Sheshbazzar

I'll give it another go.
My position is that there is such a thing as 'remission of sin'.
But the only 'sins' that exist are those wrongs that we commit against our fellow man, and against good ethics.

One cannot commit a 'sin' against a non-existent imaginary god.
And a non-existent imaginary god cannot 'remit' any wrongs ('sins') that one does against other persons.
Even if there was a god, it would not be able to do so.

The only one that can make things right again with a wronged neighbor, is the one that did the wrong. Not Sky-Daddy, not Mommy Mary, nor Zombie Jebus.

Or say for example, if I was to become angry, strike my wife and injure her.
It would be a wrong ('sin') committed against her on my part.
What do you think. Would it be my responsibility to apologize and to do everything in my power to make amends for my rash and unjust act,
Or need I just say nothing further about the matter, because a non-existent god will give me a free pass by way of 'remission of sins'?

The only one responsible for our thoughts and our actions is ourselves, the only one that can rescue us from the consequences and accumulating guilt from our thoughts and our actions is ourselves. The only one that can 'remit our sins' is ourselves. There is no one else.

Christianity is the practice of self-deception. First that there is a god and a devil,
and second, that these imaginary fairy-tale characters are responsible for our conduct, or can ever undo those damages ('sins') that we do to others (and consequently ourselves.)

If we seek forgiveness, and seek to right a wrong, it should be from that person whom we wronged.
All of the 'entering into the closet and praying' in the world (to a non-existent god) cannot substitute for personally making things right again with whoever it is we have wronged.
We are the only ones that can make those amends or pay that price. No one else, not even the imaginary Zombie Jebus. and even if he was real, he still wouldn't be able to do what only we can do.

J-D

That explains what you think 'sin' might possibly mean. But it doesn't explain what you think 'remission of sin' might possibly mean.

Try thinking of it this way. Imagine you are teaching English to people who don't have it as a native language. Imagine they have learned a fair bit of English, including the word 'sin', but they've never heard of 'remission' before. So you have to explain to them what 'remission of sin' means, not by translating it into their native languages (which you don't know), but in terms of other, simpler, English words which they probably do know already.

tanya

Yes, you clarified, in another quote, that there is no such process, for its execution requires action by a supernatural deity, and there are no gods.

I don't disagree with that notion.

I do disagree with the idea that humans, in particular, native speakers of English, by and large, (not 100%) do not believe in the concept of "sin" and "remission of sin", i.e. wiping the slate clean. On the contrary, I believe that most folks do accept this idea.

I am missing the point, J-D. Why is it important to challenge the notion of "remission of sins"? To me, this is like demanding proof that sunshine serves as energy source for the planet.

How does your challenge of aa5874 for his presentation of the logical conflict between John the Baptist requiring water immersion to remit sins, thereby rendering Jesus' action's superfluous, add clarity to the logical conundrum?

I am rather certain that you do comprehend the distinction between remission of sins, and eating bananas. These are a couple of human activities. Can't you accept that, and move on, to challenge aa5874 on his interpretation of Mark, rather than on his use of a term, "remission of sins", which all of us, on this forum, comprehend, as easily as we understand the idea behind eating a banana.

J-D

Then in my disagreement with Sheshbazzar you appear to be agreeing with me and not with Sheshbazzar.If aa5874 ever answered any question it might add clarity. aa5874 never does. I ask different questions for the sake of variety. Maybe one day I'll hit on one that aa5874 is prepared to answer.I have, repeatedly.My recent exchange on the subject of the term 'remission of sin' was not with aa5874 but with Sheshbazzar. I gather from what you are saying (unless I have misunderstood you) that you agree with my understanding that 'remission of sin' refers to a divine action and therefore is something which can't happen if there is no God. Sheshbazzar appears to think (and to think it worth insisting) that there is a possible meaning for the concept of 'remission of sin' independent of any God. I'm not seeing it. If Sheshbazzar thinks the point can be made clear and wants to endeavour to do so, I will collaborate.

tanya

Yes, J-D, there are no gods, therefore actions demanded of gods, by humans are futile.

But, that is not how human psychology works.

Sheshbazzar was writing, if I have properly understood him, to suggest that sin is a concept of human comprehension, not divine disposition.

Sin fundamentally refers to actions deemed wrong by society. Acceptance of this code of behaviour enables participation as a member of society.

Violation of this code of behaviour, when apprehended, can lead to unpleasant consequences, including infliction of pain, or worse, including loss of life.

Adoption of a contrite behaviour, following a sinful episode, as Sheshbazzar has noted, is one component of relieving the mental anguish that accompanies this sinfulness. The request of a third party to discount the past transgression, i.e. remit the violation of the code of conduct, is often accompanied by behaviour indicative of faith in the existence of a supernatural deity. The fact that there are no gods, is irrelevant to the question of how the individual offering prayer on bended knee procures comfort and solace for having committed the transgression. The relief obtained is not, of course, a result of divine largesse, but of faith in the supernatural.

To me, this discussion about whether or not sins can be remitted, is a digression from the OP. I believe it is much more important for this forum, to discuss aa5874's impressive discovery of this contradiction re baptism.

I wonder if others, in the past several centuries of investigation, may have also recognized this particular error in Mark?

J-D

It has long been the case that many people have recognised that there is no God and no Holy Spirit. Obviously if there's no Holy Spirit there can be no baptism with the Holy Spirit. That's not a new discovery.

aa5874

Well, you have EXPOSED the role of J-D. But, J-D is just wasting time. It is ALL over.

gMark is the Perfect HJ argument killer. gMark's Jesus was OBSOLETE from the very beginning.

Now, in gMark from the very start, the author claimed John the Baptist BAPTISED for the Remission of Sins so whether or not Gods exist and whether or not there is Sin or Remission of Sin is irrelevant.

The term Remission of Sins are not my INVENTION but actually found in gMark.

gMark is a story of John who Baptized for the Remission of Sins with Water and was to be REPLACED by the Mighty-One who would Baptize with the Holy Ghost.

Mark 1:4 - It is most fascinating that the author claimed ALL of Judea and Jerusalem were Baptized by John CONFESSING their Sins.

Mark 1.5 So WITHOUT the Predicted Mighty-One the people of Judea and Jerusalem had a means of SALVATION without SACRIFICE by Baptism of Water.

Mark 1. However, when the Mighty-One came and AFTER the Holy Ghost Bird descended upon him we hear NOTHING about the the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.

gMark is a Fiction story, a Myth Fable, that went Horribly wrong. The author completely FORGOT his storyline.

After John the Baptist was executed the Mighty-One Baptized NO-ONE with the Holy Ghost in gMark.

gMark's Jesus, the Mighty-One was OBSOLETE before and AFTER John the Baptist even in gMark

gMark is the Perfect HJ argument killer.

gMark is PURE FICTION.

jakejonesiv

Hi AA5874,

If one were going to baptize with the Holy Ghost instead of water, how exactly would one go about it?

aa5874

Please ANSWER your OWN questions.

I only KNOW what is WRITTEN in gMark.

I don't INVENT my OWN history or story of Jesus and the disciples.

I can ONLY SAY EXACTLY what is WRITTEN.

In gMark, some Mighty-One was supposed to Baptize with a Holy Ghost and NOT with Water.

It seems the author FORGOT his storyline.

The Mighty-One did NOT Baptize any one with the Ghost in gMark instead he WALKED on WATER like a Ghost.

gMark'S Mighty-One was an OBSOLETE ABSOLUTE PHANTOM.

jakejonesiv

Hi AA5974,

How did Jesus eat with publicans and sinners according to the gospel of Mark is he was a Ghost?

What does an absolute phantom eat? :huh: You tell me.