Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Matthew

[Icky icky]

You are still talking about God, and not Jesus. People all over the world found their gods revealed in nature. This is not in question. But none of them found Jesus until they were told about Jesus, many centuries after the Roman Empire heard about him. This was my only point, that you still can't seem to address.

[jimwalton]

Um...

"Jesus himself admitted in several places that nature was one of the ways God revealed Himself..."

"Jesus often spoke of the conscience when he spoke of the heart..."

"...and Jesus in places like Matthew 15.10 and John 3."

> But none of them found Jesus until they were told about Jesus

That's right. We can't tell a story about someone's life until that person has lived his life. And the only way for people to know is for the word to spread, hence Matthew 28.19: Go tell everybody.

C.S. Lewis says, : "Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and have been able to believe in him? But the truth is God has not told us what his arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself. ... If you want to help those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man's fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more work. ..."

[Life & Breath]

I guess we have different view point on that subject, and I think we won't necessary agree, but please read it as I would like knowing what you think about this point.

For me, the real problem of life is trying to survive. Once we know how to do it, we can try to do it in an ethical way so we don't "sin". For instance, I think that if there is a shortage of food, many people wouldn't mind stealing or even killing, if then they are able to feed themselves and their family. That's why I think the Bible should have thought us how to survive, because only then we can give ourselves the freedom to try to fight sin. If the Bible gave us all the knowledge of farming, medicine, building,... we could then easily overcome sin, as there would be very few moments where we would be tempted to do so.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, why do you say: "You are separated from God by your sin." From what I know, we are separated from God by the original sin. Jesus came and redeemed it, but we are still born with sin, so it is not necessary our fault, isn't it?

> There are so many resources we have that are needed to build a better world. I'm surprised you asked.

I asked because, for me, knowledge is the most important thing to build the world. Humans are always trying to find new knowledge to be able to improve the world: new ways of farming, of storing energy, of communicating,... but it takes a lot of time, effort and resources to find this new knowledge. That's why I asked, because I have always wondered why god never gave us all of it in the Bible.

[jimwalton]

You treat sin as if it's a social disease, not a spiritual one. The Bible uses a lot of different terms to talk about sin. Some focus on its causes, others on its nature, and still others on its consequences.

- Error
- Missing the mark
- irreligion
- transgression
- iniquity; lack of integrity
- rebellion
- treachery
- perversion
- abomination
- evil or badness
- trouble

Sin is rebellion against God and a denying of the truth, including moral perversion, as well as social irresponsibility in not taking care of one another with food, clothing, health care, etc. William Stevens says, "Various definitions of sin have been set forth. One is that sin is non-conformity to the moral law of God. Yet sin goes much deeper than God’s law, for it goes back to our relationship with a personal God. Sin has been defined as rebellion against the will of God for one’s life. Yet this does not reveal whether sin is a state, an act, or a condition. Sin has been described as selfishness. Yet much more is involved in sin than is implied in the simple term selfishness. Sin has been described as an act, disposition, or state that is morally wrong. This is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t take into account one’s relation to God. It is more a definition of evil than of sin. Sin has been defined as a breach of relations between the sinner and God. Yet more is involved in sin that is connoted by this bare declaration."

> Sin and separation from God

Isaiah 59.2 says that our sins have separated us from God. (There are other texts: Galatians 5.4, Ephesians 2.12, et al.) You're right that you are separated from God by original sin, and that Jesus redeemed it. But His redemption only becomes effective if we accept it. He offers you a free gift, but you have to take it and use it. It you don't, then you're not redeemed. It is your fault, then, because you chose to reject the path to forgiveness and the means to appropriate the redemption. If your car is broken and I offer to give you mine, if you don't take it, you're still without a car (and don't blame me for that).

> I asked because, for me, knowledge is the most important thing to build the world. Humans are always trying to find new knowledge to be able to improve the world: new ways of farming, of storing energy, of communicating,... but it takes a lot of time, effort and resources to find this new knowledge. That's why I asked, because I have always wondered why god never gave us all of it in the Bible.

History has shown us that knowledge is not taking us to utopia. The advances of science in the late 1800s, alongside the industrial revolution, were thought to be taking us to this better world. World War 1, the abuses of industrialization, and Great Depression shattered that. Science continued to advance, and led us to WW2, failed states such as the USSR, and the freedoms of the 60s and beyond (technology, conveniences at home, sexual freedom, workplace advances) have not led us to improvement but to terrorism, fear, escalating drug addictions, increasing levels of depression, higher divorce rates, etc.

Knowledge has shown itself to be unable to take us where we are all hoping to God. Only God alone can take us to the place of morality, peace, truth, wisdom, and justice. What God gave us in the Bible is the path to him, which will lead us to these 5 goals.

[Life & Breath]

> Sin is rebellion against God and a denying of the truth, including moral perversion, as well as social irresponsibility in not taking care of one another with food, clothing, health care, etc.

Then I can come back to my original point. Matthew 28:19 may not be actively trying to make us sin, but by doing what Jesus commands, people would not have taken care of one another health care, so although they didn't want, they sinned because of this command. Every missioner that came to America to help to "colonize and Christianize" the native people, contributed to spread these diseases. European contact swept the Americas subsequent, killing between 10 million and 100 million.

> History has shown us that knowledge is not taking us to utopia.

You don't think we live in a better world today? In 1800, 43,3% of the children would die in their first 5 years. In 2015, it was only 4,25%. Today you have vaccines (Measles vaccination has saved an estimated 17.1 million lives since 2000 and antibiotics (penicillin has saved at least 200 million lives since its first use as a medicine in 1942). Do you really want to go back to the Middle Ages or even further back, where a simple infection would probably have killed you?

> Only God alone can take us to the place of morality, peace, truth, wisdom, and justice.

How can you say that? Religion has caused many wars killing millions, slowed down the progress of science and divided people in communities how can't tolerate each other. Where do you base your assumptions? In what the Bible says? Because if so, then you will have to somehow be able to demonstrate that the claims made in your particular Holly Book are somewhat more accurate and trustworthy than the ones made in the others

[jimwalton]

> Matthew 28:19 may not be actively trying to make us sin, but by doing what Jesus commands, people would not have taken care of one another health care, so although they didn't want, they sinned because of this command.

I still disagree. In taking Jesus' message to the world, they were also supposed to take the behavior of feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, working for justice in the world, and working for health. That's part of the biblical message as well (as Jesus said in Matt. 25.31-46). So Matt. 28.19 is not encouraging us to kill people, nor is it a sin to obey it.

> You don't think we live in a better world today?

In ways we do, in ways we don't. I've read the statistics that say the 20th century was the most violent in human history (people killed in wars), and that there was more genocide in the 20th century than at any other time. There is tremendous unrest. While general health is clearly better in First World countries, I'm not so convinced about some of the rest of the world.

> How can you say that? Religion has caused many wars killing millions, slowed down the progress of science and divided people in communities how can't tolerate each other.

This is patently untrue. There have been some religious wars, but lots of them are just labeled as such by a media that doesn't know better. Religion is usually a cover for secular power or for ethnic or tribal hatred, like Sri Lanka, Ireland, and Rwanda, et al. Individual atheists like Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tsetung and Pol Pot tortured, starved and murdered more people in one century that all the combined religious regimes of the world during the previous 19 centuries.

[Life & Breath]

> So Matt. 28.19 is not encouraging us to kill people, nor is it a sin to obey it.

Sorry for my lack of understanding, but I still don't get it. Why was it not a sin to obey it? How can killing people not qualify as a sin? Does not knowing the consequences of one's actions make you innocent?

> There is tremendous unrest.

I completely agree with you on that, but has there been some time in history where it wasn't like that? Would you like to live in Ancient Egypt, where being a farmer would mean you would nearly be a slave? Or in Medieval times, were losing your crops would most likely make you starve? Or, for that sake, being a farmer in any time before the advances of technology we have today? I agree with you that it is terrible that 1.3 billion people today still live in extreme poverty, but let's not forget that it is less than 20 % of the worlds' population (which is relatively low compared to the past), and there are many efforts made to decrease this number.

> This is patently untrue.

Why would you say that? What were the crusades if not religious wars? You mentioned terrorism before, most of it is done because of religion. Why do you blame war on secular power? I don't know about the other people you mentioned, as I haven't studied them, but I would not make the claim that Hitler was an atheist. Just look at the belt WW2 German soldiers wore. It says "Gott mit uns", which translates to "God with us"

[jimwalton]

> Why was it not a sin to obey it?

Because sin is going against what God says, so it can't possibly be a sin to obey what God says. "A" can't equal "not A".

> How can killing people not qualify as a sin?

The command is not to kill people but to offer them life. The command is to make disciples, teach, baptize. There is no notion in the command of "to people's detriment or harm."

> Does not knowing the consequences of one's actions make you innocent?

There are different punishments in the Bible for intentional sin and unintentional sin, just as our courts give different sentences for first-degree murder, justifiable homicide, and involuntary manslaughter. But all of those are beside the point, here. The command from Jesus is to share the good news of life. You are twisting this so badly to say, "Yeah, but when they did this 1400 years later, they inadvertently carried disease with them, so Jesus is encouraging murder." It's just a distortion. If I tell my child he can go play with his friend, and while they're playing, the other child trips over my kid's foot and gets hurt, that doesn't mean I sinned by saying my kid could play, or that I was commanding my kid to hurt the other kid, and therefore I'm immoral. It's a non sequitur. Jesus commanded people to share good news of life. That's no relation to the fact that 1400 years later some carried disease with them when they did it. Suppose you encouraged me to printed out our conversation to show to a friend, and while I was driving there I was in a car collision and a person in the other car got killed. Should you be prosecuted? But you killed people, right? Of course not; it's absurd.

> but has there been some time in history where it wasn't like that?

Never. Even today in our "civilized" world, there are estimates that 30 million people are being human-trafficked. 30 million! And who are the millions upon millions of perpetrators who prey on these innocents? In some ways we live in a better world, and in some ways things never change. But I think we're naive to think things are so much better in the modern world.

> What were the crusades if not religious wars?

Sure they were. First of all, that was 1000 years ago. Secondly, it was a response to the Islamic wars (also religious) destroying and conquering Europe and the whole Mediterranean coast. Of course there have been some religious wars. Part of the motive behind the Crusades was political, and part religious. The Islamic armies were seizing lands and countries. The Crusades were an attempt to rebuff their aggression, as well as to take Jerusalem back for Christianity.

> You mentioned terrorism before, most of it is done because of religion.

Yes, much terrorism now is done in the name of Islamic extremism. Some terrorism, as you must know, is also political.

> Why do you blame war on secular power?

Because most of the wars of the 20th century were political wars, not religious ones.

> Was Hitler an atheist?

The very article you linked me to (Wikipedia: "The Religious Views of Adolf Hitler"): "In light of evidence such as his rejection of the tenets of Christianity as an adolescent,[1] and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was an opponent of Christianity. Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that 'Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church'.[2] Hitler's remarks to confidants, as described in the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and transcripts of Hitler's private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann in Hitler's Table Talk, are further evidence of his anti-Christian beliefs; these sources record a number of private remarks in which Hitler ridicules Christian doctrine as absurd and socially destructive. ... Hitler was skeptical of religion generally ... Hitler and his regime sought to reduce the influence of Christianity on society.[16] From the mid-1930s, his government was increasingly dominated by militant anti-Christians like Bormann, Goebbels, Himmler, Rosenberg and Heydrich whom Hitler appointed to key posts ... Hitler said he anticipated a coming collapse of Christianity in the wake of scientific advances, and that Nazism and religion could not co-exist long term.[21] Although he was prepared to delay conflicts for political reasons, historians conclude that he ultimately intended the destruction of Christianity in Germany, or at least its distortion or subjugation to a Nazi outlook."