How does sin create a virus?

[DNB]

Was it a whale?

ciao

- viole

Sorry, I was being facetious - your points were all valid, and I was just trying to humorously contest them with a rather trivial and unrelated point - it was an unspecified large fish, but your actual point was, it doesn't matter the type of fish, it's outlandish to think that a human can live inside of one for any extended period of time.

I do believe the stories, but you are correct, they are extremely hard to reconcile in a rational way, and many do still perplex me a great deal.

 

[Clara Tea]

Further to my thread on the Christian God and coronavirus some Christians informed me that sin was the cause of the coronavirus.

Sin. an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Virus. an infective agent that typically consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat, is too small to be seen by light microscopy, and is able to multiply only within the living cells of a host.

So how does a sin create a virus, what is the process?

Notice that God always moves in mysterious ways. God wants freedom of choice, and if He reached his hand down to earth to make a change and everyone saw his giant hand coming out of the sky, no one would be free to disbelieve.

Thus, when the bible says that dinosaur bones are 6000 years old, there has to be sufficient proof for non-believers to continue not believing, and sufficient proof for believers to believe.

The creation of a virus has to be in a way that both believers and non-believers continue to believe as they did.

What might appear to a secular believer to be a man-made method, might also appear to be a God-made method to a theist.

 

[Clara Tea]

Sorry, I was being facetious - your points were all valid, and I was just trying to humorously contest them with a rather trivial and unrelated point - it was an unspecified large fish, but your actual point was, it doesn't matter the type of fish, it's outlandish to think that a human can live inside of one for any extended period of time.

I do believe the stories, but you are correct, they are extremely hard to reconcile in a rational way, and many do still perplex me a great deal.

Maybe humans were smaller then, and could breath under water?

The story of Jonah was about a whale, and a whale is a mammal, not a fish.

Atheists could easily debunk the Jonah story by saying that there never was a large swimming mammal big enough for Jonah to live in.

Yet, what is the scientific theory about whale evolution? Isn't it about the fact that whales used to live on land. Hmm....a blue whale walking by...or wiggling by. That's far more believable than Jonah getting swallowed up.

What about belief in airplanes? Can iron and aluminum float? Ridiculous (until you glance up or read about the science behind airplanes).

What seems ridiculous might have some explanation, no matter how far-fetched it is.

 

[DNB]

Maybe humans were smaller then, and could breath under water?

The story of Jonah as about a whale, and a whale is a mammal, not a fish.

Atheists could easily debunk the Jonah story by saying that there never was a large swimming mammal big enough for Jonah to live in.

Yet, what is the scientific theory about whale evolution? Isn't it about the fact that whales used to live on land. Hmm....a blue whale walking by...or wiggling by. That's far more believable than Jonah getting swallowed up.

What about belief in airplanes? Can iron and aluminum float? Ridiculous (until you glance up or read about the science behind airplanes).

What seems ridiculous might have some explanation, no matter how far-fetched it is.

It was a fish, not a whale. But the Hebrew term is probably ambiguous.

fish
דָּ֣ג (dāḡ)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 1709: A fish


New International Version
Now the LORD provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

New Living Translation
Now the LORD had arranged for a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was inside the fish for three days and three nights.

English Standard Version
And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Berean Study Bible
Now the LORD had appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the fish.

King James Bible
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

New King James Version
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

New American Standard Bible
And the LORD designated a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish for three days and three nights.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You seem to be a genuine pacifist (as opposed to the pass-a-fists who supported President W. Bush). They confused worship and war-ship.

Yes I do my best to be a genuine person in all I do.

 

[firedragon]

Further to my thread on the Christian God and coronavirus some Christians informed me that sin was the cause of the coronavirus.

Sin. an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Virus. an infective agent that typically consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat, is too small to be seen by light microscopy, and is able to multiply only within the living cells of a host.

So how does a sin create a virus, what is the process?

Sin, being THE cause of the Corona Virus is just a baseless assumption. I say baseless because it is not an assumption based on a finding of causal or even correlation data. So its just foot sock in my opinion.

Nevertheless, it is a divine claim. The question you ask of this so called process is incoherent. Because you cannot mix them.

 

[Clara Tea]

It was a fish, not a whale. But the Hebrew term is probably ambiguous.

fish
דָּ֣ג (dāḡ)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 1709: A fish


New International Version
Now the LORD provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

New Living Translation
Now the LORD had arranged for a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was inside the fish for three days and three nights.

English Standard Version
And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Berean Study Bible
Now the LORD had appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the fish.

King James Bible
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

New King James Version
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

New American Standard Bible
And the LORD designated a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish for three days and three nights.

Hmm...Hebrew word for whale?....Checking whale bris (a bit embarrassing). But...if it's in the name of religion...

The fact is, the bible has been heavily redacted since its inception, by kings, popes, and self-proclaimed prophets. So, the story of Jonah might have been mistranslated. As you, yourself, pointed out, there are many translations of the bible and not all of them are exactly the same.

Therefore, I feel that I have some latitude to propose an adjustment to the story of Jonah based upon the context of the story.

Jonah was walking through the desert and begging God for food. Whale meat was a delicacy, and it was a huge amount of food for himself and his friends, and meat to preserve for the journey.

So, I think that it was mistranslated as "sustained in the belly meat of a whale" rather than "sustained in the belly of a whale."

Another point is that there are no fossils of fish (or whales) big enough to swallow Jonah. Furthermore, the stomach acids would have likely dissolved Jonah (painfully). Perhaps there was air in there if it was a whale, and near the spout....but likely the internal plumbing of a whale did not connect air to the stomach.

So, instead of believing a story made up by ancient man (who used to go town to town telling tall tales), I think that my idea is right.

Consider the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer....tall tales of Gods and monsters. Perhaps the bible is nothing more than that?

Both the story of Homer and the bible have biblical accuracies (locations, some that don't even exist now...and some that could be found with clues from ancient books like the bible).

 

[Clara Tea]

Sin, being THE cause of the Corona Virus is just a baseless assumption. I say baseless because it is not an assumption based on a finding of causal or even correlation data. So its just foot sock in my opinion.

Nevertheless, it is a divine claim. The question you ask of this so called process is incoherent. Because you cannot mix them.

Revelation 15 predicted that if we attack Babylon, Iraq, there will be 7 plagues. Along with all of the other predictions that came true, it would appear that Revelation is largely true. That should be the basis of fact upon which we believe that sin could cause the CoronaVirus. Granted, theists have room to believe, and atheists have room to disbelieve.

 

[Rawshak]

If for example we are sexually promiscuous we may develop illnesses because of that.
If we are a liar, the stress involved with that can cause illness in our body and mental state.
If we are an alcoholic or drug addict our health can be affected.
If we are a violent person that can cause injury to our body.
An angry person can have much more stress and health issues as a consequence.
etc

We have the rational reasons why all of the above are true, science explains them. Where is the Christian God involved in the process?

 

[DNB]

Hmm...Hebrew word for whale?....Checking whale bris (a bit embarrassing). But...if it's in the name of religion...

The fact is, the bible has been heavily redacted since its inception, by kings, popes, and self-proclaimed prophets. So, the story of Jonah might have been mistranslated. As you, yourself, pointed out, there are many translations of the bible and not all of them are exactly the same.

Therefore, I feel that I have some latitude to propose an adjustment to the story of Jonah based upon the context of the story.

Jonah was walking through the desert and begging God for food. Whale meat was a delicacy, and it was a huge amount of food for himself and his friends, and meat to preserve for the journey.

So, I think that it was mistranslated as "sustained in the belly meat of a whale" rather than "sustained in the belly of a whale."

Another point is that there are no fossils of fish (or whales) big enough to swallow Jonah. Furthermore, the stomach acids would have likely dissolved Jonah (painfully). Perhaps there was air in there if it was a whale, and near the spout....but likely the internal plumbing of a whale did not connect air to the stomach.

So, instead of believing a story made up by ancient man (who used to go town to town telling tall tales), I think that my idea is right.

Consider the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer....tall tales of Gods and monsters. Perhaps the bible is nothing more than that?

Both the story of Homer and the bible have biblical accuracies (locations, some that don't even exist now...and some that could be found with clues from ancient books like the bible).

Very bad and reckless exegesis, that was complete conjecture on your part. Not to mention your false predicate as to who redacted or compiled the Bible - no king, prophet or pope ever manipulated the text of Scripture.

Jonah 1:17 - 2:1-10
1:17. And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights.

2:1. Then Jonah prayed to the LORD his God from the stomach of the fish, 2. and he said, "I called out of my distress to the LORD, And He answered me. I cried for help from the depth of Sheol; You heard my voice. 3. "For You had cast me into the deep, Into the heart of the seas, And the current engulfed me. All Your breakers and billows passed over me. 4. "So I said, 'I have been expelled from Your sight. Nevertheless I will look again toward Your holy temple.' 5. "Water encompassed me to the point of death. The great deep engulfed me, Weeds were wrapped around my head. 6. "I descended to the roots of the mountains. The earth with its bars was around me forever, But You have brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God. 7. "While I was fainting away, I remembered the LORD, And my prayer came to You, Into Your holy temple. 8. "Those who regard vain idols Forsake their faithfulness, 9. But I will sacrifice to You With the voice of thanksgiving. That which I have vowed I will pay. Salvation is from the LORD." 10. Then the LORD commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah up onto the dry land.

 

[viole]

Sorry, I was being facetious - your points were all valid, and I was just trying to humorously contest them with a rather trivial and unrelated point - it was an unspecified large fish, but your actual point was, it doesn't matter the type of fish, it's outlandish to think that a human can live inside of one for any extended period of time.

I do believe the stories, but you are correct, they are extremely hard to reconcile in a rational way, and many do still perplex me a great deal.

Why? Either you believe in miracles or you don't.

If you do, then they are, by definition, difficult to reconcile in a rational way, by definition. If they were, they would not be miracles.

if you do not, why are you a Christian?

Ciao

- viole

 

[DNB]

Why? Either you believe in miracles or you don't.

If you do, then they are, by definition, difficult to reconcile in a rational way, by definition. If they were, they would not be miracles.

if you do not, why are you a Christian?

Ciao

- viole

Because we are in the area of interpretation. I do believe in miracles, but a talking snake is not a necessarily a miracle if one regards the text to be figurative or allegorical, for example.
Did Jonah get swallowed by a large fish, or was he merely rebuked and punished for his defiance and it was expressed in an allegorical form?

The points of contention that you brought up in your original post, are not necessarily presented as miracles. A worldwide flood is, but eight people surviving on an ark, with every creature under the sun (worth mentioning), for a year, and then repopulate the earth, again, is not depicted as a miracle - these aspects require further understanding, which maybe not all the details were given, for example.

There are many areas that are not said to be miraculous like you cited: 6,000 year old earth, dinasours, sin entering the world and corrupting creation, ...
These are hard to reconcile..

 

[viole]

Did Jonah get swallowed by a large fish, or was he merely rebuked and punished for his defiance and it was expressed in an allegorical form?

Well, is that a punishment? I visited some corals in Australia inside a tiny submarine, so it must have felt the same way. And why the big fish? I am not aware of fishes in the Mediterranean which could comfortably accommodate a prophet for three days. So, maybe it was Jonah's size reduced such that he could find place inside an anchovy.

Joking aside, what epistemology do you have to decide what is allegorical and what is not?

In theory, even Jesus death and resurrection would be allegorical. It takes not too much fantasy to find an allegory for that. So, my question is: since you can keep your faith in the case of an allegorical reading of Jonah, would still keep your faith under an allegorical reading of Jesus?

Ciao

- viole

 

[DNB]

Well, is that a punishment? I visited some corals in Australia inside a tiny submarine, so it must have felt the same way. And why the big fish? I am not aware of fishes in the Mediterranean which could comfortably accommodate a prophet for three days. So, maybe it was Jonah's size reduced such that he could find place inside an anchovy.

Joking aside, what epistemology do you have to decide what is allegorical and what is not?

In theory, even Jesus death and resurrection would be allegorical. It takes not too much fantasy to find an allegory for that. So, my question is: since you can keep your faith in the case of an allegorical reading of Jonah, would still keep your faith under an allegorical reading of Jesus?

Ciao

- viole

Sorry, i don't believe that Jonah was allegorical, I just used it as an example as to how one may keep their faith in such circumstances, point was, we are in an interpretive or exegetical process.
Both Jesus and Jonah I consider to be literal and historical accounts. On the other hand, I consider the parable of Lazarus and the rich man to be allegorical - the setting is fabricated and implausible.
How does one determine when to interpret a pericope as literal, parabolic, metaphorical, figurative, hyperbole, etc... First, one's hermeneutics: I consider the Bible to be meant as a literal and historical account 95% of the time, with the allowance of cultural idioms, and various literary conventions that are used in every day speech. The majority of the time when a non-literal account is meant to be employed, it is typically indicated by the narrator, or the character offering the account to his audience.. And second, that is the art of exegesis - when to know what is the authorial intent of the passage, and how is it to be read. This is the entirely subjective aspect about Biblical interpretation, and as to the reason why there are so many conflicting doctrines and denominations. As far as I can tell, nothing can be done about this in order to unify the consensus, but merely, it is the wisest person in the room who will discover the truth.

No, if the Gospels of Christ were allegorical, they would be absolutely meaningless to me, because, one, of the subjectivity required in such a type of interpretation, and two, because they are the most prevalent and incumbent part of the NT - to have that much predominance of Scripture be allegorical, would be impossible to be certain or dogmatic on anything.

Thanks!

 

[Wandering Monk]

Sorry, i don't believe that Jonah was allegorical, I just used it as an example as to how one may keep their faith in such circumstances, point was, we are in an interpretive or exegetical process.
Both Jesus and Jonah I consider to be literal and historical accounts. On the other hand, I consider the parable of Lazarus and the rich man to be allegorical - the setting is fabricated and implausible.
How does one determine when to interpret a pericope as literal, parabolic, metaphorical, figurative, hyperbole, etc... First, one's hermeneutics: I consider the Bible to be meant as a literal and historical account 95% of the time, with the allowance of cultural idioms, and various literary conventions that are used in every day speech. The majority of the time when a non-literal account is meant to be employed, it is typically indicated by the narrator, or the character offering the account to his audience.. And second, that is the art of exegesis - when to know what is the authorial intent of the passage, and how is it to be read. This is the entirely subjective aspect about Biblical interpretation, and as to the reason why there are so many conflicting doctrines and denominations. As far as I can tell, nothing can be done about this in order to unify the consensus, but merely, it is the wisest person in the room who will discover the truth.

No, if the Gospels of Christ were allegorical, they would be absolutely meaningless to me, because, one, of the subjectivity required in such a type of interpretation, and two, because they are the most prevalent and incumbent part of the NT - to have that much predominance of Scripture be allegorical, would be impossible to be certain or dogmatic on anything.

Thanks!

Was Baalam's talking donkey literal?

 

[DNB]

Was Baalam's talking donkey literal?

In my opinion, yes. It was a miracle. Such a supernatural event would have a compelling impact on Balaam, but more so, being rebuked by a brute animal is where the significant lay.

 

[Alienistic]

If there is one author or creator of everything, then I suppose this author or creator is the greatest sinner of all, with most of its creations following after its image.

 

[74x12]

Further to my thread on the Christian God and coronavirus some Christians informed me that sin was the cause of the coronavirus.

Sin. an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Virus. an infective agent that typically consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat, is too small to be seen by light microscopy, and is able to multiply only within the living cells of a host.

So how does a sin create a virus, what is the process?

Well since it was most likely a bioweapon then I would say sin certainly seems to have made it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Further to my thread on the Christian God and coronavirus some Christians informed me that sin was the cause of the coronavirus.

Sin. an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Virus. an infective agent that typically consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat, is too small to be seen by light microscopy, and is able to multiply only within the living cells of a host.

So how does a sin create a virus, what is the process?

I have no idea. I may be a Christian, but the sin to virus transition or even the possibility was never part of my teaching.

Personally, I do not believe it. Not only would there need to be a mechanism with sin having some physical component or conduit to interact with the environment, but there would have to a mechanism for the virus to detect a particular kind of sinner, unless it just attacks all of us for general sin. Which seems rather unjust. My thinking Bettie Lou has a nice bum seems like much less of a sin than some guy that is stalking her to commit violence against her.

Yeah, I am clueless. A while back I had a thread about the genetic nature of sin, since I was told sin was in the genes. The findings of that thread did not support the claim of a genetic basis of sin.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well since it was most likely a bioweapon then I would say sin certainly seems to have made it.

It may have its origins in a lab, but that fact alone does not make it a bioweapon.