Importance of Original Sin

you seem hung up on the idea that having to choose Him is not actually a choice. We have no choice but to breathe oxygen either...yet we do have a choice not to breathe.Do we complain that its unfair that we are not given a choice between breathing oxygen and ammonia?

Yes, we certainly would complain. If one gives life and the other gives death, there is no real choice and there certainly is cause for complaint.

You are attempting to portray my analysis as over occupied with eschatology. Actually it is your considerations which are overly preoccupied with shoe horning the New Testament into conformity with your atheistic humanism.Chapter 24 is all about Christ answering questions about His glorious coming at the end of the age. Sorry, that's just context.Many things have to be discussed by Jesus on that subject. One is readiness of His servants -

quote:

---

"For this reason you also be ready, because at an hour when you do not expect it, the Son of Man is coming." (24:44)

---

The following parable builds exactly upon this warning - (24:45-51).You do not like that association because your humanism wants to be only accountable to your supposedly noble self. "Why should I be influenced by any coming Lord Jesus ? I can do everything without regard to any coming of this Jesus."So the normal Christians are suppose to feel childish because we simply heed the warnings as Christ gave them.The real problem is that you do not know man.
You really do not know what man is.The followers of the Lord Jesus benefit from ALL of His exhortations.
That includes both the motive of love and the incentive to not be disciplined.
It is not only one motivation that influences the Christians.
And there is no shame or hyper preoccupation with future things by taking our Lord at His word.

quote:

---

Blessed is that slave whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. Truly I say to you that he will set him over all his possessions.

​

But if that evil slave says in his heart, My master delays, and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eats and drinks with the drunken, the master of that slave will come on a day he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and will cut him asunder and appoint his portion with the hypocrites. In that place there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 24:46-51)

---

Now ringo the atheistic humanist comes along boasting that he doesn't need to be concerned about any coming Master or Lord. He has within his noble self all that is required to be a proper ethical man.Fine. You feel there is no God to be justified before through faith and no Savior to love and no Lord to serve. That is no reason to criticize the people who believe in Christ and take THIS teaching along with all His other teachings in their intended context.You never be able to force me to analyze these two parable strictly through your atheistic / humanistic self righteous lens.Following Christ's warning about coming upon His servants unexpectantly He elaborates much the same manner in the next parable of the ten virgins. However here the emphasis is on love and preparation rather than service and preparation. They are not opposite concepts. They are related concepts. But the emphasis is somewhat different.He begins the parable of the ten virgins with the words - "At that time ...". One would ask "At WHAT time?"I think the obvious answer is that time of His coming as taught in the previous parable of verses 45 through 51.So, considering the same subject matter - the coming of the Lord at the end of the church age, Jesus now teaches about the foolish and wise virgins going forth to meet the bridegroom.Then ringo chimes in that he doesn't at all need to consider any reference here to the second coming of Jesus. Of course he only needs to be concerned about the here and now of his noble good doing humanism.Fine, Mr Humanist / Atheist. Don't try to condemn the believers in the Son of God for their taking it as Christ intends it - a warning to be WISE concerning His coming as opposed to being FOOLISH concerning it.It definitely has effect on the Christians life TODAY in the here and now. For the message is not to wait to pay the price for the extra oil as the foolish virgins. Rather to cease the time TODAY to pay the price for the extra oil.Oil symbolizes the Holy Spirit. And the parable is not about eternal salvation. It is about prepardness for that special wedding feast. This is your exaggerated comment. I have not imposed things pertaining to the second coming of Christ "onto every passage in the Bible." Where it is relevant to discuss it I have discussed it. And chapters 24 and 25 of the Gospel of Matthew is a relevant place to discuss it.Ringo has no case. Now the next parable of 25:14-30 begins with the words -

quote:

---

"For the kingdom of the heavens is just like a man about to go abroad, who called his own slaves and delivered to them his possessions. (25:14)

---

The most likely meaning of the man "about to go abroad" is that Jesus is about to ascend to heaven to be enthroned in which He will be physically absent from the earth for an unspecified amount of time. This matches the facts of what happened to the Son of God.He is with the disciples in their spirit. But He also went away physically to someday return physically as He has been teaching in chapter 24.So in the parable the man returns in the servants lifetime. That is no major problem to Christian eschatology because:1.) Since His going away, ie. (go[ing] abroad) has a length of time unknown it is a warning to ALL disciples. Those present should be on guard and those not yet born should also be on guard.2.) Resurrection from the dead is simply not one of the aspects being emphasized in this teaching.The virgins sleeping in the previous parable may indeed refer to Christians DYING (or "sleeping") throughout the church age while Christ delays His return physcially.Now the atheist / humanist chimes in. "I don't need to be careful that some master will pat me on the head when he comes. Out of my own self sufficient noble self I know how to do whatever ethical things should be done."That's the flavor of ringo's criticism. The Christian need not impose onto every passage a meaning of Christ's coming."He's already HERE ! Jesus is HERE with all of us."That would be marvelous if ringo actually believed that in the sense the New Testament teaches. Unfortunately, the Atheist / Humanist only means "Jesus is HERE" in about the same sense as Abraham Lincoln is here, or Robert Livingston is here, or Florence Nightingale is here.He really means that there is at present some sentimental remembrance of Jesus which stirs us by example to do good. That is not indwelling life giving Holy Spirit as Christ in you that the New Testament teaches.Ringo's "Jesus is here" does not require the resurrection. In fact if we could drag him out of the shadows we would see ringo strenuously fighting against the resurrection of Christ.Anyway, the teaching of Matthew 25:14-30 has its promise and its warning exactly as the previous teachings - (25:1-13; 24:45-51; 24:32-44)No ringo, I am not imposing the second coming of Christ onto every passage of the Bible. You simply are in the wrong section of Matthew's Gospel to assume His coming again is not the obvious context. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Now I am going to say something to the half a person or 1.5 person reading, about some basic matters of Matthew. This is completely relevant to all we have been discussing.This will be concise and without much proof texts.The term "the kingdom of the heavens" is a phrase particularly used by Matthew. A related phrase "the kingdom of God" is usually used in the other synoptics.This is what you have to understand in order to get into Matthew's Gospel. The kingdom of the heavens has THREE different significances in this Gospel. It is used in three senses. And it is helpful to think of the three senses in this way:1.) There is the hidden reality of the kingdom of the heavens.2.) There is the appearance in the way of FACADE of the kingdom of the heavens.3.) There is the manifestation of the kingdom of the heavens.Type 1 - the hidden reality of the kingdom of the heavens is POSITIVE.Type 2 - the appearance (or facade) of the kingdom of the heavens is NEGATIVE.Type 3 - the manifestation of the kingdom of the heavens is POSITIVE.So we have TWO positive usages of the term "the kingdom of the heavens" and ONE negative set of usages for the same term.Now the hidden reality of the kingdom of the heavens is the kingdom life that the Christian lives in the church age. He presently does so secretively as a sacrifice.Concurrently going on with this hidden reality is a facade, a pretension which is a negative false appearance of the kingdom of the heavens.At the end of the age of the hidden reality of the kingdom of the heavens there will be a glorious manifestation of that kingdom as a reward. This means that those who have lived in the hidden reality will be rewarded openly in this kingdoms manifestation.At that time those who have avoided the facade but lived in the reality will be rewarded openly to co-reign with Christ in the manifestation of that kingdom.When reading through Matthew one has to learn to understand which aspect of "the kingdom of the heavens" Jesus is speaking about - the reality, or the appearance as a facade or the manifestation as a reward.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

By "anyone", I assume you mean people that think like you do or fail to think at all. Its not surprising that you fail to recognize an insightful and talented person, such as JaywillAs the Bible Answer Man (Hank Henagrraff) always says, "Its not the absence of truth that damns, but the despising of truth"You despise the truth dont you?Its funny you would refuse to hear very detailed and accurate explanations of the very thing you reject because of a content you REFUSE to comprehendNot even considering spiritual or religious concepts, so many of the alledged polemists here seem to lack the ability to think critically in the first placeMost of the Visitors to this websibe are probably reading his posts with great interestDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

A quick note, hope Im not interfering and Ill be right out of the wayI often call Hank H on the Bible Answer man broadcast and ask a question here or there.I was going to make a comparison between K(C)orban and the belief that Baptism does not save youSince the command to "Honor your Father and Mother" was easy to understand but easily set aside by years of Rhetoric, ideology, interpretation and contrived Hermentics,Those hemenutics grew up along side the simple command until it was actually suplanted and replaced within the concept of Corban. If you take what you were going to give to your parents to the temple, "its Corban", you are absolved of your responsibility in that area to honor your Father or Mother"You teach as doctrine the commandments of men", Jesus saidWhen approached about the necessesity of water baptism to save you, Hank will say baptism doesnt save you it sets you apart. Or its the first act of obedienceSince we have very clear indications, statements and commands that it does actually save you, is it resonable to assume a teaching, Hermenutic could grow up around the clear purposes given for water Baptism as set out in the NT, to actually suplant its simple meaningFor example he says, "Its the Main and the Plain things we need to understand in the NT, on how we are to be savedCiting Ephesians 2:8-9, which is very true, but not any less true that Mark 16:15-16 or 1Peter 3:21Is it possible that time distance, preconcieved ideas, ideologies and reinforced hermenutics have like Corban, replaced the simple teaching of Water Baptism?Since there is nothing unplain, cloudy or unclear about baptisms purposes, is it resonable to assume that The main and the plain approach is just another hermenuticIYOP, is there a clear difference between Corban and the suplanting of the teaching Baptism, or did the same thing happen all overDawn BertotPS, I dont want to sound pious here, I realize we suplant the word of God everyday by direct and willful disobedience or disreguardings its commands and precepts.Sorry for the off topic post Phatadmin or adminphat, which ever it is, I just wanted to get jaywills takeEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Mostly, I'm fine with the truth. It's The Truth(TM) that bothers me.But why you're here, maybe you can help Jaywill out a bit, he can't seem to answer the question of why it's moral of god to punish mankind for the sin of Adam. In fact he can't seem to actually think about it at all.The task is to do it using rational thought and without quoting yards of irrelevant nonsense from that book of yours.

A. I would not presume to proceed where Jaywill is arguing or demonstrating a point. Look harder, he is giving you the answer its right in front of you B.One of the problems with communication with persons like yourself and others here, is that you never know whether the person is playing the dumb card, or whether there really that clueless. No infense otendedC. Seriously? You want to know the answer to a question from the very same book you call nonsensical. If you consider the book as nonsense, how will any answer from it help youAnd amazingly, you say you want to proceed rationally. It seems you have the task of simply being rational, initially, to simply understand anything rational Bustering support silently and privately at the request of Admin is not necessary, Im sure we or someone like us will always be around to keep the website prosperous. You secret is safe with usDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

It's a simple enough question, how come you bible bashers are so confused about it....?
(My own explanation is that you're all so used to preaching the bible, you've never stopped to actually think about whether it's making any ethical sense.)Go on, have a stab at it; Jaywill, can't, maybe you're the guy for the job.

Fine but I refuse to interfer with areas that Jaywill is expounding upon. I promise you son you wont like the truth (logic) of where your challenge leads. You wont even be able to get out of the starting gate Im sorry, tell me once again how you arrived at "ethical" behavior? Are you starting to get a hint at why your comments make no logical senseYou cant handle the truth because you dont understand rational thought. Your all "tangled" upBut if you think you can, please proceedYou have no logical standard of establishing you own behavior, yet you want to understand Original Sin, from your own ever changing subjective behaviorEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Yes. No. I'm just pointing out what the Bible says. You're contradicting the Bible. Yes, I advocate taking responsibility. There is no purpose behind the false doctrine of "original sin" other than to shirk responsibility for one's own actions, to blame Satan, to blame Adam, to blame anybody but one's self. Jesus said it: when you think He's coming, that's exactly when He isn't coming. He comes like a thief in the night. A thief comes and goes without you knowing; you don't even know about it until he's gone. Because there is no reference to a "second coming". The parable of the virgins is about missing His presence because of over-anticipation. It's God who condemns the goats (Christians who thought they were serving Him but weren't). The warning is to the FOOLISH virgins to be ready by doing what needs to be done, not just stand by idly and eagerly waiting. WISE virgins don't need to be warned. I haven't said anything about being noble. You're the only one here who claims to be a saint.What I've said is what Paul said, that even the Gentiles who have not the law have a conscience "to do whatever ethical things should be done". Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And as Jesus said in the story of the sheep and goats, many Christians don't understand that and don't follow Jesus' example.

The emperor has no clothes.

Have you even read the Bible, jar? Adam & Eve were not simply a couple of clueless children. You don't give such authority nor responsibility to kids.

Too funny.Please show where Adam or Eve are mentioned in Genesis 1?You are like so many so called Biblical Christians, unable to even read what is written.

You're blithering - just answer the question.