Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature and the fall of man
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 181 of 300 (274454)
12-31-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by ReverendDG
12-30-2005 4:28 AM


Re: Original Sin or the original sin
The doctrine of Original Sin is that due to Adam's sin, mankind was made subject to diseases, defects, etc,...and that mankind was embedded with a sinful nature. That does not mean that mankind cannot do good deeds, or acheive goodness. What that does mean is if you say men are born with a capacity for good and evil, subject to diseases, imperfection, etc,...that essentially says the same thing as Original Sin.
There are nuances among those that hold to Original Sin, and differences of opinion in Judaism about the effects of Adam's sin, but among those that accept Adam's sin and the Fall, some sort of doctrine or idea of Original Sin or ideas saying the same thing, are held.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by ReverendDG, posted 12-30-2005 4:28 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by ReverendDG, posted 01-01-2006 1:12 AM randman has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 182 of 300 (274541)
01-01-2006 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by randman
12-31-2005 4:47 PM


Re: Original Sin or the original sin
What that does mean is if you say men are born with a capacity for good and evil, subject to diseases, imperfection, etc,...that essentially says the same thing as Original Sin.
its not the same, people born with both good and evil tendencies is not an origial sin belief, from the way its presented original sin implies evil/sinful nature is alien to humans or some how no part of the make up, the jews believe its part of the nature of man, part of the make up
so i don't know where you get that idea, by the way when was man ever called pefect? its inferred from the fact that sin/evil is somehow alien to man
As i said before historically it was a hebrew belief at one point, but name me one jewish sect that believes it now, it was the first sin not the earthshaking one most christian sects proscribe to

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by randman, posted 12-31-2005 4:47 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by AdminPD, posted 01-01-2006 7:27 AM ReverendDG has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 183 of 300 (274577)
01-01-2006 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by jar
12-31-2005 11:01 AM


Re: The Fall is a handy cop-out
jar writes:
quote:
For the first time in history we are also beginning to do what Adam was suposed to be doing, taking care of the garden. Efforts like the Endangered Species List, Conservation, Environmental Protection Laws, efforts such as the Occupational Protection and Health Administration undertake are steps towards becoming the stewards GOD charged us to become.
I should point out that every single one of these programs here in the US have been vehemently opposed by the religious right. Under the Reagan administration, Secretary of the Interior James Watt actually derided the idea of environmental and energy conservation in testimony before Congress since the end of the world was at hand, saying, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 12-31-2005 11:01 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 12:59 PM Rrhain has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 184 of 300 (274598)
01-01-2006 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by ReverendDG
01-01-2006 1:12 AM


Warning -Off Topic
To those continuing to discuss the definition of the Doctrine of Original Sin,
Stop This thread concerns nature and the fall of man.
If you wish to continue defining the Doctrine of Original Sin and/or who accepts the doctrine, please continue the discussion in the Original Sin thread.
Please direct any comments concerning this post to the appropriate link listed below.
Thank you Purple

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 182 by ReverendDG, posted 01-01-2006 1:12 AM ReverendDG has not replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 185 of 300 (274662)
    01-01-2006 12:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 153 by ramoss
    12-30-2005 10:21 AM


    Re: Original Sin or the original sin
    Ramoss, it really doesn't matter how many sources you quote, if every single one of them quotes an inaccurate definition of Original Sin.
    What do you think they are referring to as Original Sin? What is Original Sin? Define the doctrine, and then we can talk.
    Edit to add: AdminPD, I hadn't read to the end of the thread before posting this. Note to Ramoss, you will have to start another thread to continue this.
    This message has been edited by randman, 01-01-2006 01:01 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 153 by ramoss, posted 12-30-2005 10:21 AM ramoss has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 187 by ramoss, posted 01-01-2006 1:08 PM randman has not replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 186 of 300 (274664)
    01-01-2006 12:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 183 by Rrhain
    01-01-2006 3:59 AM


    Re: The Fall is a handy cop-out
    Rrhain, you've been snookered by an urban myth. Watts never said that.
    The reason many Christians and conservatives oppossed federal land policy is that it essentially took away private property rights and did so without compensation. The truth is most Christian conservatives I know favor many environmental laws, such as limitations on development of certain wetlands, air pollution standards, etc,....At the same time, there have often been excesses in environmental policy, and some hardship placed by not onl environmental laws but local zoning rules that essentially make once valuable land worthless monetarily and though as a "community" we may benefit, it is at the expense of the landowner, sometimes a landowner that is otherwise poor.
    So there is and has been some injustice to government policies at different levels.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 183 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2006 3:59 AM Rrhain has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 191 by Coragyps, posted 01-01-2006 11:10 PM randman has not replied
     Message 192 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2006 11:36 PM randman has replied

    ramoss
    Member (Idle past 612 days)
    Posts: 3228
    Joined: 08-11-2004


    Message 187 of 300 (274666)
    01-01-2006 1:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 185 by randman
    01-01-2006 12:53 PM


    Re: Original Sin or the original sin
    Sigh..
    We have been told to go to the original sin thread.
    However, I will repeat.
    Judiasm does not believe in Origial Sin (no matter which definition you give it, and the several that were used were given BY various christian groups).
    It does not believe in the Fall of man. It does not believe in 'Salvation' as the christians believe in salvation. It does not believe that Genesis shows the fall of man, or original sin.
    As Saint Augustine said "If there is no original sin, there is no fall, and there is no need for salvation'. Judaism does not believe in origianl sin, under any definition, it does not believe in a 'fall' , and it does not believe in the Christian concept of Salvation.
    This message has been edited by ramoss, 01-01-2006 01:08 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 185 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 12:53 PM randman has not replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 188 of 300 (274708)
    01-01-2006 4:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 180 by Brian
    12-31-2005 4:37 PM


    Re: What does it take to believe "the old beliefs?"
    Faith's comment is on target as far as I am concerned.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 180 by Brian, posted 12-31-2005 4:37 PM Brian has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 195 by Brian, posted 01-02-2006 4:52 AM randman has not replied

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 189 of 300 (274817)
    01-01-2006 9:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
    12-31-2005 1:44 AM


    Re: If no Fall
    It says how we got into this corrupted state where we are out of tune with everything, egocentric, desiring things we can't have, committing sin against our neighbor and against God.
    Apparently not completely out of tune. Otherwise we would not know we were out of tune.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 172 by Faith, posted 12-31-2005 1:44 AM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 190 by Faith, posted 01-01-2006 10:51 PM robinrohan has replied

    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 190 of 300 (274838)
    01-01-2006 10:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 189 by robinrohan
    01-01-2006 9:56 PM


    Re: If no Fall
    It says how we got into this corrupted state where we are out of tune with everything, egocentric, desiring things we can't have, committing sin against our neighbor and against God.
    Apparently not completely out of tune. Otherwise we would not know we were out of tune.
    Well, most of us don't. Some of us have more common sense than others, of course, and some of the great sages have made the connection, advocating living moderately {Abe: humbly, modestly} for instance if you want to live long, or like the Buddha, teaching meditative methods for ending the cause-effect cycle. But a lot (most?) of us just go on blindly sinning ourselves into oblivion and death and always have. The Bible chronicles many instances of this mentality.
    But my point is that none of the sages ever explained WHY we are subject to this condition, even if they had wise methods for avoiding its worst consequences, and I claim that only the Fall explains it, that we are fundamentally flawed. That took the revelation by God Himself in His word.
    This message has been edited by Faith, 01-01-2006 11:00 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 189 by robinrohan, posted 01-01-2006 9:56 PM robinrohan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 196 by robinrohan, posted 01-02-2006 6:14 AM Faith has replied

    Coragyps
    Member (Idle past 734 days)
    Posts: 5553
    From: Snyder, Texas, USA
    Joined: 11-12-2002


    Message 191 of 300 (274846)
    01-01-2006 11:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 186 by randman
    01-01-2006 12:59 PM


    Re: The Fall is a handy cop-out
    Rrhain, you've been snookered by an urban myth. Watts never said that.
    Apparently not. He did, however, say:
    "My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns." -- James G. Watt, The Washington Post, May 24, 1981

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 186 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 12:59 PM randman has not replied

    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6351
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    Message 192 of 300 (274864)
    01-01-2006 11:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 186 by randman
    01-01-2006 12:59 PM


    Re: The Fall is a handy cop-out
    randman responds to me:
    quote:
    Rrhain, you've been snookered by an urban myth. Watts never said that.
    Not according to Austin Miles' book, Setting the Captives Free (page 229). I admit that the reference I was using to first look it up made the erroneous claim that he made it in testimony to Congress. My apologies for my error.
    quote:
    The reason many Christians and conservatives oppossed federal land policy is that it essentially took away private property rights and did so without compensation.
    Excuse me? You're concerned about money? Isn't that a direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus? Aren't you supposed to give everything you have away in order to follow the lord? Aren't you supposed to render unto Caesar that which is due Caesar? When someone asks you for your shirt, aren't you supposed to give him your coat as well?
    So where on earth do these Christians get off complaining over the protection of the environment? Once they found out that their lands were home to endangered species, they should have been on the forefront to do what it took to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem.
    quote:
    essentially make once valuable land worthless monetarily
    There's that money-worship again. What do you care about money for? If you're faithful, god will provide, will he not? You're supposed to be giving it away to those who need it more than you, anyway.
    quote:
    So there is and has been some injustice to government policies at different levels.
    How can following the commands of your lord, Jesus Christ, and of god himself be "injustice"?
    It would seem that the religion these people follow is the god of money.

    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 186 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 12:59 PM randman has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 193 by randman, posted 01-02-2006 2:48 AM Rrhain has replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 193 of 300 (274916)
    01-02-2006 2:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 192 by Rrhain
    01-01-2006 11:36 PM


    Re: The Fall is a handy cop-out
    Not according to Austin Miles' book, Setting the Captives Free (page 229).
    It's still a well-known urban myth.
    You're concerned about money? Isn't that a direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus?
    No. The idea you think professing Jesus equates holding to socialist political positions shows you are a shallow thinker when it comes to Christianity and the Bible. There is no call for socialism, as you suggest. Sure, the Christian is to help the poor, but lobbying for the poor to be harmed by rich liberal elites is not a command of Jesus Christ.
    The idea we should favor government exploitation of people, as you suggest, is disgusting, as is your post.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 192 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2006 11:36 PM Rrhain has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 194 by Rrhain, posted 01-02-2006 3:25 AM randman has replied
     Message 209 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 01-03-2006 12:39 AM randman has not replied

    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6351
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    Message 194 of 300 (274924)
    01-02-2006 3:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 193 by randman
    01-02-2006 2:48 AM


    Re: The Fall is a handy cop-out
    randman responds to me:
    quote:
    quote:
    Not according to Austin Miles' book, Setting the Captives Free (page 229).
    It's still a well-known urban myth.
    Says who? You? Why should we believe you? There are plenty of other quotes of Watt showing him to be an apocalyptic Christian who believes we are living in the end times.
    quote:
    quote:
    You're concerned about money? Isn't that a direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus?
    No.
    That's not what the Bible says.
    Matthew 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
    6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
    6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
    6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
    quote:
    The idea you think professing Jesus equates holding to socialist political positions shows you are a shallow thinker when it comes to Christianity and the Bible.
    (*chuckle*)
    Who said anything about socialism? I know I didn't. It would seem that you are worshipping something other than the teachings of Jesus.
    But since you bring it up:
    Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
    quote:
    There is no call for socialism, as you suggest.
    Strange, I would say that the best teachings of Jesus are nothing but a call for socialism: Take care of your neighbor, bear each other's burdens, give everything you have, love one another.
    1 Corinthians 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
    13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
    13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
    Romans 12:16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
    Acts 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
    Jesus even favored progressive taxation:
    Luke 21:1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
    21:2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
    21:3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
    quote:
    Sure, the Christian is to help the poor, but lobbying for the poor to be harmed by rich liberal elites is not a command of Jesus Christ.
    Who said anything about liberals? We're talking about the religious right. The fact that there are other bad people in the world doesn't make the religious right any better.
    The simple fact of the matter is that environmental and social service programs, some of the most successful programs we have ever had to help the environment and the poor in this country, are continually under attack from the religious right. What do you think the whole thing with regard to Social Security this past year was? An attempt to gut the most successful anti-poverty program the world has ever seen.
    quote:
    The idea we should favor government exploitation of people, as you suggest, is disgusting, as is your post.
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    Keeping people from starving is "exploitation"? Keeping the air breatheable, the water drinkable, and the food from being poisoned is "exploitation"? Don't tell me you've converted to holmes-speak.
    Turned off smilies since it screwed up the Matthew quote
    This message has been edited by Rrhain, 01-02-2006 03:26 AM

    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 193 by randman, posted 01-02-2006 2:48 AM randman has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 213 by randman, posted 01-03-2006 1:21 AM Rrhain has not replied

    Brian
    Member (Idle past 4959 days)
    Posts: 4659
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 10-22-2002


    Message 195 of 300 (274929)
    01-02-2006 4:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 188 by randman
    01-01-2006 4:54 PM


    Hope my employers don't find out!
    Faith's comment is on target as far as I am concerned.
    As far as you are concerned, of course it is. But you are the one whose knowledge of the Bible has recently been exposed as extremely poor, especially in regard to the Old Testament.
    However, people such as yourself and Faith, really do have a very naive view of the Bible, and I do not mean that as an insult. You really appear to think that the Bible was written in a vacuum, uninfluenced by external social and political factors. What you and Faith believe about my knowledge of the Bible makes no difference to my life, as long as I have the pieces of paper to prove what I know, and there will be one or two others to come, and that I am making a good living out of teaching biblical studies, speaks for itself.
    Happy New Year.
    Brian.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 188 by randman, posted 01-01-2006 4:54 PM randman has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 197 by Faith, posted 01-02-2006 6:37 AM Brian has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024