|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
And again you simply misrepresent and pervert the Bible by continuing to take quotes out of context to try to shoehorn your dogma into what is actually written. It is dishonest and a perversion of Christianity.
I already addressed the fact that the concept of Original Sin was based on little and that passage from Romans is one used; but Original Sine as marketed by today's snake oil salesmen is not something even Paul would recognize. In addition, Paul was simply factually wrong there, His position is NOT supported by any writings from the Old Testament that made it into any of the Canons. You can continue the perverted practice of quote mining but you will convince no one but the fools and deluded.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist, as you can see I have now about three posters to reply to. I am limited.
In this session I read carefully about half of your post. My initial reaction is that I am not above pushing my view. But I think in this case with the fall of man I am following the New Testament's teaching. Actually I think I am following the Old Testament teaching as well. Now above you say -
Horrible interpretation. You're only interpreting it that way because you're trying to uphold you Salvation by Faith dogma. Let's not be sloppy. I may be upholding Justification by Faith. But I am not ignoring Salvation "in His life". Let me illustrate with Paul's passage of Romans 5:10 quote: C'mon Catholic. Look at it carefully. 1.) Having BEEN enemies of God ... 2.) Being now RECONCILED to God [Justified, Absolved, Forgiven, Washed, Cleansed of sins, etc] through the death of Christ. 3.) As to the PAST - reconciled - now with a right STANDING before God. There is something more to come. There is something MUCH MORE to come. 4.) "Much more we will be SAVED [salvation] in His life" . Reconciled to God as a foundation. This to be followed by something "much more" . That is salvation in the whole sphere and realm of His resurrection life. Because He lives - because He can LIVE in the believer, there is to be a much more salvation in the realm of His life. So we may think of this full operation of God as in two parts. 1.) A Judicial standing before God in reconciliation. 2.) An "organic" salvation in the realm of Christ's resurrection divine life. Maybe your other comments I can address latter today. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
And again you simply misrepresent and pervert the Bible by continuing to take quotes out of context to try to shoehorn your dogma into what is actually written. It is dishonest and a perversion of Christianity. The issue here to me is not "Christianity" but what the Bible teaches.I don't know what the word "Christianity" means to some people. So "You're perverting Christianity!" is not a charge that I am that concerned about. I am not perverting the Bible. Now my motives have been commented on. Now its my turn to comment then on motives. The reason some of you guys HATE the teaching of an inherited sin nature is because of not appreciation how thorough a remedy God has for the problem in the Savior the Son of God. My theory is that it is the refusal to recognize the depths of man's problem which is because of the reluctance to believe in the Savior concerning man's problem. My theory is that with some of you skeptics it is not so much a complaint against so called "Original Sin". Its a hesitancy to embrace the Son of God. You don't like the Physician, so you want to deny the Diagnosis. This thread is unfortunately with a negative title - The IMPORTANCE of Original Sin. I think that is pretty negative actually. I would have prefered " The Importance of Being Constituted Righteous in the Savior Christ." But that's another matter. That's all the time I have this morning on this. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
The reason some of you guys HATE the teaching of an inherited sin nature is because of not appreciation how thorough a remedy God has for the problem in the Savior the Son of God. Again, you continue to post falsehoods and misrepresentations. That is dishonest. Why do you continue that practice? What I object to is your continued misrepresentation and perversion of what the Bible actually says.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9515 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Jaywill writes: The reason some of you guys HATE the teaching of an inherited sin nature is because of not appreciation how thorough a remedy God has for the problem in the Savior the Son of God. For the record, some of us hate it because it's a corrupt and vile idea pedalled by charlatans to frighten the naive in order to recruit them into their nasty little organisations.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I am not perverting the Bible. Sure you are. You're lying about it too. In Message 549, you said that Jeremiah 13:23 was about Original Sin. That is a perversion. It is about the behavior of the Jews in Babylonian Exile and has nothing to do with Original Sin. You spun the words to make it say what you want it to say, that is dishonest. We explain to you how it has nothing to do with Original Sin. Then, in Message 553, you go right back to it:
quote: That is a lie. That is not what Jeremiah 13:23 is saying. Its talking about the behavior of the Jews in Babylonian exile. You should read the whole thing and not just quote mine for phrases that sound like what you want to talk about. You could use your exact same tactic to say that the Bible claims that there is no God. I mean, it says so right in Psalm 14:1
quote: That's the exact same kind of argument you are making.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
What Adam took into himself was the knowledge of good and evil. He didn't take in anything evil. He took in the wisdom to know the difference and the responsibility to behave accordingly. The point of God showing us this matter in terms of Adam EATING something, is precisely to drive home the point that he took something INTO himself. It is also important to note that Cain didn't eat the fruit. He didn't take in the same thing Adam did in the same way Adam did. He learned the difference between good and evil from his parents, like we all do, but he was still personally responsible for behaving accordingly, as we all are.
jaywill writes:
It wasn't a "wrong food". It was a good food, knowledge, wisdom. It's no coincidence that the same people who promulgate the false doctrine of "the Fall" also promulgate the false doctrine of Original Sin. Those who think becoming more like God is a "fall" also denigrate knowledge.
This wrong "food" CONSTITUTED a foreign element into his being which SHOULD NOT have been taken in. jaywill writes:
We can't change our "sinful nature", our ability to sin, any more than a leopard can change its spots. That is not the same as saying that sin is already in us. The tendency to sin is already in us. As God made clear to Cain, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." (Genesis 4:7) Sin is outside unless we do wrong (or fail to do right).
You have to blame the Bible for saying the sinner's nature is akin to the Cushite's skin pigmentation and the leopard's spots (See Jeremiah 13:23). jaywill writes:
No, I followed it.
ringo writes:
I count this as a discussion that you probably did not follow. Jesus told His disciples that at the Judgement "all nations" will be divided into two groups, those who fed the hungry, etc. and those who did not. The only others present at the judgement are the angels. You claim that you are among the angels and exempt from the judgement. You make up a convoluted, self-serving "prophecy" to do it. jaywill writes:
That was in the context of your messages that are not linked to mine. If you don't link your message to mine, I may not see that you're responding to me and no, I do not read sermons that are not addressed to me. But I do read your posts that are addressed to me. You implied that my response was with long sermons which you didn't read. Don't use that as an excuse for not answering the question. You should be able to give a fairly simple direct answer as to why you consider yourself an angel and exempt from the judgement. If elaboration is necessary we can take it from there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
We've been discussing that remedy and I heartily endorse it. God told Cain that the remedy was to "do well" and Jesus taught that we are judged by how we treat the hungry, etc. The reason some of you guys HATE the teaching of an inherited sin nature is because of not appreciation how thorough a remedy God has for the problem in the Savior the Son of God. You pervert that into how we treat jaywill. I don't "HATE" that. I find it comical. Everybody feed Saint Jaywill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Jaywill writes:
For the record, some of us hate it because it's a corrupt and vile idea pedalled by charlatans to frighten the naive in order to recruit them into their nasty little organisations. The reason some of you guys HATE the teaching of an inherited sin nature is because of not appreciation how thorough a remedy God has for the problem in the Savior the Son of God. I agree with Tangle in this regard. I find the whole concept of original sin to be patently absurd. It is a vestigial concept of our more barbaric times, when children were ultimately responsible for the actions of their parents. One only need to read excerpts from the Code of Hammurabi to gauge where these notions originated. This example drives home the point relatively well:
quote: We have of course evolved beyond these archaic notions, but the concepts of the past still permeate in many of our religious teachings."Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined:
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
That is a lie. That is not what Jeremiah 13:23 is saying. Its talking about the behavior of the Jews in Babylonian exile. Yes, it is speaking specifically about the Jews in the Babylonian exile.Do you think that the same truth does not hold true for mankind in general ? Verse 10 of the chapter says -
quote: This well applies to people today of all nations. They make idols of different things - ideologies, cars, actors, entertainers, sports heroes, money, sex, themselves, etc. They also are stubborn and hate to have the word of God convict their conscience concerning anything. They deem themselves so perfect, you see, that they completely insulate their hearts from the word of God in the Bible. The Jews in the Babylonian captivity are only representative of the rest of us. As the one and only genuine theocratic nation, they served as representative to all the rest of us sinners.
Catholic Scientist writes:
You should read the whole thing and not just quote mine for phrases that sound like what you want to talk about. On the contrary. I leap for the opportunity to now read carefully through the whole chapter. You simply don't see how ISRAEL is representative of all the world in this regard. I agree that the Jews as "the flock of Jehovah [that] has been taken captive" (v.17) is the specific target of the divine utterance there. But that it well speaks to the rest of us, I suppose, is dependent upon your willingness to benefit from God's word there. Do you think you're somewhat better than the Jews in Babylon at that time?I don't think I'm any better. Are you saying that we as Gentiles are not accustomed to doing evil also ?The fallen nature in the Jews in Babylon is also the fallen nature in the Gentiles. The difference is that they were a genuine unique theocratic nation specifically gifted with the Law of God. That Yahweh calls to all the ends of the earth to look to Him for salvation is quite evident -
quote: God speaks to Israel. God also speaks to all the ends of the world. So the Jewish context argument is not sufficient grounds for me to reject Jeremiah 13:23 as relevant to ALL men as well. Look at verse 27.
quote: God convicts the Jews in the Babylonian captivity. What makes you think as Gentiles our fornications, lewdness, idols,adulteries, and detestable things are OK with God ?
Catholic Scientist writes:
You could use your exact same tactic to say that the Bible claims that there is no God. I mean, it says so right in Psalm 14:1 You attempt to castigate me for misapplying the Bible. Look at your own sloppiness! What does Psalm 14:1 SAY ?? Does it say there is no God ? No Catholic Scientist, it says -
quote: And you are precisely right that that could apply to any Jewish fool or any Gentile fool. Any boy, girl, man or woman who says in his heart "There is no God" is a fool. It is universal. This was not a good passage to prove your point. The very next phrase says that there is NONE WHO DOES GOOD. It backfires in your face. I could hardly have chosen another passage to depict the fallen nature of man.
quote: How many are there that God sees doing good Catholic Scientist? - "NONE".
quote: Now you may say that I am not fair to quote these passages in support of universal fallen sinful mankind. But these are precisely the verses that the Apostle Paul uses in Romans 3:9-20 a section of Romans dealing with God's condemnation upon the WHOLE WORLD.
quote: You went exactly to the wrong passage to try to disprove the fallen Adamic nature of sin. This nature has placed the whole world under God's righteous judgment. Therefore we need a Savior in Jesus Christ. While I appreciate your drawing attention to context you miss the representative nature of the Jewish nation. The charge of liar is a slander. It is libelous. And the rest is miss-aimed and a bit sloppy. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Tangle writes: For the record, some of us hate it because it's a corrupt and vile idea pedalled by charlatans to frighten the naive in order to recruit them into their nasty little organisations. This is not a good reason for me not to believe the Bible, love God, and be a follower of Jesus Christ. My conscience would inform me that this rationale is an excuse and exposes a double standard. Plenty of charlatans, exploiters, fear mongers pedal stuff to the naive in other areas of your life. I bet you do not have NOTHING to do with those things because of that. Besides, ONE - I look for POSITIVE examples of other disciples. I look for those who will HELP my faith rather than those who will HURT my faith. And TWO - It is not that Christ did not give His followers heads up that religious people can bring disrepute to the word of God and the Gospel. I am seated here at a turkey feast. I do not hunt for bones to choke on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9515 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Jaywill writes: This is not a good reason for me not to believe the Bible, love God, and be a follower of Jesus Christ. My conscience would inform me that this rationale is an excuse and exposes a double standard. Plenty of charlatans, exploiters, fear mongers pedal stuff to the naive in other areas of your life. I bet you do not have NOTHING to do with those things because of that. Besides, ONE - I look for POSITIVE examples of other disciples. I look for those who will HELP my faith rather than those who will HURT my faith. And TWO - It is not that Christ did not give His followers heads up that religious people can bring disrepute to the word of God and the Gospel. I am seated here at a turkey feast. I do not hunt for bones to choke on. Did I touch a nerve?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9515 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Original sin is almost a description of evil. It's the idea that an individual is guilty of a crime simply by being born, it's a dispiccable idea totally unworthy of anything that calls itself a religion, much less one that is supposed to be founded on love.
Here in the real world where we actually care for our fellow man, we have man made laws, based on real morality - we call it collective punishment and it's a crime.
Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behavior of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. Historically, occupying powers have used collective punishment to retaliate against and deter attacks on their forces by Resistance movements (e.g. destroying entire towns and villages where such attacks have occurred). Collective punishment - WikipediaLife, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
What Adam took into himself was the knowledge of good and evil. He didn't take in anything evil. He took in the wisdom to know the difference and the responsibility to behave accordingly. quote: The nice sounding name - "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" ended up as God had warned - a tree of DEATH. "But we had then this wonderful and responsible knowledge of good and evil. Wasn't that great ?" Man had the knowledge. Man had not the power to DO the good. Man had not the power to RESIST the evil. Varying degrees of men and women do heed their conscience. But ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The following chapter FOUR of Genesis traces the result of this element that has entered into man. Cain failed to restrict it and became the first murderer. He was devoured by Satan. He was eaten up by the sin nature. He was driven in an insane fit of religious jealousy to murder his brother Abel. The crouching "person" of sin ate him up. What Cain DID the New Testament says was done by the devil -
quote: Genesis says that Cain murdered and Cain lied directly to God.But Jesus Christ says that it was the Devil that was a murderer from the beginning. And Jesus says that it was the Devil who lied and is the father of lies. By this we can see that Cain became one with Satan.In other words, he succumbed completely to that evil nature. He had opportunity to at least RESTRICT that evil crouching satanic nature. He failed to halt it, limit it, restrict it in any regard. It ate him up and he, in union with Satan, murdered Abel and lied directly to God that he did not know where his brother was. And I repeat. God does not hold the sinner responsible for the sin nature that he has inherited. But God does hold him responsible for the sins that he commits. So the case with Cain.
ringo writes:
It is also important to note that Cain didn't eat the fruit. He didn't take in the same thing Adam did in the same way Adam did. He learned the difference between good and evil from his parents, like we all do, but he was still personally responsible for behaving accordingly, as we all are. As long as he was a descendent of Adam he inherited that poison which the first man, Adam, took in.
jaywill writes: This wrong "food" CONSTITUTED a foreign element into his being which SHOULD NOT have been taken in. That is correct. The Old Testament ritual of circumcision, the cutting off of the foreskin of the flesh, is symbolic here. Something that God rejects is deeply embedded in the fallen nature. It cannot be improved. It cannot be reformed. It must be cut off. We have it through Adam's disobedience. But we are responsible for realizing our sins. We are responsible to restrict it though God knows that we cannot do so completely. Lastly we are responsible to repent of our sins and believe in the salvation God has sent in His Son. The Pharisees whom Jesus said their father was the devil, reacted to this Savior with a desire to murder Him. They too were being eaten up by that sin nature. It is a nature that wants to diametrically oppose God Himself. It really desires to murder God. How we need a salvation from this !
ringo writes:
It wasn't a "wrong food". It was a good food, knowledge, wisdom. It's no coincidence that the same people who promulgate the false doctrine of "the Fall" also promulgate the false doctrine of Original Sin. Those who think becoming more like God is a "fall" also denigrate knowledge. It was wrong food. Man went from innocence to guiltiness. Man went from having an everlasting life to DEATH. The human conscience WAS awakened. And a breaking system of sorts was activated to prevent some men from sliding down totally to degradation. But society as a whole degraded down as the years rolled on. That is the point of the story of the flood. And I am repeating a lot here. From here I will go on to show that Cain invented the first man-made religion. You see Satan does not just cause men to do bad things. Satan can cause man to do things which seemingly are "for" God. I intend to show that the REJECTION of Cain's offering reveals the imparted sinful NATURE. This is a nature that cannot please God. This is a nature that God will not accept. And this is a nature that requires the shedding of redemptive blood in God's salvation. Wait until we get into the acceptance of Abel's blood sacrifice of animals as compared to the rejected bloodless offering of Cain. Cain's murder was on the evil side of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But Cain's inventing his own preferred way to worship God was on the good side of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is in the rejection of Cain's worship and the acceptance of Abel's worship that we see, among other things, that man was polluted with a sin nature which CANNOT please God. And the taking in of the fruit of the tree of knowledge underscores that man took this problem INTO his being. It is revealed in a way that all should be able to understand. God is wise.
ringo writes:
jaywill writes: You have to blame the Bible for saying the sinner's nature is akin to the Cushite's skin pigmentation and the leopard's spots (See Jeremiah 13:23). We can't change our "sinful nature", our ability to sin, any more than a leopard can change its spots. That is not the same as saying that sin is already in us. The tendency to sin is already in us. As God made clear to Cain, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." (Genesis 4:7) Sin is outside unless we do wrong (or fail to do right). When David says in exasperated revelation that it was in sin that his mother conceived him, I believe that he is not speaking just for himself. He is speaking for all men.
quote: David was said to be a man after God's own heart. David had much awareness of God's way and God's righteousness. David also came face to face with how powerful the sin of lust was in him. In spite of his piety he had a huge failure. He stole a man's wife. He plotted to have it appear that the resultant baby was not his. And he arranged to have the true husband of the woman MURDERED. David came face to face with how DEEPLY he was flawed. In SIN did his mother conceive him. He was brought forth from the womb in iniquity ! He saw that he has a sinful nature, so deep, so subjective. David had many many righteous acts. Even in the end of the Bible Jesus is not ashamed to refer to Himself as the Root and Offspring of David. But King David's adultery and murder are recorded in the Bible in full candor. It underlines that man has a NATURE that is fallen. He has it from BIRTH. He was brought out of the human womb in iniquity. He has a fallen sin nature. Rather than argue with the Bible about this, it is better to look away to the Savior Jesus Christ. It is NOT as if it is a problem with NO solution. It is a problem that we should eventually see in order to appreciate what God has done in His full salvation in Jesus Christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
From this point, from my part, I will begin to show that the rejection of Cain's self made religion is proof of the inherent sin nature.
Here is the backround history.
Genesis 4:1-9 writes: And the man knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain and said, I have acquired a man, Jehovah. And again she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a tender of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in the course of time Cain brought an offering to Jehovah from the fruit of the ground. And Abel also brought an offering from the firstlings of his flock, that is, from their fat portions. And Jehovah had regard for Abel and his offering. But for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. And Cain became very angry, and his countenance fell. And Jehovah said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen ? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him. And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go into the field. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel his brothers and slew him. Then Jehovah said to Cain, Where is Abel your brother? And he said, I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper? (Genesis 4:1-9 Recovery Version) I encourage readers to read the rest of the verses beyond this on Cain, God's discipline and mercy upon him, and Cain's reactions. This is mainly in verses 10 through 15. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024