|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Is there some other reason we are natural sinners in need of salvation? Since Adam was placed before the tree of life before sin was a issue. So it was part of God's eternal purpose for Him to impart this divine life into man. Man becomming a sinner did not change that. It made it even more vital. But even a good man, as Adam was, was not a man completely fulfilling the reason of his creation. In other words, even if we were not sinners we would still need to receive the life of God dispensed into our created life - to be joined to the Uncreated Person. In this aspect "salvation" means to come fully into the meaning of our human life. God created man to unite his created life with God's own uncreated divine life for a union - a mingling of God and man. He would have wanted this with or without the obstacle of SIN. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: Again, there is nothing in the story that implies they understood what "consequences" even mean and in this case, they made the right choice. Saying there is nothing isn't the same as dealing with the evidence presented that there was something. In dealing with the evidence avoid conflating "understanding consequence = a full understanding of what each and every aspect of the consequences would be" with "understanding consequence = understanding that something positive / negative would follow their decision" The evidence presented follows the latter of the definitions.- There is no way anyone can sin without first being able to decide between right and wrong. The working definition of the Christianity I've been marketing has disobeying God's instruction = sin - without there being a moral element to the disobedience. Countering this brand of Christianity isn't accomplished by inserting definitions of sin utilized by the brand of Christianity you're marketing -
Dance all you want but there is still nothing in the Adam and Eve story to show that they were even capable of sinning until after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the concept of Original Sun is still unimportant to Christianity, particularly as you try to market it.. ... Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: So we're talking about your opinion on this... Personal opinion is all anyone has. -
"So it was written" as opposed to "So it was" leaves open the possibility that he was talking about a story that wasn't necessarily factual events. Indeed a possibility in that case - were it the only case. In the Timothy case there's nothing to suggest a myth. In the (Romans) case being looked at however, the insertion of myth in the context of a purposeful, forensic analysis fits like the aforementioned tennis ball on a piston rod. -
Still though, here we have Paul mentioning A&E after saying that women should STFU... Not much of a "timeless truth" there, so we can see that he is capable of error. Much energy has been shed on that topic. Whilst I can certainly see a place for an other-than-worldly-kind of "equality" between men and women I'm inclined to take the view that this doesn't include the instruction that women don't open their mouth's and speak in church. Certainly some of the (gifted) women who preach in my church don't think that. -
Then sin is to be avoided because of the consequence? Rather than "seeking God", you're "avoiding unpleasantness"? You sure that's what Jesus would want? Love God is the first commandment... When you say "sin is to be avoided" and when you imply your throwing your hands up in horror you are pointing to the existence of "ought". "Sin ought to be avoided merely because of consequence?" you ask.
Ought is a concept belonging to the realm of the knowledge of right and wrong - which is the realm we post-Fall creatures occupy and are subjected to. We ought to do what is right because ought pushes us to feel that way. The context of my comments related to Adam and Eve however. They occupied a realm in which no such knowledge existed. We can't speak of what they ought to have done since ought wasn't informing them at the time of their choice. Promised consequences were. Of course, after the Fall they were in the same boat as we were and were, presumably, able to avail of God's offer of salvation just like anyone else. Fitting huh?
Oh, and how do we love God? By what we do to the least of his people. I'm not sure what you mean here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But you have not yet shown why Adam or Eve should know they should obey the God character in the story or the serpent in the story.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Indeed a possibility in that case - were it the only case. So you're just going to ignore the cases that suggest you might be wrong?
In the Timothy case there's nothing to suggest a myth. So you're just going to close your eyes to possibilities that might suggest you're wrong? Because, well, there could be... who, exactly, was Timothy and what kind of background did he have? Is it plausible that he understood that the A&E story was a myth already so Paul had no need to point it out?
In the (Romans) case being looked at however, I really wish you would have prodvided some verses so I knew what you're referencing right now instead of having to wait for you to present it now that I've requested it. You should always provide verses, or message numbers to where they were already provided, when you're referencing a part of the Bible like you are here.
the insertion of myth in the context of a purposeful, forensic analysis fits like the aforementioned tennis ball on a piston rod. So, I'm not going to just take your word on this and would rather read the text myself and see if you're right. So what chapters and verses are you looking at? **nevermind, I did the leg work and am assuming you're talking about Romans 5:12 + quote: Okay, so yeah, I still don't see this as bad as you're making it out to be. Look at it this way: "Therefore, just as Anaking Skywalker already had the Midi-chlorians in his cells before he learned the ways of the force and was lead to the dark side, too all men are born with the capacity to sin..." If you're referencing something that your audience understands is a myth, then there's no reason to point that out, especially when its because its beside the point. So, what was his audience like and did they already understand that the A&E story was a myth? If not, and it turns out that everyone really did think the events actually occured, then that would just mean that they were wrong. Its no big deal, really. People back then believed all kinds of wrong things.
Whilst I can certainly see a place for an other-than-worldly-kind of "equality" between men and women I'm inclined to take the view that this doesn't include the instruction that women don't open their mouth's and speak in church. Certainly some of the (gifted) women who preach in my church don't think that. Right, so the straight forward answer is that Paul was wrong. But no, you're not capable of accepting that, so instead you have to twist what is written into some convoluted story to avoid admitting that Paul could have been wrong about something.
When you say "sin is to be avoided" and when you imply your throwing your hands up in horror you are pointing to the existence of "ought". "Sin ought to be avoided merely because of consequence?" you ask. Ought is a concept belonging to the realm of the knowledge of right and wrong - which is the realm we post-Fall creatures occupy and are subjected to. We ought to do what is right because ought pushes us to feel that way. The context of my comments related to Adam and Eve however. They occupied a realm in which no such knowledge existed. We can't speak of what they ought to have done since ought wasn't informing them at the time of their choice. Promised consequences were. Of course, after the Fall they were in the same boat as we were and were, presumably, able to avail of God's offer of salvation just like anyone else. Fitting huh? Nope, you've just spun what I wrote to shoehorn it into your preconceived idea of the whole story. You could convince yourself of anything with your approach: Ignore the cases that suggest your wrong, close your eyes to other information, focus on the small parts that have convinced you you're right, and spin everything else into fitting in with the whole story.
Oh, and how do we love God? By what we do to the least of his people. I'm not sure what you mean here. Yeah, you'd have to be trying to follow what Jesus said, instead on focusing on Paul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: But you have not yet shown why Adam or Eve should know they should obey the God character in the story or the serpent in the story. Perhaps that's because the Christianity I market doesn't hold that they should have known they should obey (for obvious reasons). When faced with a consequence-based choice there is no need to refer to should/should not's in your choosing. You can focus on the consequentials on offer and pick from them. One negative consequence they obtained was sense of guilt and shame that attaches to doing that which God tells you not to do. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is not our working definition of sin but rather YOUR version that YOU market.
Yet one positive consequence they gained was the ability to determine which choice they should make. Edited by jar, : No reason given.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: So you're just going to close your eyes to possibilities that might suggest you're wrong? Because, well, there could be... who, exactly, was Timothy and what kind of background did he have? Is it plausible that he understood that the A&E story was a myth already so Paul had no need to point it out? C.S. You could take the same stance on a 1001 issues in the NT - that I should suppose all sorts of possibilities open (without the text suggesting any particular reason to hold them open) until such time as I can firmly close them. Wouldn't it be a sensible thing to take a plain reading until you find a plain reading inserts tennis balls into the works? As it is, Adam and Eve story gives us remarkable insight into many facets of sin. Decide it myth and you remove a large component without putting anything back in it's place. Perhaps you can briefly suggest a biblical alternative to sin's taking residence in mans constitution .. by way of closing the gap you desire to create? -
I really wish you would have prodvided some verses so I knew what you're referencing right now instead of having to wait for you to present it now that I've requested it. You should always provide verses, or message numbers to where they were already provided, when you're referencing a part of the Bible like you are here. Sorry, I thought it clear we were in the Romans reference. Will do better in future.. -
Okay, so yeah, I still don't see this as bad as you're making it out to be. Look at it this way: "Therefore, just as Anaking Skywalker already had the Midi-chlorians in his cells before he learned the ways of the force and was lead to the dark side, too all men are born with the capacity to sin..." If you're referencing something that your audience understands is a myth, then there's no reason to point that out, especially when its because its beside the point. So, what was his audience like and did they already understand that the A&E story was a myth? If not, and it turns out that everyone really did think the events actually occured, then that would just mean that they were wrong. Its no big deal, really. People back then believed all kinds of wrong things. The trouble with 'just as ... Midi-chlorians' is that it has no explanatory value. And you need explanatory value if you are to construct an impregnable argument If given the Skywalker analogy - but it's not actually Midi-cholrians that have anything to do with our dark side then you've not presented any mechanism. You've merely waved a magic wand that produces a dark side in us, thrown in an analogy and left it at that. The Adam/Eve story assist, for instance, in arguing that responsibility for sin is devolved down to the individual. The story dis-associates God's creation of freewilled man with man creating sin in man. Paul deals with various objections to the gospel in the book of Romans - and here also, when you consider how often is it necessary to counter the objection of those who try to pin the end responsibility on God. Adam and Eve permits a counter to that objection. Luke Skywalker doesn't Would you agree that if examining the text itself - without prejudice - you would conclude Adam a historical person -
Right, so the straight forward answer is that Paul was wrong. But no, you're not capable of accepting that, so instead you have to twist what is written into some convoluted story to avoid admitting that Paul could have been wrong about something. The straightforward answer is that I've come to see that every single word Paul writes has a significance and depth to it that renders unwise, jumping to what appear to be obvious conclusions. -
Nope, you've just spun what I wrote to shoehorn it into your preconceived idea of the whole story. You could convince yourself of anything with your approach: Ignore the cases that suggest your wrong, close your eyes to other information, focus on the small parts that have convinced you you're right, and spin everything else into fitting in with the whole story. Hang on a sec. You've supposed me (one who has a knowledge of right and wrong) as suggesting consequences should form the basis of a Christian's decision making. This on the basis of my stating that consequences were all that Adam and Eve (who had no knowledge of right and wrong and who weren't Christians at the time) had in forming a basis for their decision making. You've taken what I say applied to them and figure I think it applies to me too?? -
Yeah, you'd have to be trying to follow what Jesus said, instead on focusing on Paul. I don't see conflict between what Jesus said and what Paul said. It's just that Paul is the one tasked with expounding or unpacking doctrine. It's natural I'd turn to him when the topic calls for dealing with the mechanics of things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: It is not our working definition of sin but rather YOUR version that YOU market. It is our working definition when it's me defending the Christianity I'm marketing against the objections you raise against it. It's a bit like having to assume God exists for the sake of argument so that you can call him the names you like to call him. -
Yet one positive consequence they gained was the ability to determine which choice they should make. I agree. It produced a situation where they would doubtlessly fail to make the choices they should* make. The resulting sin** would then be parlayed into assisting in their salvation or their damnation. With Adam and Eve and all the rest of us having a choice in which it would be. *where 'should' is defined by the Christianity I market as 'following God's instructionsl ** where sin is as previously defined albeit now with a should element
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Jay,
jaywill writes: . Using my imagination, perhaps if Adam had not sinned we would be in a Paradise talking about our great father Adam. Your imagination took a wrong turn. If the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 had not chosen to willfully disobey God and eat the fruit if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you would never have existed. Had that man not eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would still be living in the garden walking and talking with God. He would not have been chased out of the garden and there would have been no guard placed to protect the tree of life from the man who had been separated from God by his disobedience. Man had to be reconciled to a right relationship with God. Thus a redeemer was required.
jaywill writes: The comparison of Adam to Christ is crucial to a proper view of the purpose of God. The first man had a right relationship with God but chose to disobey God and become separated from God in an unright relationship. God in a form we call Jesus came to repair that relationship. He gave His life so mankind could be restored to a right relationship to God. His only requirement is that we accept the gift of eternal life with Him which He has offered to all mankind. Mankind can choose to accept that gift or they can refuse to accept the gift it is their choice. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi jar,
jar writes: In you example the god you are marketing may well think that Adam and Eve disobeyed him but until they had the capability to know right from wrong god was of no higher standing than the serpent. They had every reason to "obey" the serpent. There simply was no way they could choose or even understand obey or disobey. Both were simply null concepts.
Where does the text say anything about knowing right from wrong? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, it is still only YOUR working definition, not Christianity.
Sorry Charlie. And again, there is NOTHING in the story that shows they would necessarily fail. And the choice is simply whether or not to do right, something impossible until after they gained the great gift of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Nothing in the story about either salvation or damnation. Just not there Charlie. Original Sin is irrelevant to Christianity.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICANT writes: Where does the text say anything about knowing right from wrong? Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve didn't do anything wrong? Or that they did wrong without knowing it? What are you getting at ICANT?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes: A talking snake and magic fruit!? C'mon, it smacks of "fairytale". You never saw the show Francis the talking mule, or Mr Ed the talking horse. You have never seen a dummy sitting on a man's knee talking. What problem would the devil have in speaking through a snake? As far as the magic fruit there was no magic about it. It could have been any kind of fruit. The tree was simpily the one God specifically told the man he was not to eat from, because if he did he would die.
Catholic Scientist writes: Too, Humans did not descend from one single pair of people. No people alive on Earth today descended from the man formed from the dust of the Ground in Genesis 2:7. All mankind living today are descended from the mankind that was created male and female in Genesis 1:27. Which says nothing about how many mankind male or female was created in Genesis 1:27. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: What are you getting at ICANT? I was simply asking a theological question.
quote: Nowhere in the text does it say anything about knowing right from wrong. The man was forbiden from eating the fruit from a specific tree, in fact he was told the day he ate that fruit he would die. Nothing said about knowing whether it was right or wrong just a commandment not to eat the fruit from the tree.
quote: This is what the text says. This is what I understand jar to say the text says: Modified Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of right and wrong, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Thus implying the man did not know right from wrong and thus was not guilty of disobeying God. It makes no difference whether the man knew right from wrong he did know he was commanded not to eat the fruit of the specified tree. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024