²¹ But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. ²² This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ²⁵ God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— ²⁶ he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. - Romans 3:21-26

And

 ¹³Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
 ¹⁴But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
 ¹⁵Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. - James 1:13-15

So in effect Sukel and Loftus are agreeing with the Bible, bringing up the question: Does one have to be enslaved to your own lusts and desires even if they are bad for you? No, you don't. That is why Jesus came and died in your place and raised for your justification. 

²³ The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, ²⁴ but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. ²⁵ He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - Romans 4:23-25

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day by Kayt Sukel

FacePalm of the Day #143 - Misrepresenting Adam and Eve Again

Let's think about this for a moment. You can argue all you want that Adam and Eve did not exist. However once you make an argument like a following, you'd better get what the Bible says correct. John Loftus never seems to be able to do that. Here is a case in point.

Before eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve either knew that disobeying God was evil or they didn’t. If they didn’t, then they can’t be blamed for disobeying him. If they did, then they already possessed the knowledge that God had forbidden. Either way, God could not justly banish them from Eden. (Adduced by Richard R. La Croix.) Link.

Adam knew that disobeying God was wrong. He knew shouldn't do it. You don't need to understand a command to obey it. Would you take that excuse from a child? Why would anyone think that it would fly ever? No way would my parents buy that. No parent would. Go back and read Genesis 3. The knowledge was not forbidden - eating the fruit was.

Debunking Christianity: Adam and Eve Again

Faithful Thinkers: Video: Adam's Sin On Us Is Not Fair

Thanks to Luke Nix for calling attention to this video in which Dr Norman Geisler answers the question regarding the fairness of us bearing the curse of sin, given that Adam started it.

I think Geisler answered the first part wonderfully. We don't to hell because of what Adam did. We deserve hell because of what we have done, do, and will do. As for the follow-up, I disagree. It makes no sense to talk about God trying to save people and failing. Either Jesus is our propitiation or He is not. Why would we need Christ to be our propitiation if we can lives free of sin?
Video: Adam's Sin On Us Is Not Fair

Faithful Thinkers: Video: Adam's Sin and Us

I really appreciate Luke Nix posting this video on his blog. It attracted my notice. This is Dr. Norman Geisler discussing the effect that Adam's sin has had on us today




I respect Dr Geisler but I think it's a mistake to conflate our current enslavement to sin and death that was not a part of Adam's experience before he fell when it comes to free will. I believe Adam had pure libertarian free will. He was truly free to choose to obey or disobey God. We however can't say the same thing. If we weren't slaves to sin then Jesus would not have had to die to to pay for our sins and free us. IF there had been another way that didn't require Jesus' death and resurrection, don't you think God would have taken it? I do. Faithful Thinkers: Video: Adam's Sin and Us

Bring it #1: Demonstrate that there is no Original Sin

I'm starting a new series of posts. A lot of people do not think its correct to use the Bible to discuss Christian concepts and theology. I disagree. So I've decided to create a series of blog posts to give skeptics and atheists an opportunity to make their best case against key Biblical concepts. If you decide to take me up on my challenge, be prepared to defend your position because I will respond. I believe the Bible is true because it stand up to scrutiny and challenge. So go ahead and take your best shot.

For this first post let us deal with something fundamental: Is there such thing as original sin?

Feel free to defend or attack the theology in the comments. Use science. Use the Bible. Use philosophy. Use History. Use whatever evidence you think is relevant to proving your point. 

Bring it.