Since the bible reads that telling a lie is a sin...

Wouldn't that mean that themeparks dedicated to humans living alongside dinosaurs is a sin because it is a lie? These themeparks exist in Kentucky and Florida and perhaps elsewhere.

It would be a sin to attend one of these man/dino themeparks as a believer because it is an outright lie to attempt to proclaim that man and dinosaurs lived together when they are seperated by 65 million years.

The most fundy of fundamentalist christians are the majority of customers at these themeparks.

I wonder if they know they are sinning?

Modern fundamentalist Christianity has little to do with Christ or the Bible.

denom and for their religious purposes is not a sin, its a good thing. Besides, they aren't Jesus people, they are Christians. There is a huge difference.

but that doesn't stop them from supporting killing in the Middle East and elsewhere.

I know that a special subset of lies, bearing false witness, is an enumerated sin.

But seriously, does the Bible actually say that telling a lie is a sin? I don't believe anyone considers it sinful to tell a harmless lie in order to prevent harm; the classic example being Germans who hid Jews from the Nazis and lied about it.

Wouldn't that mean that themeparks dedicated to humans living alongside dinosaurs is a sin because it is a lie?

Given the tremendous amount of data that dinosaurs were extinct long before humans existed, I think one could make a convincing case that such claims fall into the category of false witness.

Should quell the hate lies against Obama, but it doesn't.

There is very little Christ in Christianity anymore. When I do run across a Christian who actually tries to behave in a Christ-like manner, I go over the top with the props.

Edited to say that my favorite is still ... whatsoever you do for these the lesser of my brethren, you do for me.

So, if you want to leave someone to die without healthcare, you do that for Jesus too.

Just sayin'.

That's how much they respect the 'word of God.'

... then it isn't lying.

Leviticus 4 has the Abrahamic god laying down the laws about what must be done if a Priest sins through ignorance (verses 3-12), the whole congregation sins through ignorance (verses 13-21), a rule sins through ignorance (verses 22-26), or if any of the common people sin through ignorance (verses 27-35).

In order to perform the sacrifices layed out in Leviticus, one must realize that one has sinned (albiet in ignorance) and then perform the prescribed ordinance. Until knowledge of wrongdoing has been achieved, the ordinance cannot be performed. Hence the sacrifices outlined here are designed for ex-post-facto repentance of sin that one realizes one has committed, even though one did not know it was a sin at the time of commission.

They make a false claim. They then learn that their claim is false. Rather than accept that they're wrong, they keep repeating their false claim, only louder and with more animatronic dinosaurs.

It's like if someone, while driving drunk, killed a pedestrian in a hit and run, then insists that they didn't do it and they weren't driving drunk. They're then presented with direct evidence that they downed several drinks immediately before driving and a video showing the hit and run. After seeing this, they pause, then attack the evidence as fictional and the people making the claim as evil before repeating their denial of involvement.

Video tape can be faked, and the authority of evidence can be called into question. The fact that you and I find it authoritative does not compel others to feel the same way, and unlike in the case of the drunk driver, there is no personal experience of the truth (neither you, nor I, nor the fundies lived in prehistory and can directly attest to the facts) to deny, just evidence that one may treat as authoritative or not.

It might be argued instead that they make a claim they believe is true, they are presented with evidence that directly challenges the truth of their claim, and they then seek justifications for their claim in the face of evidence to the contrary. I have no doubt that there are many owners and operators of these parks that have a full knowledge of their fraud. If there is a God, they will be punished accordingly, if not then this entire argument is academic because there is no such thing as sin. As for the uneducated folk who genuinely believe this stuff (ridiculous as it may seem) there is no sin when one knows no better.

edited for spelling

Most of those you are referring to are so ignorant they believe it, therefor it is not a lie. Willful ignorance isn't curable.

you are trying to use logic with illogical people. It will never work. But kudos for trying I guess.

It's the ultimate get out of jail card, doesn't matter to them how bad you are.

always hanging out together....you might want to check your facts....

LOL....:toast:

i was replying to the original post...

The end always justifies the means in Christianity.

...requires willful incognizance on the part of its adherents for participation. The degree to which one is prepared to ignore reality usually determining whether one is considered a "liberal" or "fundamentalist" (or somewhere in-between) in their religious beliefs. Most refer to this act of suspension of rationality, as "faith." However, given that in just about all other aspects of life we require hard and undeniable facts for our participation, here the exact opposite is true and cognition is suspended for the duration.

Therefore, it stands to reason that if rationality can and must be set aside in order just to participate in such a belief system to begin with, then ignoring specific conceptualizations within the belief system would be a piece of cake. In this same way (for example) some Christians feel free to condemn homosexuals and believe themselves justified in doing so, even though three of the principle differences in their religious belief system as compared to the one that existed prior to (Judaism), calls for:

(1) the acceptance of others and oneself as a sinner incapable of ever being sin-free,
(2) the non-judgment of others, lest one also be judged in the same manner at some future date, and
(3) to love all others as one would love oneself.

Obviously, in reaching such a position of "justified condemnation" these three primary religious concepts must be ignored. And further, a justification for the enforcement of the prior religious belief concepts of condemnation (minus the stoning due to secular interventions), remains in full force and effect.

The fact is, these religious theme parks have become necessary from the religionist's perspective. As the assault upon their willful incognizance becomes ever more difficult to avoid. And therefore some religions and/or religionists have opted for a frontal assault upon reality and the truth. And by challenging rationality directly in this manner, no matter how ridiculous they look in the process, they can also then play the martyr for bearing up under the weight of the secular world's scorn. Of course all of this just makes them feel that much more justified in their sanctity and righteousness, as they try to convince themselves and others that Fred And Wilma Flintstone were real people.

Thus we now see more cases of the violation of the separation of church and state taking place almost everywhere in the nation. As well as these ridiculous attempts at not only bending the truth, but adding "new lies" to it. In this case, by blaming Satan for "going back in time and placing dinosaur bones in our path to confuse us." Which is an essential element to their dinosaur theory, I might add. Although there is obviously no biblical verification of this act on Satan's part, what's the big deal? To these folks, it's just blaming one more sin on Satan. Which is the purpose of a scapegoat anyway. And it all evolved in this manner mainly because they believed themselves besieged by the facts. And which facts have themselves now been conveniently transformed into the main elements of their end-time religious beliefs.

- K&R

In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from. Christianity has nothing to offer a happy man living in a natural, intelligible universe. If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, man is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation. -- George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

Sin implies knowledge.