Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[GrandizerII]

Since we're bringing up passages from the NT (a reminder, btw, that atheists don't typically consider the Bible to be self-consistent), what about the claim that Lot was righteous according to 2 Peter? Doesn't this contradict what you (Drich, and maybe tackattack as well) said about Lot being corrupt?

[tackattack]

Lot did Sin, so did Noah, so did Abraham. But we only see a small glimpse of Lot's life. 2 Peter's author makes assumptions that Lot died forgiven because he knew of the forgiveness of Jesus and understood the time before the Law. There is no contradiction. If you see one please be specific. As it says in Romans All have sinned and fall short. If you'd like me to keep it in the OT then:

1 Kings 8:46
"When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near;
Ecclesiastes 7:20
Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.

If you'd like it in the same book then:
Genesis 6:12
God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

[GrandizerII]

There is no contradiction. If you see one please be specific.

The contradiction I'm referring to is Drich stating that Lot was corrupt while the NT states he was a righteous man. I do think that there are several passages in Genesis that do not make Lot look really good, but some much later Christian thought apparently begs to differ and even puts Lot in the same category as Noah in terms of righteousness.

As for those OT verses you quoted, yes, even the Old Testament seems to suggest that all men have sinned in some way. This does not mean, however, that they all weren't righteous. Noah was deemed a righteous man in the eyes of the Lord (that is why he and his family were spared the fate of drowning in the Flood), so were Enoch, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, and so on. So while the OT attests to men falling short of God's glory and such, it also makes clear that some men were better than others and thereby deemed righteous.

If you'd like it in the same book then:
Genesis 6:12
God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

Yeah, but this one doesn't even support your point as much as you think it does. This verse is clearly meant to justify God's decision to flood the earth as a means of punishment for their wickedness. It isn't saying that all men after the flood were corrupt, and in fact, just a few verses before that, we read that Noah was indeed considered a righteous man by God "blameless among the people of his time", so he definitely was not corrupt.

[tackattack]

It is clear in both the NT and OT that flesh was corrupted, that no man can always be righteous all the time. It is also clear that there was a method of repentance and atonement , pre-law, with-law and fulfilled law. Thus the simplest conclusion is that there is a tendency to be sinful, which prevents us from being righteous all the time. We can be righteously helping the poor in one minute, stub our toe, and blaspheming God the next. If you were to talking to someone else about how I helped the poor, you'd say I was righteous. If you were condemning my blasphemy you'd say I blasphemed and should be punished. The same applies to all of the figures you pointed out in the Bible. God's perspective, is above ours and He is a righteous judge. We don't "know" anyone's thoughts or heart.

So Lot (abraham, et al) being assumed righteous in the NT, is a guess not a contradiction. Anyone of them can be righteous at any one point in time. Righteousness is the act of being in right standing with God. It's a act/moment. Sin is also an act, an act against God. Sitting here typing am I sinning or righteous? Neither, I'm just eating breakfast.

To your other point, A Holy God doesn't see any difference between murder and adultery. The entry into Heaven is not based on works, IMO. That's not to say that more righteous doesn't get more rewards once in heaven, merely that the entry fee is the same price for all.

[GrandizerII]

The Jews who follow the Old Testament don't believe exactly what evangelical Christians believe regarding the nature of man and thereby the means to salvation. To the Jew, no one was always righteous, but some were considered righteous for what they did, even when at times they sinned against God. In some NT passages, righteousness is instead imputed by God to those who believe, and thus the believer is justified by faith (though some passages seem to suggest man's righteousness is a merit in its own right and thereby the believer is justified by works that complete one's faith, such as in James).

As for Lot, it's not clear to me why he was considered righteous in 2 Peter (when Genesis suggests otherwise, and God only saved Lot because he remembered Abraham). In 2 Peter, it seems like Lot was saved because of his own righteousness/godliness, which isn't even hinted at in Genesis.

Anyway, since this is about Genesis and not any of the other books in the Bible, that's all I'll say here on this matter. When/if we ever do get to those passages, then I'll have a few more things to say about the topic of righteousness in light of what those passages state.

[tackattack]

Agreed, Jews believe that you must atone for sins with a sacrifice and that makes you righteous. Jews also don't believe in the soul as an entity separate from the body.
Taking just Genesis, though we have to remember we're talking late bronze age. They were a mesh of Canaanite and Israeli polytheists working towards monotheism. The "Jews" prior to Moses (besides not existing) believed in ritual atonement of sins against their many gods, hence the golden calf. Lot was saved only because of a petition from Abraham and the grace of God.

[Drich]

Are you really arguing against me when I was actually agreeing with you? People are sinful by nature because of original sin.

yes and no. I am not arguing with the bits that agree, however most of what you have said is not in line with the distinction I made.


It's explained very easily in Romans 2 and 5
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another[/quote]
maybe from a different translation or perspective you will see the difference here and Abraham's specific situation.
14 Those who are not Jews don’t have the law. But when they naturally do what the law commands without even knowing the law, then they are their own law. This is true even though they don’t have the written law. 15 They show that in their hearts they know what is right and wrong, the same as the law commands, and their consciences agree. Sometimes their thoughts tell them that they have done wrong, and this makes them guilty. And sometimes their thoughts tell them that they have done right, and this makes them not guilty.

Do you see it? Paul in romans 2 is directly describing gentiles who have the law written on their hearts.

I would surmise Abraham's situation with direct line of communication with God is a little more... indepth. than the general Roman gentile Paul is speaking of. (see romans 4) In that Abraham doesn't have to rely on what is on his heart but what God says to Him directly. and even so He still sins. (if he were under the law.) We in this study have pointed out several failures of abraham's faith which resulted in lies and other shortcomings/adultry.. if there were a law "sin".. Meaning we have a list of what would be identified as sin in abraham's own life, YET he is counted as a'righteous man before God. EVEN IN HIS SIN, With no sin sacrifice nor savior...

Where we differ is I have identified evil as being a class of 'sin' Evil is pure wanton rebellion against what God wants. This evil can be found in the people of sodom and gomorrah as per the parameters found in the story arch of genesis 18. This evil not just sin (as it is possible to be sinner as per abraham and not be evil per the people of Sodom) in this story.

(this is the bit that looses most christians as they make no distinction between sin and evil) While abraham is a sinner which full fills what paul says in your quote of romans he abraham is still counted as " good or righteous" before God. Which is why he says to god will you destroy the whole city if I can find 50 other "sinners" who are not evil? then 40 then 30 then 20 finally 10 He again must have figured there are at least 10 people he knew when they rescued lot from the raiding party a few chapters back who also were freed along with all of their stuff, or maybe they were friends of lot...

But again no. at that point when he could not find even 10, he knew the whole city even lot was bad and God allowing him to take lot out was god being very generous as because even if lot had not had his evil recorded to this point he knew the city and that life tainted lot and his family, as well as everyone else he knew. which again will manifested with his wife being turned into salt and his daughters getting him drunk and sleeping with their father.

Lot along with Sodom and Gomorrah as well as his family all turned evil, not just sinned but evil/wanted to live in the wrong Paul describes.

AND
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[e] because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
[/hide]

not relevant to what I saying.. You think I am arguing no law no sin and you want to impress everyone is sin. I'm pointing out there was no law yet there is still Evil and righteousness. which is a very important thing to learn now as as the world is not sin or good, but redeemed sinful and evil.

I agree no one was righteous from that place 100% I also agree it was a mercy that He saved Lot. But as highlighted above, those before the law still had the law on their hearts, all had sinned, and sins aren't differentiated without the law.

Again we have shown abraham to still be a sinner if you can not see past this term. however there was no law. And again abraham's situation is a little different than the general roman gentile Paul is describing in Romans 2 no? As God speaks directly to abraham and not generally to the common roman gentile...
As such the separation you are trying to make between Abraham and Lot or the people of S&G is the EVil that Genesis chapter 18 says permits these two cities and the people that dwell in them.

Fore it is possible to sin and not be evil at this time and place as we have discussed Abraham himself is a known sinner but is still counted among the righteous as he still follows and obey the direct commands of God. He is even at a point where he can bargain with God which we are told is unlawful to do under the law. but again he here is not under the law, but is counted righteous as he follows God. Where as lot and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are identified as evil in the beginning.

Which in fact is the separation or nuance I have made here that you are missing. (as all your verses speak to simple sin and NOT the point of the evil being generated by S&G to the point where God is obliged to act.) a asin so great people without God's law cry out to God to step in and regulate these people.

In fact just go read Romans 3 and 4. They speak directly to justification of Abraham and original sin.

actually chapter 4 of romans is the foundation to the lesson or delineation between sin and evil. (how abraham was a sinner if under the law but not counted with lot and S&G.) or chapter 4 answers why Abraham's sins did not count against him. 1) there was no law 2)there was Abraham's faith and Action in what God said to Him. His in following God made Him right before God while Lot's deeds followed lot's wants and desires albeit though many years of compromise he ultimately followed his heart opposite of what God wanted. which is indeed at the heart of evil.

---

Are you really arguing against me when I was actually agreeing with you? People are sinful by nature because of original sin.

yes and no. I am not arguing with the bits that agree, however most of what you have said is not in line with the distinction I made.


It's explained very easily in Romans 2 and 5
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

maybe from a different translation or perspective you will see the difference here and Abraham's specific situation.
14 Those who are not Jews don’t have the law. But when they naturally do what the law commands without even knowing the law, then they are their own law. This is true even though they don’t have the written law. 15 They show that in their hearts they know what is right and wrong, the same as the law commands, and their consciences agree. Sometimes their thoughts tell them that they have done wrong, and this makes them guilty. And sometimes their thoughts tell them that they have done right, and this makes them not guilty.

Do you see it? Paul in romans 2 is directly describing gentiles who have the law written on their hearts.

I would surmise Abraham's situation with direct line of communication with God is a little more... indepth. than the general Roman gentile Paul is speaking of. (see romans 4) In that Abraham doesn't have to rely on what is on his heart but what God says to Him directly. and even so He still sins. (if he were under the law.) We in this study have pointed out several failures of abraham's faith which resulted in lies and other shortcomings/adultry.. if there were a law "sin".. Meaning we have a list of what would be identified as sin in abraham's own life, YET he is counted as a'righteous man before God. EVEN IN HIS SIN, With no sin sacrifice nor savior...

Where we differ is I have identified evil as being a class of 'sin' Evil is pure wanton rebellion against what God wants. This evil can be found in the people of sodom and gomorrah as per the parameters found in the story arch of genesis 18. This evil not just sin (as it is possible to be sinner as per abraham and not be evil per the people of Sodom) in this story.

(this is the bit that looses most christians as they make no distinction between sin and evil) While abraham is a sinner which full fills what paul says in your quote of romans he abraham is still counted as " good or righteous" before God. Which is why he says to god will you destroy the whole city if I can find 50 other "sinners" who are not evil? then 40 then 30 then 20 finally 10 He again must have figured there are at least 10 people he knew when they rescued lot from the raiding party a few chapters back who also were freed along with all of their stuff, or maybe they were friends of lot...

But again no. at that point when he could not find even 10, he knew the whole city even lot was bad and God allowing him to take lot out was god being very generous as because even if lot had not had his evil recorded to this point he knew the city and that life tainted lot and his family, as well as everyone else he knew. which again will manifested with his wife being turned into salt and his daughters getting him drunk and sleeping with their father.

Lot along with Sodom and Gomorrah as well as his family all turned evil, not just sinned but evil/wanted to live in the wrong Paul describes.

AND
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[e] because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
[/hide]

not relevant to what I saying.. You think I am arguing no law no sin and you want to impress everyone is sin. I'm pointing out there was no law yet there is still Evil and righteousness. which is a very important thing to learn now as as the world is not sin or good, but redeemed sinful and evil.

I agree no one was righteous from that place 100% I also agree it was a mercy that He saved Lot. But as highlighted above, those before the law still had the law on their hearts, all had sinned, and sins aren't differentiated without the law.

Again we have shown abraham to still be a sinner if you can not see past this term. however there was no law. And again abraham's situation is a little different than the general roman gentile Paul is describing in Romans 2 no? As God speaks directly to abraham and not generally to the common roman gentile...
As such the separation you are trying to make between Abraham and Lot or the people of S&G is the EVil that Genesis chapter 18 says permits these two cities and the people that dwell in them.

Fore it is possible to sin and not be evil at this time and place as we have discussed Abraham himself is a known sinner but is still counted among the righteous as he still follows and obey the direct commands of God. He is even at a point where he can bargain with God which we are told is unlawful to do under the law. but again he here is not under the law, but is counted righteous as he follows God. Where as lot and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are identified as evil in the beginning.

Which in fact is the separation or nuance I have made here that you are missing. (as all your verses speak to simple sin and NOT the point of the evil being generated by S&G to the point where God is obliged to act.) a asin so great people without God's law cry out to God to step in and regulate these people.

In fact just go read Romans 3 and 4. They speak directly to justification of Abraham and original sin.

actually chapter 4 of romans is the foundation to the lesson or delineation between sin and evil. (how abraham was a sinner if under the law but not counted with lot and S&G.) or chapter 4 answers why Abraham's sins did not count against him. 1) there was no law 2)there was Abraham's faith and Action in what God said to Him. His in following God made Him right before God while Lot's deeds followed lot's wants and desires albeit though many years of compromise he ultimately followed his heart opposite of what God wanted. which is indeed at the heart of evil.
[/quote]

---

Since we're bringing up passages from the NT (a reminder, btw, that atheists don't typically consider the Bible to be self-consistent), what about the claim that Lot was righteous according to 2 Peter? Doesn't this contradict what you (Drich, and maybe tackattack as well) said about Lot being corrupt?

6 God also punished the evil cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. He burned them until there was nothing left but ashes. He used those cities as an example of what will happen to people who are against God. 7 But he saved Lot, a good man who lived there. Lot was greatly troubled by the morally bad lives of those evil people. 8 This good man lived with those evil people every day, and his good heart was hurt by the evil things he saw and heard.

9 So you see that the Lord God knows how to save those who are devoted to him. He will save them when troubles come. And the Lord will hold evil people to punish them on the day of judgment. 10 That punishment is for those who are always doing the evil that their sinful selves want to do. It is for those who hate the Lord’s authority.

Lot was not so much righteous but as counted among the saved. Peter identifies lot as a good man because he was 'troubled' by his neighbors and what they wanted to do with the two angel visitors... Then lot offers his two virgin daughters instead... to peter this may make lot out to be a good man, but my personal standard are a little higher, but again I am under the law and lot was not. Meaning I have been held to a high standard than what lot has been held to, but I am no judge. only one charged to live by the law not to use the law to judge others. As I couldn't even do that and require atonement, as does lot I have no say in the matter as I need the same attoning grace lot needs. In the end both peter and I acknowledge God's authority to make said judgment and we will both respect however God judges lot. if he is a good man, then who am I to say different?

[tackattack]

We are trying to stay in Genesis, I apologize for interjecting other scriptures into this study. That is a hot mess of quotes drich and I think it's copy and pasted twice as well. You are trying to make two points.
1. the point that there are degrees of sin. I agree that to us there are degrees of sin. Catholics have dissertations on mortal an venial sins. We all know there's several types of lies, lies of omission, blatant lies etc. . We recognize morally that they're all lies and all wrong. My only point was that to a Holy God there is no fiference between someone who cheats on his taxes and Hitler.
2. Abraham and Lot were pre-law and therefore not held to the law of moses. I thought I completely agreed with that. If you want to say Abraham was different than post-law gentiles because he had direct communication with God, it doesn't bode well for you having direct communication with God does it? Lot was not subject to the law of Moses and wasn't part of the covenant.
If you're trying to make this 3rd point I respectfully disagree:
3. sin doesn't make you evil necessarily. I completely agree with the idea you can sin and eventually still be saved. Let's just look at Lot's wife, she was perfectly fine, and escaping God's wrath (was she righteous then?) until she directly disobeyed God and turned around. Boom pillar of salt. I don't expect Lot to see his wife in Heaven because she literally died sinning against God. Here's how sanctification goes:
Sin-acknowledge-Repent-accept forgiveness The Jews just add atonement at the end because they believe works get you into Heaven.
Sin is turning away from God. If God is good then Sin is turning towards Evil and away from good and God. Therefore sinning makes you evil, you can argue the degree but it misses the point. Sinning is an act, it happens in a moment. It doesn't matter if you're cheating on taxes or murdering your wife's sister to a Holy God. We have all sinned to some degree and that makes us all, at least some part, evil. Righteousness is also an action; acting in accord with divine or moral law. Same argument applies to righteousness then, you can be both partially righteous and a partially sinful as a whole person, just not at the same exact moment in time.

[Drich]

we are close.

Pre law there is only righteousness and evil. The righteous per abraham's example sinned. yet still found favor with God. Why because they followed Him. over what they wanted for themselves. It wasn't God was good with sin, there was simply no expectation to follow a non existent law. Parable of the talents give an idea from Christ Himself to your bit in romans 2 saying we have a version of the law written on our hearts (in essence we are responsible to what God gives us to understand)

The people in S&G were EVIL like 100% My personal feelings also wants to judge Lot as being completely lost as well, But God saw fit to save him through abraham. I honestly think Abraham thought if lot was salvageable then there must be 50 people he knew like lot who lived there but was not gone or not consumed by the city's evil! So this leads to Abraham to plea for the city because I'm sure like us he thought people are basically good and if he can find his 50 people he knew then all the other 'good people' would also be saved.

Then 50 turn to 40 then 30 and so on. When he got to 10 he dare not go any lower because lot and his family were 4. could you imagine if lot's wife were given the opportunity to stay and chance it? then lot would stay an so too the girls.. because I think abraham had a rude awakening in those in whom he thought he knew, and then also saw the same devotion to the city and lifestyle in lot's family.. This is why lot's wife turn back and looked lonely at the city thus sealing her fate as a pillar of salt. At her core she too was evil which is why she turn and mourned the destruction of her city life. This also had the added benefit of lot and the girls getting out of the city and cementing what God had to say

Abraham communication with God was indeed different than his jewish descendants, or the preserved roman gentiles of romans 2. As none of them had direct contact with God unless god sent a prophet or if God pours out the holy spirit. We post baptism of water and the spirit indeed have access to the spirit but that is not who is being described in Romans 2.

Sin-acknowledge-Repent-accept forgiveness The Jews just add atonement at the end because they believe works get you into Heaven.
Sin is turning away from God. If God is good then Sin is turning towards Evil and away from good and God. Therefore sinning makes you evil, you can argue the degree but it misses the point. Sinning is an act, it happens in a moment. It doesn't matter if you're cheating on taxes or murdering your wife's sister to a Holy God. We have all sinned to some degree and that makes us all, at least some part, evil. Righteousness is also an action; acting in accord with divine or moral law. Same argument applies to righteousness then, you can be both partially righteous and a partially sinful as a whole person, just not at the same exact moment in time.

What I am saying according to the example here through abraham is it is possible to sin and never be evil. Evil is a deep desire to be in sin or a heavy act of sin/knowing doing something God does not want. example abraham lied about his relationship with sarah. not because he wanted to but because he thought he had to to save both of them. He did this in an attempt to be in the will of God/He saw no other way to be in God's will. Again I attribute this to living without a law as even though abraham lied he was seen as righteous before God.

[Angrboda]

I don't think anybody is 100% evil, even if I were to accept the other ideas about sin at face value.