Let me know when you have no more to come.

Where does the command to love God fit in your life? If you were to do an honest assessment of yourself, how much of your attention is focused on loving God in prayer compared to thinking about apologetics or evangelizing?

These are questions evangelists should be wrestling with, but it’s apparent they don’t or at least not enough since loving God in prayer will bring radical change to one’s life over time. “Born again” Christians will agree with this, but they will only apply it to the past. They will choose to resist further change over continuing to love God through serious prayer. Don’t be one of these people; it’s anti Christian.

Okay, I'll shoot you a PM.

Have a good day!

You and I and Dictionary.com share that same view on what sin means. Dictionary.com defines sin as "transgression of divine law."

Here is (one of) the definitions for morality from the all-knowing dictionary.com: "Conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct."

A definition of immoral on that site is "violating moral principles". One of the synonyms for immoral is wicked.

As an advocate of the Divine Command Theory, I essentially use the morality to mean "conformity to God's commands."

Also, any offense I commit against a fellow human being is also an offense against God.

You can take that up with the translators of pretty much every modern English translation, if you'd like:

You shall not murder. - Exodus 20:13 (NIV)

You shall not murder. - Exodus 20:13 (ESV)

You shall not murder. - Exodus 20:13 (NASB)

Do not murder. - Exodus 20:13 (HCSB)

You shall not murder. - Exodus 20:13 (NKJV)

Seemingly consistent with your view on the matter is the reading in what is (in my opinion) the most bestest English translation:

Thou shalt not kill. - Exodus 20:13 (KJV)

According to my Key Word Study Bible, the word translated "kill" in the King James Version is the Hebrew word ratsach.

In the Lexical Aid section, the summary of the word ratsach includes the following:

Ratsach: to dash to pieces (Ps 62:3); to kill a human being, murder, slay, commit manslaughter; to destroy, crush; to be crushed...This verb occurs in one of the Ten Commandments, referring to an unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied (Ex. 20:13)

There are also many times in the OT when ratsach does not refer to murder.

Okay.

"And most Christians believe the Ten Commandments no longer apply to them."

disagree 100%

I think in my whole life I've only met one Christian who thought that the Ten Commandments didn't apply to him.

I've not seen a survey on the subject. Would like to see OP cite the survey that makes his point.

Here are the Ten Commandments:

Exodus 20:2-17
This includes a command to keep the sabbath as a holy day, which it specifies as meaning that neither you, your family, or your business, are supposed to do any work on that day. While some Christian sects keep to this command (eg the Seventh-Day Adventists), few other Christians celebrate the Sabbath at all. Some Christians do believe we are supposed to treat Sunday as a holy day instead (although no mention of this is made in the Bible), but even here they typically do not think this includes a prohibition against work.

Why are you bringing up contemporary translations? I thought you relied on the KJV for your Bible language? I don't have a problem with translating ר-צ-ח as "murder" instead of "kill." I don't think the distinction is as clear-cut in the original text as in the English language and so it is a bit anachronistic, but that is inevitable in translating ancient texts and it is plausible to me that "murder" is closer to the ancient Hebrew word's meaning in this context.

But that is not the view you've expressed. You've used the KJV's poor translation of kadesh to justify referring to homosexuals as sodomites. In fact, as acknowledged in nearly all contemporary translations, its meaning is more likely male cult or temple prostitute. Why don't you care in those cases about accuracy? You don't want to give up an opportunity to break your word so you can trigger some libs?

Nowhere here do you offer a justification for identifying "immorality" or "wickedness" with "sin." Telling me that you are an adherent of Divine Command Theory only identifies your conclusion, not your reasoning.

I don't believe in sin. Since there is no god, there is nothing that god commanded, and so no actions which go against such commandments. I do believe in morality. Some actions are immoral because they harm other people, or because they are not virtuous, or because they are the kind of actions that tend to lead to a worse life for myself and others.

I'll point out that this claim is not unique to me as an atheist. Many Christians agree with me that these actions are immoral for these reasons (for instance, this is a standard Thomistic view). However, they also believe in sin, that God has (among other things) commanded us to act morally, and so not acting morally is also sinful.

But this is different from claiming that immorality and sin are the same thing. God has also made various commandments on non-moral topics, such as about prayer and our relationship with God, various rituals, and so on. Thus, presumably it would be sinful to disobey these commandments, although not clearly immoral. Similarly, under Christianity, since God has commanded us to not act immorally, immoral actions are also sinful actions (similar to how theft is both illegal and immoral). This is why if you act immorally, you should seek not only for forgiveness from God (for sin), but also from those you offended or harmed (for the immorality of your action).

I have never presented Christianity as a blind faith, as you know. You felt compelled to post your 37 points to avoid admitting the simple point I immediately acknowledged when you asked me this question - neither I nor you have available a persuasive deductive argument for our most basic moral beliefs. You acknowledge it here, finally, by admitting that while you know that Christianity is true (and hence that your moral beliefs are justified), you cannot show that it is true - at least not through a persuasive deductive argument.

But in the same way that you claim to know without being able to show through a persuasive deductive argument that Christianity is true, many people also know that it is wrong to kill infants solely for enjoyment even if they are unable to persuasively demonstrate this claim through logic alone. We can built theories to explain this belief - utilitarianism, deontology, divine command, etc - but almost everyone is more firmly convinced of the immorality of such an action than the truth of these theories.

If you want to raise a challenge to the materialist basis for morality, fine do so, but do so on the basis of an epistemic standard your own views can meet.

So maybe it would be more accurate to say that most Christians observe the 10 commandments, except for the one about the Sabbath, because Paul in Colossians 2:16 gives Christians liberty on that issue.

Besides, Jesus gave commandments that were much harder than the 10 commandments.

E.g. One can commit adultery in their heart w/out even committing
a physical act:

Matthew 5:

27 "You have heard that it was said,
'You shall not commit adultery;'
28 but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a
woman to lust after her has committed
adultery with her already in his heart.

So I guess you disagree 90%? The Nine Commandments just don't have quite the same ring?

I don't mean to claim that Christians don't still follow some of the commandments. I think it is typical for Christians to not view the Mosaic law as binding for Christians, although of course some of it has been taken up into the new Covenant.

+1

As I recall, the commandment to "keep the sabbath" is the only commandment that Jesus does not mention.

I (mistakenly, it turns out) thought that when you said that most Christians don't believe that they are committed to obeying the Ten Commandments that you meant that most Christians believe that they are not obliged to keep any of the commandments.

I brought up contemporary translations because the translators of contemporary translations know a thing or two about translating Hebrew into English. So did the AV translators. Like you noted, either rendering is fine, but context suggests that murder is clearer for contemporary readers.

I always care about accuracy. Which is why when I'm proven wrong I admit my mistake. (And, believe you me, I get a lot of practice admitting my mistakes. )

I agree with all of the above. Well said!

As a result, I will endeavour* to not use the words moral, morality, immoral, ethics or ethical any more, since they never occur in my Bible. I will instead endeavour* to use the Bible words righteous, righteousness, sin and wickedness, etc.

*Using British spellings create the illusion that I'm more literate than I really am.

I have encountered folks who have been lead to faith in Christ in part through arguments such as I listed. A friend of mine had his eyes opened to the possibility that the Bible was true about creation after reading a book called The Evolution Cruncher (I think that the book has been retitled The Evolution Handbook). There are many vehicles that God uses to get people to think about Himself. One of them is "arguments". Another is through pondering nature, or reading a beautiful poem, or hearing a stirring piece of music, etc.

Apologetics can be a part of leading the unbeliever to faith in Christ. In my opinion, your take on apologetics is a bit simplistic, although it contains an important truth that arguments alone do not a believer make.

God won't "pass you over" unless you want Him to.

The Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft has spoken of two atheists that he knew who independently came to faith soon after attending a performance of Bach's St. Matthew Passion.

I agree with all this.

Thank you for taking the time to share the above.

You do like that anecdote, don't you?! Here it is in full:

Source


Frankly, it sounds like an embellished/hyperbolic story. If its true, it's as absurdly bad as "look at the trees!" - but regardless, it says nothing about why they became Christians, just why they were no longer atheist or agnostic.

Even as an anecdote, this doesn't sound like someone who became a Christian because of apologetics, but of someone being persuaded about the specific topic of creationism.

I do think apologetics is that simplistic.

That's an unexpected answer.
So...what of the elect?

Are you saying that you have decided that you are a moral nihilist? There is nothing morally good or bad, but in hope of reward from God you will obey his commands?

No, I am not saying that.

I am not saying that either.

I will address this more when time permits. (I am moving back to Chico next week; Santa Ana's gain is Chico's loss. )