Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

So we ready for romans 4?

I think I'll start a new thread for that one. since we are 30+ pages in and still discussing Chapter 1 and 2.

Perhaps your idea isn't appealing at all to any atheist here. Why pretend it is? Is this something about having your ego boosted?

It seemed to appeal to you when you thought you had a viable objection...

Again just incase you missed it. the study in Romans can help someone like you tear down a 'christian' arguement based on the idea that their particular form of Christianity is the 'right one.' But it seems you want to stick to the bart er-ham? method of failing hard on basic theological points to try and discredit The very source material that would make an honest christian question absolutly everything he believes.

When I was an atheist/bully I sought oppertunities like this. To show the thumpers that their religion did not line up with what the bible actually said. Then I'd ask which do you love more. Your God repersented by the bible or your religion? or i'd ask if the bible says the oppsite of what your religion says, are you sure you have the right one?

Contextual consecutive scripture always trumps cherry picked doctrine. (10 different verses that formulates a single idea) Here the Book of Romans outlines and defines the Gospel/our relationship with sin. Which is vastly different than what most 'christian' religion teaches.

[Drich]

Actually no.

Paul is saying those who embrace sin are evil

Those who sin but hate their sin, or are ignorant of it can be saved.

The people in Acts 17 were examples of sinners.

The people of Romans 1 are identified as evil.

The people of romans 2 are just sinners.

I am not trying to talk past you, I am bring you something new you feel you already know but appearently dont.

If we can be allowed to get past all of this, the book of Romans makes a big deal between sinners and evil people. It also tells us God does not expect us to ever stop sinning in this life. We just cant embrace or love our sin, because that would make us evil. God has no room for evil people.




The word in Romans 1 for evil is:
κακός kakós, kak-os'; apparently a primary word; worthless (intrinsically, such; whereas G4190 properly refers to effects), i.e. (subjectively) depraved, or (objectively) injurious:—bad, evil, harm, ill, noisome, wicked.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2556&t=KJV

This evil is paired with this word:
ἀδικία adikía, ad-ee-kee'-ah; from G94; (legal) injustice (properly, the quality, by implication, the act); morally, wrongfulness (of character, life or act):—iniquity, unjust, unrighteousness, wrong.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...=G93&t=KJV
These two words describe "Evil men" or unrighteous men of Romans 1.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/rom/1/1/s_1047018

Verse the words describing the sin of Romans 2:
ἁμαρτάνω hamartánō, ham-ar-tan'-o; perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly, to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), i.e. (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin:—for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...264&t=NASB

Their is a vast difference between one who 'tresspassed, has faults, miss the mark, or offends.' Verse those who are iniquitious, unjust, injurious:—bad, evil, wicked.

List 1, the sin list. One does not have to even be aware that he is in sin, or maybe in a position where that person is not in control of sin. (as per our discussion on gay people) and yet can still be in sin. This describes the people of romans 2

List or defination 2 describes someone or a group who embrace or want to do harm/sin for whatever reason. this is the people of Romans 1

So the people of Romans 2 AND Acts 17 belong to the sin group. They were either ignorant of their sin or were "slaves to sin" (per paul in romans 7) They get a different treatment from God if they repent, than those of Romans 1. the evil people/People who justify, embrace and love their sin.

I'm not sure why you think I don't grasp this element of what Paul is saying. Paul talks a LOT about "the law" (meaning Hebrew tradition) and what the concept of what God considers "sin" actually means. Nothing you're saying here is revealing or shocking to me.

It's simply a way of defining anyone who disagrees with his interpretation (and yours) of What God Wants™ as willfully evil, because they know what sin is, now, and yet refuse to accept that they are sins. It is not one shred different from the Muslims who claim, in Surah 29:45-49

"45. Recite what has been revealed to you of the Book, and establish prayer; surely prayer keeps you away from indecency and evil. Remembrance of Allah is the greatest, and Allah knows what you do.

46. Do not dispute with the people of the book except with what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in what was revealed to us, and what was revealed to you; our God and your God is one, and to Him we submit.

47. Thus We have revealed to you the book. Those whom we have given the book believe in it, and of these (Jews and Christians) there are those who believe in it; and none deny Our signs except the disbelievers.

48. You did not recite any book before it, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, for then those who follow untruth would have doubted.

49. Nay! It is a clear sign in the hearts of those who have been given knowledge; and none dispute Our signs except the unjust."

You citing Romans to us is no different than a Muslim citing Surah 29 to you.

Stay on target, stay on target...

Their is a difference. I am quoting Romans and Acts 17 to show that Bart's arguement is critically flawed, because he wrongly assumes that the group in acts 17 and Romans 2 is the same as the evil men in romans 1. That "all Men are without excuse." When the Romans 1 text says Evil men are without excuse. Because their are two different groups being address here and not the 1 bart Er-ham says, that means everything based on bart's one group assumption is also wrong. (That the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of Romans)

[GrandizerII]

The Evil Men of Romans 20 all have been programmed with the knoweledge that A God exists, and as per romans1:20 as "THEY ALL have evidences set before Them..." but According to Acts 17:29-30 'we'/Those who seek Righteousness do not automatically know who He is specifically, as you can see in the example of Acts 17, they worshiped God wrongly out of ignorance in the past.

Romans 1:20 says God is perceived by the mind through his creation. This means every person with a rational mind should know of God according to Romans 1:20. What Acts 17 states or implies is that Romans 1:20 is not entirely true.
Not my problem the passages contradict.

The use of the word Autos/They infers at lest two groups of people.

Yes, because you know Greek now, eh? Please stop changing the intended meaning.

With the use of this word Paul is seperating EVIL Men From the Sinful men of Chapter 2.

No he's not. He's separating the group of unbelievers from the group of believers who are pretty much just as bad as the former group because, as Paul makes clear in Romans, it's not enough to hear the law but to obey it.

[Brian37]

I hate the words "study" and "practice" when it comes to religion. You can study and practice the Klingon language, but exactly what would that make you an expert in?

[Redbeard The Pink]

I hate the words "study" and "practice" when it comes to religion. You can study and practice the Klingon language, but exactly what would that make you an expert in?

Obsessing over a fictional story.

[robvalue]

You can practice burying the logical fallacies under layers of irrelevant bullshit.

[Drich]

Paul in that statement is not refering to the bible. Because when He wrote this their wasn't a bible for those type of people. Paul is talking about the intrinsic sence of right and wrong god placed in all of us. Paul is saying because 'EVIL People' ignore their initial sense of wrong doing, and they embraced their sin, God turned them over to their sin meaning to them their 'evil' becomes moral and right, and the things of God become evil. that is why they so willing embrace the list of Evil things he goes on to list.

First of all: God didn't place any intrinsic sense of right and wrong in any of us because he'd have to exist first - and why the fuck would we need it to know right from wrong when genetic biological + memetic cultural/The moral zeitgeist +  empathy + compassion is enough without God?

Second of all: What the fuck? God apparently decided that the best thing to do with "evil people" is to make their evil become moral and right to them? If that was the case it would seem he was trying to encourage so-called "evil people" to "be evil" by doing evil deeds. Sounds like the skyddady is naught but fucktarded.

Let me see if I have the finer points of your arguement down

First of all Their is no God!

Second of all Why did God do this?!?!?

Since we both seem to agree (by the nature of your 2nd question) God does exist, I will ignore statement 1 and answer question 2

This life in not about living a perfect life as we will find out if we can finish this study. This life has been given to us away from the known glory of God inorder for us to make a heart felt choice about where we want to spend eternity. God does not want to convince or sway anyone. He only wants the people who want to be with Him for eternity to seek the redemption needed, and for everyone else when they are sent to Hell, He wants them to know that they are their because in truth they wanted to be seperated from God for eternity. Turning evil people over to their sin ensures that those who are sent to hell know that is what they chose and that is where they belong.

[Edwardo Piet]

 Let me see if I have the finer points of your arguement down

First of all Their is no God!

Second of all Why did God do this?!?!?

No wonder you believe in all that Biblical bullshit: You seem completely incapable of grasping the concept of a hypothetical.

Hardly surprising if you persist to not know the difference between "there" and "their".

[Drich]

The Evil Men of Romans 20 all have been programmed with the knoweledge that A God exists, and as per romans1:20 as "THEY ALL have evidences set before Them..." but According to Acts 17:29-30 'we'/Those who seek Righteousness do not automatically know who He is specifically, as you can see in the example of Acts 17, they worshiped God wrongly out of ignorance in the past.

Romans 1:20 says God is perceived by the mind through his creation. This means every person with a rational mind should know of God according to Romans 1:20. What Acts 17 states or implies is that Romans 1:20 is not entirely true.
Not my problem the passages contradict.

The use of the word Autos/They infers at lest two groups of people.

Yes, because you know Greek now, eh? Please stop changing the intended meaning.

With the use of this word Paul is seperating EVIL Men From the Sinful men of Chapter 2.

No he's not. He's separating the group of unbelievers from the group of believers who are pretty much just as bad as the former group because, as Paul makes clear in Romans, it's not enough to hear the law but to obey it.

Ah, I see now. You are one who believes the bible was written in english, so when you see what you think is a contradiction, you believe it to be a flaw in the scripture, and don't question the translation.

The Reason I posted the greek was to establish that the "They" in romans 20 means The Evil men being spoken of can be identified/isolated as one group of people. which breaks your claim that their is a contradiction. The only way for you to claim a contradiction is if you ignore both the english and greek and insist that the word 'they in verse 20 actually means 'we'.

20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

So bury your head in the sand if you like, but your arguement based on 'er-ham's work is at an end.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Stay on target, stay on target...

Their is a difference. I am quoting Romans and Acts 17 to show that Bart's arguement is critically flawed, because he wrongly assumes that the group in acts 17 and Romans 2 is the same as the evil men in romans 1. That "all Men are without excuse." When the Romans 1 text says Evil men are without excuse. Because their are two different groups being address here and not the 1 bart Er-ham says, that means everything based on bart's one group assumption is also wrong. (That the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of Romans)

No, no, no. What you're doing pretending to give us "lessons" in the meaning of the Epistle to the Romans. Trying to focus on just one narrow part of the argument while ignoring the overall arc (and claiming I am not "on target" when I keep to the overall narrative) is dishonest and disingenuous.

Your assertion that Ehrman (us as well) does not understand the Bible because he violates your sense of how to interpret Romans and Acts together is related to the overall point. From what I have read of Ehrman (I have read many of his articles, but not his books), he seems to be making a claim that if you take the total number of points made about Paul's views by Paul, and compare it to the pseudonymous (apocryphal/interpolated/pick-your-term) letters attributed to him and the accounts written of him by others, you can see there are some distinctions significant enough in totality to show that it's not a single picture. It is clear that others have drawn a caricature of the man which differs in measurable ways from his own self-description, enough to show that the legend had changed into a different personal philosophy, or that Paul's own philosophy was different from what others thought of him.

The odd distinction you are drawing is a mistake because it looks back at Paul from 2000 years later; if you look at it from the time he was writing, then he is saying that (like the Qur'an says) that people before that time had an excuse for those willing to act on their inherent evil and/or sinful natures, while "nowadays" others do not, because they have access to The Truth about God™ (which doesn't necessarily mean Christ, but of course Christ according to his followers came to give us specific instructions/guidance for good behavior, according to God, and his death absolves us of the debt to God for our sins as well). Calling them different groups, as you do, seems to be more than just splitting hairs.