more texts validating the historicity of biblical Christianity.

Komodo

Well-known member
You said that just because it's a fact of nature doesn't mean that you see the logical necessity of it.
I apparently didn't place the question mark on the end of it.

So,

Why should a fact of nature be so difficult to understand the importance of it, exclude you from understanding the logical necessity of it?
I.e., the fact of nature is what makes it necessary. So, just because you don't understand the logic and importance of it, does not mean that it isn't logically necessary.
I don’t understand how a fact of nature makes something logically necessary. Something is logically necessary, in typical usage, if it would be logically impossible for it to be false. “There are no square circles” is a logically necessary truth. Even an otherwise omnipotent being could not make a square circle.. But an omnipotent being could make organisms which didn’t inherit “sin nature“ from their parents, so it isn’t logically necessary that we do so. So if I am told, “humans must be born with a sin nature, because we inherit this from our parents,” I say, ”an omnipotent being didn’t have to make such a law.” I can see why you might say, “God did it this way, so it must have been the right way”; but there’s no reason for a nonbeliever to agree.
So, you don't think that the hard work your ancestors did allowed to enjoy the life you presently have?
No, it’s undoubtedly true that I owe this to my ancestors and contemporaries, with very modest contributions from myself. I don’t know what I’ve said which would make you would question my awareness of that fact.
It is wrong to oppress others, but that doesn't stop them from doing so!
That is certainly true, but what do you think follows from that? I mean, what follows which bears on the point I made, which you’re responding to?
Nor will it prevent them from receiving the judgment due their injustices.
That is more than I know.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Let's see,
Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Esther, Nehemiah, Ruth, 1/2 Samuel, 1/2 Kings, 1/2 Chronicles, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, the 4 gospels, Acts, are all documents of the bible which are historical narratives.
So.... biblical history. History which has been documented in the bible.
Ah yes, the usual Christian argument

The Bible is true
Therefore the Bible is true
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Let's see,
Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Esther, Nehemiah, Ruth, 1/2 Samuel, 1/2 Kings, 1/2 Chronicles, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, the 4 gospels, Acts, are all documents of the bible which are historical narratives.
So.... biblical history. History which has been documented in the bible.
Ah yes, the usual Christian argument

The Bible is true
Therefore the Bible is true
To be fair, that seemed a reasonable (given your interlocutor's presuppositions) answer to H_A's original question of what he meant by 'biblical history'. That said, you are correct in digging below the claim to the naivety it reflects... namely that one can look uncritically to the biblical texts and read 'history' off its pages. They are sources (and not the only ones) for reconstructing the past and not always very good ones... written no earlier than the kingdom period they can tell us next to nothing of what (if anything) happened during the patriarchal period. Joshua and Judges offer conflicting portraits of how the Israelites came to inhabit the land. The Chronicler clearly does not agree with the presentation of 'history' in Samuel and Kings and therefore revises them extensively. The same could be said for the gospel authors in those places where it is clear there is direct literary dependence...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

SteveB

Well-known member
This is where a little knowledge of logic and philosophy would be of benefit to you. Facts of nature are contingent while facts of logic are necessary. They are two distinct categories. Inheritance, whether genetic or spiritual, falls in the former category and is not a logical necessity. This is because it could have been otherwise without contradiction. And if it were logically necessary, which it is not, then it would no longer be a fact of nature. It would instead be a fact of logic.
Only one problem with this.

Granted, had you actually paid attention when you claimed to have read the bible for the purpose of understanding, you would have seen this.

Col 2:6-10 WEB 6 As therefore you received Christ Jesus, the Lord, walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, even as you were taught, abounding in it in thanksgiving. 8 Be careful that you don’t let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily, 10 and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power.​
So, I have to wonder.....

Why would I want to use human wisdom when it comes to knowing God and following Jesus?

1Co 1:18-29 WEB 18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are dying, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. I will bring the discernment of the discerning to nothing.” 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the lawyer of this world? Hasn’t God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom didn’t know God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe. 22 For Jews ask for signs, Greeks seek after wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God; 25 because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For you see your calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, and not many noble; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame those who are wise. God chose the weak things of the world that he might put to shame the things that are strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of the world, and the things that are despised, and the things that don’t exist, that he might bring to nothing the things that exist, 29 that no flesh should boast before God.​
So, instead of trying to force us to use the finite, and limited wisdom of men, take the time to learn the wisdom of God.

It's so much more effective.

1Co 2:1-8 WEB 1 When I came to you, brothers, I didn’t come with excellence of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 My speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith wouldn’t stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 6 We speak wisdom, however, among those who are full grown, yet a wisdom not of this world nor of the rulers of this world who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the wisdom that has been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this world has known. For had they known it, they wouldn’t have crucified the Lord of glory.​
God's Wisdom is so much better at resolving this issue.
 

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
Only one problem with this.

Granted, had you actually paid attention when you claimed to have read the bible for the purpose of understanding, you would have seen this.

Col 2:6-10 WEB 6 As therefore you received Christ Jesus, the Lord, walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, even as you were taught, abounding in it in thanksgiving. 8 Be careful that you don’t let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily, 10 and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power.​
So, I have to wonder.....

Why would I want to use human wisdom when it comes to knowing God and following Jesus?

1Co 1:18-29 WEB 18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are dying, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. I will bring the discernment of the discerning to nothing.” 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the lawyer of this world? Hasn’t God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom didn’t know God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe. 22 For Jews ask for signs, Greeks seek after wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God; 25 because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For you see your calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, and not many noble; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame those who are wise. God chose the weak things of the world that he might put to shame the things that are strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of the world, and the things that are despised, and the things that don’t exist, that he might bring to nothing the things that exist, 29 that no flesh should boast before God.​
So, instead of trying to force us to use the finite, and limited wisdom of men, take the time to learn the wisdom of God.

It's so much more effective.

1Co 2:1-8 WEB 1 When I came to you, brothers, I didn’t come with excellence of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 My speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith wouldn’t stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 6 We speak wisdom, however, among those who are full grown, yet a wisdom not of this world nor of the rulers of this world who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the wisdom that has been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this world has known. For had they known it, they wouldn’t have crucified the Lord of glory.​
God's Wisdom is so much better at resolving this issue.
I just gave you the opportunity to learn how to use the philosophical terminology correctly that you clearly didn't understand. But instead of learning you've chosen to reject that opportunity, quote the Bible as justification for remaining ignorant, and then preach at me. Apparently learning is only for other people.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
You're more than welcome to prove it isn't.
Thanks for confirming what I said. Christians start from the assumption the Bible is true. In their view, that is the default; there is no need to prove it, the onus is on others to prove it is false.

You're more than welcome to prove it isn't.
Here are two supposed fact:

(1) After find the tomb empty, the women were too afraid to tell anyone about it.

Mark 16:8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

(2) After find the tomb empty, the women were too afraid to tell anyone about it.

Matthew 28:8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to report to His disciples.

Do you think both these supposed facts are true, Steve? I do not have the mental agility to believe two contradictory ideas; it seems to be a special ability of theists.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I don’t understand how a fact of nature makes something logically necessary. Something is logically necessary, in typical usage, if it would be logically impossible for it to be false. “There are no square circles” is a logically necessary truth.
Have you every seen a square circle in life?
I never have. Therefore, it's a logical fallacy to think that square circles exist. Which makes the construct of a square circle logically unnecessary.
Just because you don't understand how reality makes reality logically necessary does not mean that such is not logically necessary.
Where I come from, we simply call what you're experiencing a lack of awareness, and understanding.
I never understood the importance (logical necessity) of mathematics, or physics, or an education before I studied.
This doesn't mean that these things were not necessary. It just meant that I was without awareness of their importance (logical necessity).
You do however raise a rather interesting question.......
I'm wondering if you've gotten so bound up by what you define as "logical necessity" that you're no longer able to see reality itself as "logically necessary"?

Even an otherwise omnipotent being could not make a square circle..
Thus, logically unnecessary-- because such devices don't exist in the real world.

But an omnipotent being could make organisms which didn’t inherit “sin nature“ from their parents, so it isn’t logically necessary that we do so.
But he chose not to, because the concept is a misunderstanding of what reality of biological inheritance actually is.


So if I am told, “humans must be born with a sin nature, because we inherit this from our parents,” I say, ”an omnipotent being didn’t have to make such a law.” I can see why you might say, “God did it this way, so it must have been the right way”; but there’s no reason for a nonbeliever to agree.
Inventor's prerogative. I encourage you to go meet some inventors, and ask them why they've chosen to design their inventions the way they have.

No, it’s undoubtedly true that I owe this to my ancestors and contemporaries, with very modest contributions from myself. I don’t know what I’ve said which would make you would question my awareness of that fact.
I'm just checking. I want to make sure that you actually understand the nature of reality, and the concept of inheriting our forebear's endeavors.

That is certainly true, but what do you think follows from that? I mean, what follows which bears on the point I made, which you’re responding to?
There are those who are oppressive, regardless.

That is more than I know.
Yet it won't stop the event from taking place.
 

Komodo

Well-known member
Have you every seen a square circle in life?
No, such a thing would be impossible, since it's self-contradictory; that's why it's a logically necessary fact that there are no square circles. What this means is that even if I were blind from birth, I could say with complete confidence "if my sight is restored, I will never see a square circle." I could not say with equal confidence, "I will never see an alien spacecraft," because that's not impossible, just very, very unlikely.

If you don't feel like getting into the distinction (between contingent/natural facts and logically necessary facts), we don't have to. Just start with "God could have chosen not to make Adam's descendants inherit their sin nature," which you seem to acknowledge. I said it made no sense to me that God would choose to place such a burden on us if he didn't have to. Your response was, first:

But he chose not to, because the concept is a misunderstanding of what reality of biological inheritance actually is.
Now I'm guessing that by "the concept" you mean the concept of logical necessity. (Right? Wrong?) If so, then you would be saying something like "God chose not to leave Adam's descendants free of sin nature, because the concept of 'logical necessity' is a misunderstanding of the realities of biology." But I don't understand that at all. Obviously my misunderstanding, if it is such, had nothing at all to do with God's choice in the aftermath of Adam's disobedience. Can you clarify this?

Or, we can just pick up from "he chose not to." Why did he choose not to? You say:
Inventor's prerogative. I encourage you to go meet some inventors, and ask them why they've chosen to design their inventions the way they have.
1) "Inventor's prerogative" means, basically, "he had the right to do it." Which seems to me quite false when it comes to the "inventing" of sentient beings. (Do you think that if a modern-day Dr. Frankenstein 'invented' a life form with all human feelings, he would have the right to do whatever he wanted to his creature? I don't.)

2) Even if it weren't false, "Because he had the right to do it" is not a reasonable answer to the question "Why did he do it." If he had the right to do it, he also had the right not to do it, so "he had the right to do it" does not at all explain why he made that choice. (Compare, "why did the coach choose an all-out blitz rather than a prevent defense?" "Because he had the right to.")

3) If we're analogizing God's actions to those of human inventors, I'd say we would think very, very poorly of an inventor who deliberately chose to make all his products fail. And that's what endowing us with a "sin nature" means, in the Christian system: it means automatic failure. Even if the inventor goes on to provide a way to escape the consequences of that failure, this obviously does not explain or justify his choice to make failure the default setting.
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
Let's see,
Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Esther, Nehemiah, Ruth, 1/2 Samuel, 1/2 Kings, 1/2 Chronicles, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, the 4 gospels, Acts, are all documents of the bible which are historical narratives.
So.... biblical history. History which has been documented in the bible.
That is not "history" in the modern understanding of the discipline nor do those works make any inquiry [the Greek origin of the English word "history"]
I don't see where I said it was necessary to match your definition of historical documentation.
I am stating a fact concerning the texts found in what we now call the Bible. They do not fit the criterion of dispassionate inquiry.

And?
Is that supposed to mean that your opinions on this the final authority of history?
I am pointing that among academics there is no overall and absolute consensus about this figure.
This is why we study them.
You do not study them critically, dispassionately, or objectively. You merely believe what interpretations are given to you by various theologians and/or religious leaders - e.g. your pastor.
From what I read, the various characters are consistently named in all 4 gospels, and aside from their having different perspectives, they're consistent.
Marcan priority is generally accepted with the authors of Matthew and Luke adding their own narrative embellishments. However, once again, this not an absolute and all encompassing view. Some academics disagree.
For your own part.
Then you should learn that your own part is part of the problem here.
Your problem is with mainstream academia.
As I said, you should learn how to read.
Which actually means I should agree with everything you write and like you, never question my translation [whichever that happens to be] of these ancient texts.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
That is not "history" in the modern understanding of the discipline nor do those works make any inquiry [the Greek origin of the English word "history"]
Ah, well, that's the problem..... what is history, but doesn't fit the 21st century bias they feed people in schools today isn't my concern. It fits the definition of history provided throughout history, all the way up to my time in university, in 2002.
What they do with it after that..... you'll have to suffer with.
Quite frankly, I find it amusing, and think that they've stolen education from you, preventing you from learning the richness we enjoyed for almost two millennia.
Sad to be sure.

I am stating a fact concerning the texts found in what we now call the Bible. They do not fit the criterion of dispassionate inquiry.
According to you.... using a 21st century definition, which counters all the previously held views of requisite criterion.

I am pointing that among academics there is no overall and absolute consensus about this figure.
Not my concern.
It was valid before. Rather curious that all those old-timers, who once had a consensus, are now being told by a bunch of punks in diapers that it's not valid, because they don't agree.
Wow..... don't we call this fallacy by consensus?
If more than a certain number of people don't agree, then it cannot possible be true!
And yes, at this point, the sarcasm is dripping in large droplets, the size of huge cocoa mugs.
You do not study them critically, dispassionately, or objectively. You merely believe what interpretations are given to you by various theologians and/or religious leaders - e.g. your pastor.
And here we go. Off to the races. Ignorance is running ahead by two lengths. Oh, there he goes with a burst of speed, now he's out ahead by a furlongs! Oh, wait! What is that! Oh no! He hit something, what's that? Wow.... look at him tumble. Owww..... the rider will have a hard time walking that off......
Well, that horse is out.
Well, would you look at that! Here comes the Truth, just moseying up, he gets off his horse to help the other rider. Oh, wait. would you look at that. Ignorance is pushing him away, and with vitriolic vehemence I might add. Hmm..... go figure. You'd think he'd appreciate some help after a fall like that.....

Actually, I did my history studies in a college, and by reading history books for pleasure. You see.... there are periods of history I actually enjoy.
So..... stop embarrassing yourself. Especially when you have no idea of my background, or experiences.

Marcan priority is generally accepted with the authors of Matthew and Luke adding their own narrative embellishments. However, once again, this not an absolute and all encompassing view. Some academics disagree.
If you really want an absolute, all encompassing view, you have to meet Matthew and Luke. then you have to leave time, and go into eternity, and observe the events yourself. But..... since you're not able to do either, that you actually believe you can get an "absolute all-encompassing view" today.... that's embarrassing. If you really understood the nature of history, and its documentationing process, you'd never make such a claim.
the very best we can hope for today is a handful of documents, and resources which are slim. the rest we'd do, is to embellish them with our own biases--- like you say below..... Mainstream Academia.

Your problem is with mainstream academia.
Nope. Not even remotely.
I simply am acquainted with the authors' brother, and having known him for 43 years, I know he knows better than what academia claims to know, but is far more limited than you appear to be aware of.

Which actually means I should agree with everything you write and like you, never question my translation [whichever that happens to be] of these ancient texts.
No. It means you should take the time to find out my sources, and then why I have such confidence in what I do know.
It's not arrogance, that's for sure.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
No, such a thing would be impossible, since it's self-contradictory; that's why it's a logically necessary fact that there are no square circles. What this means is that even if I were blind from birth, I could say with complete confidence "if my sight is restored, I will never see a square circle." I could not say with equal confidence, "I will never see an alien spacecraft," because that's not impossible, just very, very unlikely.
Which is why I wonder why you'd use this to justify your position.
You know what it does accomplish--- makes me wonder about your ideas of logically necessary.

Furthermore, I've never mentioned either of those two ideas, so it seems to me that you're just wandering around the desert places of your mind.


If you don't feel like getting into the distinction (between contingent/natural facts and logically necessary facts), we don't have to. Just start with "God could have chosen not to make Adam's descendants inherit their sin nature," which you seem to acknowledge. I said it made no sense to me that God would choose to place such a burden on us if he didn't have to. Your response was, first:
I only deal in the concrete.
So, reality being real, and therefore (because it's real, it's) logically necessary, I'm sticking with reality.....
You inherit your parent's DNA, and therefore the nature that comes along with that DNA.


Now I'm guessing that by "the concept" you mean the concept of logical necessity. (Right? Wrong?) If so, then you would be saying something like "God chose not to leave Adam's descendants free of sin nature, because the concept of 'logical necessity' is a misunderstanding of the realities of biology." But I don't understand that at all. Obviously my misunderstanding, if it is such, had nothing at all to do with God's choice in the aftermath of Adam's disobedience. Can you clarify this?
Well, you brought an absurdity into the discussion, stating that such was a logical necessity, so I'm wondering what you define as logically necessary, and makes something logically necessary?
This idea of logical necessity of something that is not a real device strikes me as something people like to use as an excuse to avoid, and escape from reality.

Or, we can just pick up from "he chose not to." Why did he choose not to? You say:

1) "Inventor's prerogative" means, basically, "he had the right to do it." Which seems to me quite false when it comes to the "inventing" of sentient beings. (Do you think that if a modern-day Dr. Frankenstein 'invented' a life form with all human feelings, he would have the right to do whatever he wanted to his creature? I don't.)
I don't deal in Mary Shelley's fantasy world.
Do you want to have a conversation about reality, or are you going to continue on with your fantasies?

When I say-- inventor's prerogative, I'm talking about the guy who first invented the hammer, then the guy who invented the wheel, then invented other real objects we use in real life every day.
I happen to drive a 2018 Jeep Cherokee. IT's a real object. The components contained in the Jeep I drive are logically necessary, because they exist.
Before they existed, they were ideas. Those ideas were tested, checked, toyed with, tweeked, and finally became real. Which necessitates their logical necessity.
By virtue of the laws of nature, there are constraints on those devices contained in my Jeep. Which make them logically possible.
There are laws of man, which define which devices I can use safely, therefore making them logically feasible/reasonable.
I can't hang upside-down, from the ceiling of my jeep, and drive inverted, because gravity will not allow it to function the way I can seated right side up.
So....
Inventor's prerogative is that God chose all of us to inherit our ancestor's DNA, and all the requisite restrictions, benefits, and consequences that come along with them.
My maternal grandfather was bald, and I inherited his hair DNA, so I'm bald. Admitted, I would like to have not started going bald at 17-1/2. That shocked the blazes out of me to have my girlfriend at the time brushing my hair, and scream, as she pulled out large clumps of my hair with each stroke of the brush. I went from being a mop-head with bushy hair to an increasingly thinning haired bald guy.
Now, I have a caesar look. At least I don't have to wear a green-leafed-wreathe around my head.
My mom had a bulbuous nose, so I got a bulbuous nose.
My paternal grandfather, and my mom both needed to wear glasses, so I now wear glasses.
My grandfather used bifocals to handle the different issues, and due to technological limits in our knowledge, and optical cutting devices, he had lined bifocals.
My coming up 49 years after him, allows me to enjoy "progressive" bifocal lenses.
Therefore, progressive lenses are now a logical necessity, because they are technologically possible.
Due to Moore's Law, I enjoy technology which did not exist in my youth, even though my dad was a logic designer in the 60's.
I still remember when he came home with a small, 3 x 3 circuit board, and said, "This is the future of computers!"
A week later, he came home with a caterpillar chip, and said--- I was wrong, THIS is the future of computers.
Therefore, as knowledge has increased, so has technological know how, and therefore now with the advance of both, I now hold a phone which is 10,000,000 times more powerful than the computer that our astronauts when to the moon on 51 years ago.
Thus, logical expansion, logical feasibility, logical awareness, knowledge, etc.... have expanded exponentially, to the point where we can do things that were in the realm of science fiction with H. G. Well's book, Time Machine, from the late 1800's.




2) Even if it weren't false, "Because he had the right to do it" is not a reasonable answer to the question "Why did he do it." If he had the right to do it, he also had the right not to do it, so "he had the right to do it" does not at all explain why he made that choice. (Compare, "why did the coach choose an all-out blitz rather than a prevent defense?" "Because he had the right to.")
Well, according to Deuteronomy 29:29, he's said he's kept certain things secret, but has given his law to us, so we, and our descendants can know Him.
Throughout the rest of the bible, we learn that he's not opposed to our learning, but that it's incumbent on us to take the time to do so. He ultimately tells us--- we know in part, and see in part, but the time is coming when he will make known to us just as we are known. 1 Corinthians 13:12.
According to Hebrews 4:13, we are naked, and fully exposed to God, in all our thoughts, and secret actions, so it would appear to me that we'll know everything.
Granted, that appears to only be for Jesus followers.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
3) If we're analogizing God's actions to those of human inventors, I'd say we would think very, very poorly of an inventor who deliberately chose to make all his products fail. And that's what endowing us with a "sin nature" means, in the Christian system: it means automatic failure. Even if the inventor goes on to provide a way to escape the consequences of that failure, this obviously does not explain or justify his choice to make failure the default setting.

So, your car failed when you first bought it?
I've learned through the past 43 years that the inventions of others I buy, or receive as gifts only fail due to extensive abuse, failure to follow manufacturer's specifications, or catastrophically resulting from the actions of others, beyond my control.

Thus, from what I read in Genesis 3, Adam did not follow the creator's specifications given to him in Genesis 2.
Genesis 2
15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”​
Genesis 3
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.​
8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.​
9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”​
10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”​
11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”​
12 Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”​

Looks to me that the problem here is not manufacturer's design. Rather, it's the failure of the invention to follow manufacturer's specifications....
I.e., don't eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day you eat thereof, dying you shall die.

So.... it seems to me that you've started on a faulty premise, and bought wrong ideas about us.
We're broken because we broke us.
My dad didn't break me. Nor did my mom. Nor did my sisters, nor my brother. My grandparents, nor my great grandparents, nor my nieces, nephews, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc.....
I broke me all by myself, without any help from anyone else.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised I'm still alive, because I came real close to getting myself killed by some of the stupidities I did as a child, then a teen, and as a younger adult.

So..... instead of blaming others for your own choices, just own them. Own the realization that there are consequences to those choices, some good, and some bad. Those bad ones are the issue, because they've cut you off from your creator, and he's interested in restoring that relationship with you.

Do you want to have that restored, or are you happy with the mess you've made of, and are making with your life?
 

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
You know what it does accomplish--- makes me wonder about your ideas of logically necessary.
Something is logically necessary if its negation entails a contradiction.

So the inheritance of sin is not logically necessary.
 

Komodo

Well-known member
Which is why I wonder why you'd use this to justify your position.
My position is,

1) you can't call something 'necessary', something that had to happen, if it's entirely dependent on somebody's choice. [Bringing up the square circle was just a way of illustrating which things would count as "necessary."]
2) endowing Adam's descendants with a "sin nature," assuming this happened as Christians claim, was entirely dependent on God's choice;
3) therefore you can't call endowing us with a sin nature something "necessary," something which had to happen; a "gimme," in your phrase. Which was the claim which began this whole exchange.

Now if you can offer an objection to either of the first two premises, or show why the conclusion (3) doesn't follow from them, I'll certainly listen. If you simply say, instead, that you live in reality and I'm living in fantasy, etc., I see no reason why I should listen.

You know what it does accomplish--- makes me wonder about your ideas of logically necessary.
What you call "my ideas" -- i.e., the distinction between necessary truths and contingent/natural truths -- are, AFAICT, entirely standard and entirely unoriginal. There are plenty of sites which you can go to for confirmation of this, or further discussion. Oxford Reference, for example, confirms that "A necessary truth is one that could not have been otherwise. It would have been true under all circumstances. A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false." https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100226735

Furthermore, I've never mentioned either of those two ideas, so it seems to me that you're just wandering around the desert places of your mind.
I've never in my life seen or read an exchange of ideas which went on for more than two rounds in which one party did not bring up ideas that the other had never mentioned, particularly in order to clarify some point at issue.

I don't deal in Mary Shelley's fantasy world.
Do you want to have a conversation about reality, or are you going to continue on with your fantasies?
If you are trying to decree that no hypotheticals may appear in any discussion with you, then of course I'm not going to be able to have any kind of "conversation" with you at all. Nor will anybody else, because hypotheticals are fundamental to human reasoning, and attempts to ban them are absurd.

I happen to drive a 2018 Jeep Cherokee. IT's a real object. The components contained in the Jeep I drive are logically necessary, because they exist. [Then, later:] Therefore, progressive lenses are now a logical necessity, because they are technologically possible.
No, neither of these are what "logically necessary" means, as Oxford will tell you.

You go on for quite a while after this establishing something that nobody has ever doubted: that inventions are often very cool and very useful. But none of this addresses my point, namely that saying "God chose to endow us with a sin nature because that was His prerogative as an inventor" made no sense, since -- again -- it was also his prerogative as an inventor not to so endow us. If somebody has the option of doing A, B, C, D, E..., then the question "why did he do C?" is not answered by saying, "it was his prerogative."

Well, according to Deuteronomy 29:29, he's said he's kept certain things secret, but has given his law to us, so we, and our descendants can know Him.
Remember this began when I said it made no sense to me that God would chose to endow all Adam's descendants with a sin nature. You've spent the better part of four posts now replying that it does make sense, of course it makes sense, it's part of nature, it's logically necessary; and now it seems your final answer is "Well, some things are mysteries." You could have just said that from the start, because I acknowledged from the start that a Christian might well say, "I have faith that whatever God did was the right thing to do," even if they were not now prepared to provide a reason why it was right. So I'll just repeat what I said from the start: that may be a reasonable thing for a Christian to say, but there's no reason a non-believer has to agree.
 

Komodo

Well-known member
I said, "If we're analogizing God's actions to those of human inventors, I'd say we would think very, very poorly of an inventor who deliberately chose to make all his products fail. And that's what endowing us with a 'sin nature' means, in the Christian system: it means automatic failure. Even if the inventor goes on to provide a way to escape the consequences of that failure, this obviously does not explain or justify his choice to make failure the default setting." To which you said:

So, your car failed when you first bought it?
Umm, no. And nothing that I said above in any way implied or suggested that it did. And if it had, we would all agree that it was a manufacturer's or designer's defect. So I see no point in this question.

I've learned through the past 43 years that the inventions of others I buy, or receive as gifts only fail due to extensive abuse, failure to follow manufacturer's specifications, or catastrophically resulting from the actions of others, beyond my control.

Thus, from what I read in Genesis 3, Adam did not follow the creator's specifications given to him in Genesis 2.
Genesis 2
15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”​
Genesis 3
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.​
8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.​
9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”​
10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”​
11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”​
12 Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”​

Looks to me that the problem here is not manufacturer's design. Rather, it's the failure of the invention to follow manufacturer's specifications....
I.e., don't eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day you eat thereof, dying you shall die.
Every word of this refers to the actions of Adam, and the consequences for Adam. I was speaking, very explicitly, not about Adam, but about what should be said about the decision to endow Adam's descendants with a "sin nature." So I don't see any actual challenge to what I said.

Do you want to have that [relationship with the creator] restored, or are you happy with the mess you've made of, and are making with your life?
Of course you know nothing at all about my life, so it is ridiculous for you to assume it's a "mess." (It isn't.) And of course in order to want a relationship with the creator to be restored, I would first have to believe that the creator existed. (I don't.)
 

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
Actually it is. It just means that you have lost the connection to reality.
Unsupported, and yet another ad hominem attack.

Can you show inheritance of sin to meet the definition I gave for logical necessity? Do you have an alternate definition of your own?

Or were you just responding out of ego and spite?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I said, "If we're analogizing God's actions to those of human inventors, I'd say we would think very, very poorly of an inventor who deliberately chose to make all his products fail. And that's what endowing us with a 'sin nature' means, in the Christian system: it means automatic failure. Even if the inventor goes on to provide a way to escape the consequences of that failure, this obviously does not explain or justify his choice to make failure the default setting." To which you said:
I read what you said.
I'm stating that he chose the manner he did because he had a specific purpose in mind. So, if you're going to malign the manner he did it because you don't like it, it would appear to me that you're just throwing a temper tantrum.

Ironically, you would not be the only one who has done so. Humans have been trying this for millennia.

Isa 45:9-12 WEB 9 Woe to him who strives with his Maker— a clay pot among the clay pots of the earth! Shall the clay ask him who fashions it, ‘What are you making?’ or your work, ‘He has no hands?’ 10 Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What have you become the father of?’ or to a mother, ‘What have you given birth to?’” 11 Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel and his Maker says: “You ask me about the things that are to come, concerning my sons, and you command me concerning the work of my hands! 12 I have made the earth, and created man on it. I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens. I have commanded all their army.​

This passage was written in the mid 8th century BCE.
So, you're not going to achieve your goals, but you can indeed show the magnitude of your folly and shame yourself by refusing to acknowledge that you simply have no idea what you're talking about and would do well to turn to God from your sin and place your trust in Jesus.
It'd be a great shame for you to throw your life away because you think you have a clue as to what you think should be.


Umm, no. And nothing that I said above in any way implied or suggested that it did. And if it had, we would all agree that it was a manufacturer's or designer's defect. So I see no point in this question.
Of course you don't. This however doesn't mean that just because you lack understanding, it's not a valid question.
If you don't want to try to understand, then say so. I'll leave you alone, and you can continue on in your ignorance and blindness.



Every word of this refers to the actions of Adam, and the consequences for Adam. I was speaking, very explicitly, not about Adam, but about what should be said about the decision to endow Adam's descendants with a "sin nature." So I don't see any actual challenge to what I said.
Adam was the first human being.
He was created by God in his likeness and image.
He was created a living soul.
He was created to have dominion over the earth and its inhabitants and contents.

As such, he would bear the responsibility of his own actions and the impact of his actions on the entire world.
This would include the impact of his choice of eating the fruit which would result in the deaths of the entire human race, down through time and history.

His son Seth was in his likeness and image. The implication is reasonably clear.
Every human born from this point would have the same attributes as the first human, following the same consequences.
Sin killed them, and everyone else.

As is written, he who sins will die.
God sent his own son so that we could live, forever, in a paradise designed for us, which would last forever.
So, if you don't want to live in such a paradise, then say so.




Of course you know nothing at all about my life, so it is ridiculous for you to assume it's a "mess." (It isn't.) And of course in order to want a relationship with the creator to be restored, I would first have to believe that the creator existed. (I don't.)
Then you've chosen your eternity?
Very well then.
Ciao.
 
Top