Sin

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
If God and His Righteous Standards do not exist within the known universe, then what ultimate authoritative righteous standard has there ever been preserving and perpetuating the human race on planet earth?

Can only really contemplate that on a personal level, so respectfully will modify your question to:

Q. "If God and His Righteous Standards do not exist within 'you', then what ultimate authoritative righteous standard has there ever been preserving and perpetuating 'you' in your life?"

A. I consider myself to be moral person with a deep understanding of right and wrong. I would run into a burning building to rescue a child (possibly even a cat) and live a life free of criminal activity and hate. - I have always been this way, and yet have managed to become the person i am without the righteous standard of God inside me. I therefore reason that morality is independent of and not dependent on belief in a supreme being. In short, you can be an atheist completely void of God and yet still be a good person living a morally decent existence.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don' think anything of myself; I'm talking about your sometimes quite unbelievable behaviour here.

On the contrary you think of yourself as one of the Mr. Bigs of the forum, you said as much the other day. Poor Robbie was left to watch the big boys in the playground 😵

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Can only really contemplate that on a personal level, so respectfully will modify your question to:

Q. "If God and His Righteous Standards do not exist within 'you', then what ultimate authoritative righteous standard has there ever been preserving and perpetuating 'you' in your life?"

A. I consider myself to be moral person with a deep understa ...[text shortened]... an atheist completely void of God and yet still be a good person living a morally decent existence.

Once again an exceptionally well organized and thoughtful reply. Divine establishment principles of morality [designed for the protection of individual free will and marriage and family and property from threats within; and the national entity itself from external enemies] have been designed for the benefit of the entire human race. In contrast, sin is an issue for believers in Christ [1 John 1:9]; the only issue for those whose volition has chosen against rather than for accepting God's grace gift of eternal life and relationship with Him in time and eternity is reconsidering their decision ["repent" in the Koine Greek of the New Testament signifies "a change of mind" in our contemporary English language]. Enjoy your weekend, Ghost of a Duke. Hope to be back to this forum on Monday. -Bob

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"And hands that shed [b]innocent blood."[/b]

Yes, obviously I read #17, that's why I asked your opinion ~ so simply copy pasting it is redundant. There are many millions of Christians who believe the Bible forbids them from 'shedding blood' under any circumstances. Is that interpretation wrong in your opinion?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary you think of yourself as one of the Mr. Bigs of the forum, you said as much the other day. Poor Robbie was left to watch the big boys in the playground 😵

No, the analogy I used was when you see another poster whom you have no alliance with arguing with me and you jump into the fray with some weedy little childish remark, sort of like what used to happen at school when we would see two boys having a fight and then one of the little weeds would shout something at one of them from the safety of the back of the crowd. It summed you up quite nicely on that occasion I thought.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There as far as I am aware two modes of sin, one is wilful and the other is involuntary, the result of being imperfect. Sin therefore has moral consequences. Those who wilfully practice sin are deemed to be morally reprehensible as being fully cognizant of the fact that their course of action stands condemned and seek to justify it in some way. Th ...[text shortened]... hold anyone accountable and yet within each of us there is a guiding compass of the conscience.

Does this mean that those who are ignorant of their sin are not accountable for it?

Originally posted by divegeester
No, the analogy I used was when you see another poster whom you have no alliance with arguing with me and you jump into the fray with some weedy little childish remark, sort of like what used to happen at school when we would see two boys having a fight and then one of the little weeds would shout something at one of them from the safety of the back of the crowd. It summed you up quite nicely on that occasion I thought.

Hey Mr. Big, waz up? Will you get your big boy friends to beat weedy little robbie up because of his weedy little childish remarks? I guess being a Mr. Big and all you probably wont bother with weedy little ol weedy robbie any more now that you have only like to fry big fishes. Oh well, I cant say I'll miss it, i guess I will need to do more weights at the gym so I can hang out with you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hey Mr. Big, waz up? Will you get your big boy friends to beat weedy little robbie up because of his weedy little childish remarks? I guess being a Mr. Big and all you probably wont bother with weedy little ol weedy robbie any more now that you have only like to fry big fishes. Oh well, I cant say I'll miss it, i guess I will need to do more weights at the gym so I can hang out with you.

For someone oh-so- concerned about keeping this thread on topic, you seem remarkably inclined to respond to all my off-topic posts and remarkably disinclined to respond to my on-topic question above, which relates to your earlier post and which I've asked you three times about now by the way. 🙂

Originally posted by divegeester
Does this mean that those who are ignorant of their sin are not accountable for it?

I dont know.

Originally posted by divegeester
For someone oh-so- concerned about keeping this thread on topic, you seem remarkably inclined to respond to all my off-topic posts and remarkably disinclined to respond to my on-topic question above, which relates to your earlier post and which I've asked you three times about now by the way. 🙂

Why do you bother with this little weed, is there no one else that could provide real sport for you? Surely there are bigger fish for you to fry than little ol weedy robbie?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont know.

OK...here is you post in full:

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There as far as I am aware two modes of sin, one is wilful and the other is involuntary, the result of being imperfect. Sin therefore has moral consequences. Those who wilfully practice sin are deemed to be morally reprehensible as being fully cognizant of the fact that their course of action stands condemned and seek to justify it in some way. This presupposes that while an action may be deemed sinful if there is no knowledge that its sinful it may be difficult to hold anyone accountable and yet within each of us there is a guiding compass of the conscience.

If you "don't know" whether people are in fact accountable for unconscious sin, then why do you assume that "it may be difficult to hold anyone accountable"?

Originally posted by divegeester
OK...here is you post in full:

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There as far as I am aware two modes of sin, one is wilful and the other is involuntary, the result of being imperfect. Sin therefore has moral consequences. Those who wilfully practice sin are deemed to be morally reprehensible as being fully cognizant of the fact that their ...[text shortened]... r unconscious sin, then why do you assume that "it may be difficult to hold anyone accountable"?

because I don't know, maybe if I wasn't so weedy I would know and I haven't assumed anything, that is why I stated may be. Here is my weedy statement again, try to pay attention this time even though its so weedy for you, 'it may be difficult'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Why do you bother with this little weed, is there no one else that could provide real sport for you? Surely there are bigger fish for you to fry than little ol weedy robbie?

Because I find you, your contradictions about your concrete beliefs, your presumptions about other people and thier beliefs and your arrogant spirituality very interesting.

Originally posted by divegeester
Because I find you, your contradictions about your concrete beliefs, your presumptions about other people and thier beliefs and your arrogant spirituality very interesting.

Where have I contradicted myself? where have I presumed anything and where have I displayed arrogance?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because I don't know, maybe if I wasn't so weedy I would know and I haven't assumed anything, that is why I stated may be. Here is my weedy statement again, try to pay attention this time even though its so weedy for you, 'it may be difficult'.

You see, here is another of those moments where you initially tried to speak with an authority you simply don't have and end up contradicting yourself. It is interesting.