|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I don't read your sermons and I doubt anyone does, but I do skim read your posts to get to anything you actually think, rather than pontificate about. 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 Jaywill As 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 comprehend Not even considering spiritual or religious concepts, so many of the alledged polemists here seem to lack the ability to think critically in the first place Most of the Visitors to this websibe are probably reading his posts with great interest Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
A quick note, hope Im not interfering and Ill be right out of the way
I 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 you Since 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 said When 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 obedience Since 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 meaning For example he says, "Its the Main and the Plain things we need to understand in the NT, on how we are to be saved Citing Ephesians 2:8-9, which is very true, but not any less true that Mark 16:15-16 or 1Peter 3:21 Is 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 hermenutic IYOP, is there a clear difference between Corban and the suplanting of the teaching Baptism, or did the same thing happen all over Dawn Bertot PS, 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 take Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. 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
The task is to do it using rational thought and without quoting yards of irrelevant nonsense from that book of yours. 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 otended C. 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 you And amazingly, you say you want to proceed rationally. It seems you have the task of simply being rational, initially, to simply understand anything rational
But why you're here, maybe you can help Jaywill out a bit, 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 us Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
It's a simple enough question, how come you bible bashers are so confused about it....? 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
you've never stopped to actually think about whether it's making any ethical sense.) 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 sense You cant handle the truth because you dont understand rational thought. Your all "tangled" up But if you think you can, please proceed You have no logical standard of establishing you own behavior, yet you want to understand Original Sin, from your own ever changing subjective behavior Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The emperor has no clothes. perhaps you could elucidate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You're blithering - just answer the question. Oh but I did answer your question. But one first has to establish whether you want me to answer it from a non-sensical, subjective, humanistic standpoint, which means any answer will suffice, seeing there is no standard to begin with. or do you want me to answer it from an objective, Biblical standard. One has to distinguish between these two or the casual reader will actually get the mistaken idea you understand what you are talking about from any rational standard Here is an illustration. Give two examples of "unethical" behavior from the humanist standpoint, then tell me how you arrived at that conclusion Then Ill be happy to explain what some call Original Sin BTW, why would a skeptic, agnostic, atheist, or whatever be interested in a concept so far from reality, atleast from there perspective. Thats weird Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
LOL. What does the evidence show? Of course God has little or nothing to do with the Bible, any of them. Hes a deist Phat that likes Jesus enough to be losely called a Christian. You could call him a term from any religion and it would fit and it would not offend him His problems are larger than whether he believes in actual Christianity, as its presented in the Bible Jars "evidence" is whatever it needs to be at any given moment. He'll change it like you change underware No standards of reality and what logic will allow, means he will believe just about anything Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
LOL. What does the evidence show? Of course God has little or nothing to do with the Bible, any of them. And of course he does not how he came to the comprehensive conclusion that God has nothing to do with it. And this is a universal negative, but we are expected to accept his lose conclusion on his words alone See what I mean
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
your presentation and reading of it is. because here's the answer: Nows who is getting the Hart before the corse. I didnt present anything yet, for you to consider it nonsense
that killing innocent people for the sake of punishing the wicked is unjust -- and yahweh agrees. similarly: quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A common mistake you are making. Since God did in many instances destroy children with wicked parents, including Sodom and the city of the plains, it follows that Duet is speaking about Spiritual death Your example of Sodom defeats your own purposes and argument "The wages of sin is death" Romans "The soul that sins, it shall die" "If you eat of the tree you will surely die". Since they didnt die physically immediately, it follows that spiritual death was under consideration, more so than physical Just like you failed to see the bigger picture with regard to Prophecy and who is the object of Prophecy, you fail to see the big picture of Gods plan concerning Sin and death "I will punish the sins of the fathers to the forth and Fifth generation" Exodus 20:5 "Fear not him that can destroy the body, but fear him that can destroy the body and soul in Hell" Physical death is often used as a type or shadow, of spiritual death Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Again, try honesty Dawn. Did I say (and you even quote): quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What does the evidence show? Of course God has little or nothing to do with the Bible, any of them. That was my point Jar. Your assertion in this quote is not evidence, its an assertion. Further more you couldnt from a humanist standpoint defend that assertion (logically) anymore than you could the one where you assert "God has little or nothing to do with it" Its ironic isnt it Jar the only way you know anything about Christianity is from the NT, yet you repudiate and reject nearly everything in the NT So tell me again Jar, how and why do you consider yourself a Christian Please try and answer from a purely logical perspect, not an emotional or rude snipit Where did you get your knowledge that you were a Christian Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Did I ever make any claim that my assertion was evidence. Well in a word Yes.
Asked and answered repeatedly. I am a Christian because I am a confirmed member of a recognized chapter of Club Christian. Ok well that clears everything. For a minute I thought you were going to vauge and pointless, then repeat yourself
The same place any knowledge comes from; personal experience. thats what I like about you Jar, you get right to the heart of the issue without evading the issue. So what aspect of your "Personal experience", allows you to know what parts of the NT are valid verses invalid, acceptable and believable I enjoy coversations with a man that has mastered the fine art of critical thinking. You such a blessing to us all Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
okay, so spiritual death -- like the concept of original sin -- is a no go? Were the innocents also killed at Sodom and the city of the plains, or not?
the one where abraham accuses god of blasphemy for wanting to kill the innocent along with the wicked? and god agrees with abraham that this would be wrong? Is your implication that either it did not happen or that only guilty people were destroyed? You sound like a modified version of Jar
then why is there no hint that the authors are really talking about spiritual concepts, instead of physical ones? when yahweh command israel to go kill all the ammorities and hittites and such, was he talking about making them spiritually dead, or physically dead? If hints are all you are interested in, you have it hinted in the story I gave you. "If you eat of the tree of knowledge and good and evil, you will surely die" They did not die, so clearly there is a hint at something more than physical death
you just don't even get this concept until the new testament. most of old testament lacks even the concept of a spiritual world, or an afterlife. do you see jews today talking about heaven or hell? their books don't contain those concepts. How bizzare is the statement you just made. Is your implication that God is really physical. If God is not physical why would you assume that something created in his image may Not at some point develope into a spiritual existence or habitation So if there is no Spiritual world, what is God and where does he reside?
do you see jews today talking about heaven or hell? their books don't contain those concepts. Is the Old Testament still one of thier books
i think, in some regards, yahweh wants abraham to talk him out of it. I say this with the greatest respect, but it does give alot of insight into a persons thinking process. You cant even imagine the arrogance involved in your above statement First you start with "I think". Then without taking into context what the entire Old Testament says about Gods Nature and abilites you super impose silly ideas into Gods mind Gods bargining with Abraham for Abrahams benifit not Gods While destroying Sodom brought God no pleasure, to assume he was not determinate in his plans is simply silly This might help you. When you develope an idea in your head, think it through to its logical conclusion. Youll find yourself in less trouble from a polemic standpoint and you wont sound generally silly Polemics is more that just throwing points back and forth. You develope an idea then see if it will hold logically Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
yes. read the bible closely; he shows up physically several times. "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".. Surely it doesnt mean just his breath Of course he showed up physically, because we see with eyes, how could we see a spirit unless he allowed it Perhaps a Spirit can have shape and form, without being physical
this metaphysical, spiritual world concept of god doesn't really come about until that temple is destroyed. because... where was yahweh? In your limited opinion, yes. The Old Testament does not agree with you
yahweh is wrestling with the concepts of morality and ethics. it is extremely wise to consult others in this, even for a being that is effectively omnipotent. in several prior stories he reacts harshly one way or the other, and bargaining -- a middle, moderate route -- is new territory for yahweh. Your problem is a simple one. You have isolated passages that give God human qualities at times, its called anthropomophism. When take all the Old Testament has to say about him, your humanistic, limited picture goes away What if we only spoke about the JEALOUSY of god and Never spoke of his mercy, infinite wisdom etc
what does abraham benefit from it? What does Abraham benifit from being asked to sacrifice his son? Seriously Arac. God already knows Abraham is struggling with the problem, Just maybe he will learn to trust God in his infinite wisdom As in prophecy Arac, everything is always about God, not the incident, not the person, not the situation, just God ultimately and finally
it may be silly in your mind, but it's a strong implication of what the text actually says. why else would he bring it to abraham? did yahweh consult noah about the flood? did yahweh consult adam and chavah about their son qayin? did he consult anyone about babel? Why did God (Jesus) spend so much time confirming Peters faith, when all of the Disciples, were of little faith? He knew Peter needed more reassurance, Perhaps he had different purposes for Peter than the others You have to trust Gods infinite wisdom, not your limited perceptions of him Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Actually, I agree with this in this sense - God WANTED Abraham to intercede for Lot.Why ? Because God ... Wants ... Christ. All the positive partriarchs and saints of the Old Testament are in one way or another pointers to the One who is central to the whole Bible - Jesus Christ the Son of God. You may very well be correct and you have directly confirmed what I have said to Arac, its always about God, with an indirect application or lesson for existence and or humans I think if we move past that idea to far, we start to sound like Job's three friends. You are suffering Job, because.............. I think the two most used expressions in the hereafter will be , "Oh NOW I see" and "Now I get it" Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
in other words, this is a concept only added by the new testament, and not present in the old. okay. The Mosaic law and its very specific dictates were added hundreds of years after Gods people were a people. Was thier value any less real, before that time? Cannot this limited God of yours develope things as he sees fit Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024