How Do Christians Reconcile The Following Question Regarding Their Faith?

[InChrist]

It takes Him the entire human history to remove wickedness? Hasn't He tried to remove it before? How well did that work out for Him?

Actually, it does take an entire human history, but not because He is trying to remove evil from this present time and place of human history and can't. Rather He is allowing plenty of time for those millions and millions who desire to be saved and delivered from evil to live a changed life in the eternal new creation. All of which was/is God's purpose in the first place. If when you say, "Hasn't He tried to remove it before?" you are referring to such things as the flood, I think you are not realizing that was only a temporary halt on the wickedness of humanity, which had reached the point of self-destruction, to allow for more humans to be born, live, survive, and be saved for the eternal new creation.

 

[InChrist]

Sin is going against the will/wishes of your chosen deity

According to the scriptures sin is falling short of God the Creator's perfection and glory.

 

[McBell]

According to the scriptures sin is falling short of God the Creator's perfection and glory.

Like I said...

Bible thumpers do not agree with my defining of the word sin...

 

[prometheus11]

Nothing in the bible gives the impression that the flood was intended as a "temporary halt" on wickedness.

If the earth had no wickedness after the flood, what scripture would you provide to show that wickedness was bound to come again at some point because the flood was a temporary halt?

 

[InChrist]

Like I said...

​

That's is because sin is a word derived from the Bible which defines its meaning, so although anyone may make-up their own meaning any such definition is not real, if not in agreement with the biblical definition.

 

[McBell]

That's is because sin is a word derived from the Bible which defines its meaning, so although anyone may make-up their own meaning any such definition is not real, if not in agreement with the biblical definition.

rotflmao

sin (v.)
Old English syngian "to commit sin, transgress, err," from synn (see sin (n.)); the form influenced by the noun. Compare Old Saxon sundion, Old Frisiansendigia, Middle Dutch sondighen, Dutch zondigen, Old High German sunteon, German sündigen "to sin." Form altered from Middle English sunigen by influence of the noun.


sin (n.)
Old English synn "moral wrongdoing, injury, mischief, enmity, feud, guilt, crime, offense against God, misdeed," from Proto-Germanic *sun(d)jo- "sin" (cognates: Old Saxon sundia, Old Frisian sende, Middle Dutch sonde, Dutch zonde, German Sünde "sin, transgression, trespass, offense," extended forms), probably ultimately "it is true," i.e. "the sin is real" (compare Gothic sonjis, Old Norse sannr "true"), from PIE *snt-ya-, a collective form from *es-ont-"becoming," present participle of root *es- "to be" (see is).

Source

 

[InChrist]

Nothing in the bible gives the impression that the flood was intended as a "temporary halt" on wickedness.

If the earth had no wickedness after the flood, what scripture would you provide to show that wickedness was bound to come again at some point because the flood was a temporary halt?

The entire account reveals that God gave over 100 years for any who would listen to Noah, who obeyed God, could have repented, yet they did not choose to do so. It was those who would not repent of their evil who were destroyed. Noah and his family who choose to live life apart from evil in God's righteousness were saved to repopulate the earth.
Of course it was only a temporary halt because as long as there are humans who choose self over God, rebellion and evil there will be wickedness. Even some of Noah's own family began to display sinful choices and behavior after the flood.

 

[InChrist]

rotflmao

sin (v.)
Old English syngian "to commit sin, transgress, err," from synn (see sin (n.)); the form influenced by the noun. Compare Old Saxon sundion, Old Frisiansendigia, Middle Dutch sondighen, Dutch zondigen, Old High German sunteon, German sündigen "to sin." Form altered from Middle English sunigen by influence of the noun.


sin (n.)
Old English synn "moral wrongdoing, injury, mischief, enmity, feud, guilt, crime, offense against God, misdeed," from Proto-Germanic *sun(d)jo- "sin" (cognates: Old Saxon sundia, Old Frisian sende, Middle Dutch sonde, Dutch zonde, German Sünde "sin, transgression, trespass, offense," extended forms), probably ultimately "it is true," i.e. "the sin is real" (compare Gothic sonjis, Old Norse sannr "true"), from PIE *snt-ya-, a collective form from *es-ont-"becoming," present participle of root *es- "to be" (see is).

Source

Thanks for the dictionary info, but where does the concept of "sin" originate in the first place....the Bible.

 

[McBell]

Thanks for the dictionary info, but where does the concept of "sin" originate in the first place....the Bible.

Interesting that you think the concept of sin did not exist before your favoured religious text came to be....

 

[prometheus11]

The entire account reveals that God gave over 100 years for any who would listen to Noah, who obeyed God, could have repented, yet they did not choose to do so. It was those who would not repent of their evil who were destroyed. Noah and his family who choose to live life apart from evil in God's righteousness were saved to repopulate the earth.
Of course it was only a temporary halt because as long as there are humans who choose self over God, rebellion and evil there will be wickedness. Even some of Noah's own family began to display sinful choices and behavior after the flood.

I'm unconcerned with your exegesis.

Please answer my question.

 

[paarsurrey]

You're dodging with an irrelevant question. Why?
Why not just respond to the analogous hypothetical presented.

My question was very pertinent and very meaningful.
Regards

 

[prometheus11]

My question was very pertinent and very meaningful.
Regards

Not to me, because it doesn't affect YOUR answer to my previous question.

If you're going to refuse to answer, just say so. But I'll know you're dodging because the answer makes you uncomfortable.

 

[InChrist]

Nothing in the bible gives the impression that the flood was intended as a "temporary halt" on wickedness.

If the earth had no wickedness after the flood, what scripture would you provide to show that wickedness was bound to come again at some point because the flood was a temporary halt?

Everything in the Bible, especially all the prophetic scriptures about the promised Messiah, show that wickedness was bound to come again. Thus the necessity of a Savior to redeem humanity from sin and wickedness.

 

[prometheus11]

Everything in the Bible, especially all the prophetic scriptures about the promised Messiah, show that wickedness was bound to come again. Thus the necessity of a Savior to redeem humanity from sin and wickedness.

That seems too vague. I think if the earth was "sinless" you'd claim it was so because of the flood.

 

[InChrist]

Interesting that you think the concept of sin did not exist before your favoured religious text came to be....

I suppose I didn't express that too well because I didn't mean sin itself originated from the text of the Bible, but it is the Bible which articulates the sin problem of human nature.

 

[InChrist]

That seems too vague. I think if the earth was "sinless" you'd claim it was so because of the flood.

I certainly would not make such a claim, nor could a flood make the world sinless as long as humans are present, since all humans sin and according to the scriptures only Jesus Christ the Savior can take care of the sin problem, not a flood.

 

[McBell]

I suppose I didn't express that too well because I didn't mean sin itself originated from the text of the Bible, but it is the Bible which articulates the sin problem of human nature.

Actually, the Bible is one of many texts that articulates sin....
I understand you do not hold other texts in the same regard as you hold the Bible.
The problem here as far as I can see is that I do not hold the Bible to any higher regard as all those other texts.
So while you are taking all the other texts that articulate sin and comparing them to the Bible, I am not bound by that restriction.

 

[prometheus11]

I certainly would not make such a claim, nor could a flood make the world sinless as long as humans are present, since all humans sin and according to the scriptures only Jesus Christ the Savior can take care of the sin problem, not a flood.

You're not fairly dealing with the scenario I present.

What scripture would you cite if the world appeared to be sinless since the flood?

 

[Muffled]

Not authority. Responsibility.

I believe both are true. Its a tough job but He is the only one who can do it.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

What scripture would you cite if the world appeared to be sinless since the flood?

Romans 5:12-14 (ESVST) 12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men 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.

Sin has been in the world from Adam until this very day. For all sin to have been removed from the world, the 8 people on the Ark would have had to been killed too. It's not the earth that has sin, but the world, the human flesh carries the sin nature.