Talk:Jesus lived a sinless life
I don't think the page title of "jesus living a sinless life" is very usefull. Sin being a purely christian creation and having no real objectivity outside their bible, they can basically define sin however they like. They could quite easily use a Euthyphro type argument where they say that anything Jesus did or said was by definition sinless simply because it was him doing it. I think this page would do better if it was renamed to something more like "Immoral acts of Jesus" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Murphy (talk • contribs), 20:26, 1 November 2009
- Yeah, I thought about that as well. But Christians like to make the argument that Jesus was a god because he lived a sinless life. So this page is really a counter-apologetic to that claim.
- You could also see it as an exploration of the notion that sin and morality are only weakly connected. --Arensb 14:43, 2 November 2009 (CST)
- I don't think sin and morality are weakly connected. Though there is some overlap between some sins and some moral or ethical ideas, i don't think they're intrinsically connected at all. Sin can be anything from eating lobster or wearing wool and linnen at the same time, to even in modern times, smoking pot and listening to rock and roll (in extreme cases). Not moral issues at all. In fact, not really any kind of issues at all. On the other hand, they arbitrarily say homosexuality is sin and abomination, but inhumanly stoning those people to death isn't. Sins are completely arbitrary.
- For example, this being the case, you'll probably have to delete my two addition to your list because although i don't know anyone that would argue that keeping/beating slaves or stoning children to death isn't immoral, Jesus was in fact referencing quite legitimate old testament judaic law and thus was not committing or advocating the committing of a sin. It was all inline with gods law.
- Christians like to make the argument that Jesus lived a sinless life, because they get to make up or define what sin is. They can say sin or sinless is whatever they want. By starting with their definition of sin, your argument is already based on the premise that they're allowed to play moving goalpost. I don't see how from a counter apologetic standpoint that its a useful argument.
- If you really wanted to counter the claim that "Jesus was a god because he lived a sinless life" i think you would have to do it by showing that sin as a concept has no practical value or relevance rather than pointing out examples of Jesus doing things WE consider immoral, but can then be turned on its head with whatever OT law the theist can dig up.--Murphy 18:16, 2 November 2009 (CST)
- What you're saying, as I understand it, is that apologetics are squishy. That people will happily make some point to counter an objection, then happily ignore that point when the next objection comes along. In this case, person A claims that Jesus was divine because he was perfect. Person B points out that he did bad things like support slavery. A says "did I say perfect? I meant sinless." B points out that Jesus stole a horse. A says that since Jesus is God, he gets to do anything without it being a sin. B points out that this is begging the question: it presupposes the conclusion made at the beginning of the exchange.
- IMHO the best thing to do is to have pages for all of these objections. --Arensb 16:40, 3 November 2009 (CST)