Ok I was just thinking about the Bible and what it says. It says that humans naturally sin so we can sin as much as we want as long as Jesus forgives us.This includes but not limited to You shall not murder. 7 âYou shall not commit adultery. 8 âYou shall not steal. 9 âYou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 10 âYou shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.â
It says that humans naturally sin so we can sin as much as we want as long as Jesus forgives us.
Not really, according to Christianity, you are forgiven if you repent with yourself and ask him for forgiveness, but you can't just go out and break all of these rules knowingly and expect to be forgiven.
but you can't just go out and break all of these rules knowingly and expect to be forgiven.
Yet some say a sin is only breaking these things knowingly. So it would be you can break them knowingly but you just have to be sincerely sorry about it afterwords.
So it would be you can break them knowingly but you just have to be sincerely sorry about it afterwords.
Well yes, but what I meant was, you can't go about and break them and then expect to be forgiven, as in, "I'll just kill this one guy I don't like then say sorry to god afterwards, it'll be all cool then."
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.
Would it be easier to just say "You should not cover your neightbour's stuff."? Seriously, why list all those things, then go "Or anything else". That's stoop!d.
Anyways, I'm an atheist so my opinion might be biased, but I'd like to say that looking for logic or common sense is like trying to find an octopus on the moon.
I think the whole 'saying sorry' part means actual, genuine repentance, not just killing someone, walking into a church and saying 'sorry bro'. [Which, in turn, would make people better because they wouldn't commit the sin in the first place]..
Would it be easier to just say "You should not cover your neightbour's stuff."? Seriously, why list all those things, then go "Or anything else". That's stoop!d.
Emphasis . I mean, if any religious book wasn't moving or persuasive and it was just a big document of rules, then it wouldn't seem like the word of god and nobody would take it seriously, either. I think. idk.
There once was a child who wanted a bicycle. He prayed to god for weeks but never got one. This is when he realized god doesn't work this way, so he stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.
Would it be easier to just say "You should not cover your neightbour's stuff."? Seriously, why list all those things, then go "Or anything else". That's stoop!d.
Covet means to take, not to cover, and its just covering up any loopholes people can find i guess. It's a pretty stupid question your asking to be honest, you should be grateful that the bible is giving a clear message for once.
But really, it's mostly just common sense stuff. Don't kill, don't steal, yadda yadda, yes I know that stuff is BAD. Why do we all need a god for this?
But really, it's mostly just common sense stuff. Don't kill, don't steal, yadda yadda, yes I know that stuff is BAD. Why do we all need a god for this?
That wasn't the current view on things when the bible was written.
That wasn't the current view on things when the bible was written.
Oops, I meant to say that these weren't the current views on morals when the bible was written. People didn't care much about others properties and life back then, which was supposedly the reason for the flood. The bible probably had an enormous impact on the moral standards of the world today.
Covet means to take, not to cover, and its just covering up any loopholes people can find i guess. It's a pretty stupid question your asking to be honest, you should be grateful that the bible is giving a clear message for once.
No it doesn't mean to take, it means to want, desire. I'm guessing cover was a typo. And no it's not a stupid question since the last part would cover the rest of the list that was stated, making the list redundant.
That wasn't the current view on things when the bible was written.
Oops, I meant to say that these weren't the current views on morals when the bible was written. People didn't care much about others properties and life back then, which was supposedly the reason for the flood. The bible probably had an enormous impact on the moral standards of the world today.
Not a case of sinning as much as we want to. We are born with natural sin which we are forgiven through baptism. - Something i'd like to point out i don't agree with : No child is born with sin, what sin could we possible commit in our mothers womb apart from eating all her nutrition/ kicking the **** out of her.
Previous points in the thread poin out we repent to Jesus and we are forgiven - perhaps a cop out?
And Zydrate is right in what shes sayng, the bible is outdated. Although to dsagree with:
Oops, I meant to say that these weren't the current views on morals when the bible was written. People didn't care much about others properties and life back then, which was supposedly the reason for the flood. The bible probably had an enormous impact on the moral standards of the world today.
It probably was the current view when the bible was written but it doesn't hold relevance for today.
If a woman steals to feed her dying baby - should she get jailed? I don't think so. Maybe this was similar to problems they faces at the time - although instead of jail; stoned to death.
. People didn't care much about others properties and life back then which was supposedly the reason for the flood.
You mean the one for which there is no geolocical evidence? The one that would contradict all we know about biology? But I don't want to go off-topic.
The bible probably had an enormous impact on the moral standards of the world today.
That's why we still kill homosexuals, witches, blasphemers and... Wait, we don't? But equality, freedom and democratic values are from the bible... Wait, that's isn't true either? Humanist had to fight for them against the church? Dammit.
The bible might have had some influence but the big advances surely didn't come from it.
