|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
jar writes: First of all, its quite an assertion to claim that Paul was simply wrong. You tend to shoot holes in the whole idea of Christianity when you say things like "God lied, Satan told the truth" and "Paul was wrong". Critics would say that you yourself had no idea of the problems you might cause by shaking up peoples belief systems. We simply cannot have a religion where God is imperfect and people are responsible. People have not proven that they can handle responsibility in such great measure. We want our rescuer. We want a perfect God. Nothing less will do!
Is Adam the pattern of Jesus? Reading the story in Genesis 2&3 I cannot see that. Second, if Paul is claiming that death entered through Adam, then again, Paul is simply wrong. Death exists before Adam is even created and can be seen because in the story, God creates the Tree of Life. If death did not already exist then there is no point to even create a Tree of Life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: Seems to me that a case could be made that humans behave selfishly and callously through much of History. You yourself point out how the US ignored most treaties with the Native Peoples. Germany had some villains, as did every major country. People never seem to try to do their best if it hurts their own interests. Besides...accusing all of Club Christian as being profit (rather than prophet) minded is a bit extreme. "Original Sin" is of absolutely no importance. I will agree that it seems rather suspicious that the "washed in the blood" saved folks often behave no better than the rest of us...why is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Hooah writes: Ok, so in this trend, the god character created us flawed? We were doomed from the start? He created us with the need for the jesus character and the need for salvation? I don't believe that I was created flawed. I will say, however, that I find myself choosing to act rottener than I should. Revenge sometimes feels good. Entitlement bolsters self esteem...surely I'm not as wretched as the ambitious foreigners now am I? Even if I was, Americans should take care of our own first, right? Yet the good book speaks of pride. It speaks of jealousy. It speaks of hope. For me, that hope is found through a relationship with Jesus.(Some may argue an imaginary one) No, I can't prove that God is real nor that Jesus(Gods character in human form) was risen from the dead in human form. And I certainly see jars argument against using original sin as a crutch and/or a cop out to the responsibility of living better. Thing is, Paul covered the basic dilemma in Romans. Romans 7:20--->
but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. Paul saw that his human nature was rebellious. I see the same thing. I prefer fantasy over reality. Reality is a cruel thing. It favors no man...even the man who grew up favored. I would love to have lots of money...and see that those who have lots of money often never deserved it. I know in my heart that I should love the least of these. The poor. The crippled. The young victims of life who never had what I did. And I know that I should expect no favor. (yet this angers me deep down) In conclusion, I would rename the concept. Its not Original Sin. Its an original struggle. The struggle to do whats right even if it hurts. The struggle to let go of what I believe I deserved. The struggle to let reality show the educated foreigners a place in line ahead of me, even if I am an American. (this hurts too!!) To resist the impulse to slay the competition rather than accept that they are for the moment better than I. All of this is the struggle that the American Christian, in particular, has to face today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I can agree that we may well behave poorly simply because it is what we do...though some Christians would argue that its a sin nature...its who we are.
Does it matter either way? Evidence shows that humans often behave poorly. Instead of trying to do our best, we often do what benefits us and/or is the most comfortable. Even now, as the US faces the debt problems, we likely will take the easier path and end up worse off later. It seems to be human nature to avoid pain, and change often involves pain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: It's comforting to be able to say that it's "sin nature" or "original sin" instead of having to say "it's my fault" isn't it,. Even if it is my fault, i often justify based on entitlement....humility is a hard thing to accept. Few Americans will admit to being wrong in a national context as well.... And as an example, when you propose outlandish ideas to restore our "honor"...such as giving native americans back their land...which is a preposterous idea having no real basis in economic reality...you seem to elevate personal and national honor to a standard which most folks don't see. I mean, by correcting one wrong, you end up creating other wrongs. Booting one guy out of his house to give the house (or land) to another causes further problems. Just look at Israel in the Mid-East. Booting them out of certain areas, such as the Golan Heights, would almost certainly lead to war and an eventual nuclear exchange. Same thing would happen if one tried to boot (mostly) white America off of ancient native land claims. Solving an injustice with another injustice rarely solves a problem....honor notwithstanding. Carrying on the sins of our fathers is an unneeded step. Forgiveness allows a fresh start. Edited by Phat, : add
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: OK. Getting back to your belief, you say that you believe that all of mankind has the knowledge of the basic difference between good and evil. It's easy finding excuses for not doing what is right, isn't it? Thus, whenever we fail to do what is right, it is our own fault. Am I right? (yup, its just that simple) Perhaps you would thus agree in the concept of Original Discernment...given to humans to make us fully responsible for what we do and don't do...am I right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
quote: Again, using the example of honor and practicality regarding an issue such as honoring Indian Treaties, I might bring up the idea that doing whats right is weighed against the consequences. If my father didnt honor a treaty that has legal ramifications, yet I myself had nothing to do with either making or breaking the treaty...and if I and 500,000 other people would be displaced from our homes simply to restore integrity to 4000 claimants, for example...I would argue that the concept of what is right in such a case would not be so clear. This may be straying a bit away from the importance of original sin...but the question I am asking is this: Should I be responsible for mistakes that my ancestors made? In this case, I think that the answer is no. Restoring honor for some causes insult to others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: Yes. Had your wealth and land and culture and language and traditions and beliefs been stolen from you by force would you not want and deserve compensation? I would claim that I was a victim of unfairness. I would pray for justice. I would struggle to forgive those who wronged me. Yet what if they themselves were not responsible? What if they had nothing to do with the theft of my culture, material possessions, and tradition? Original Sin may be a cop out. Humans are responsible for what they do. Justice should seek restitution and compensation. The judge would be faced with taking from those who were not directly responsible for the theft, even if they did in fact benefit from it. Some sort of compromise would have to be reached. Snatching the land out from under the heirs of the thief would simply cause more problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: Did they benefit from the acts? Yes. Suppose that my grandfather stole some land that your family had owned for hundreds of years. You are poor, and cannot fight him in court, for he has the politicians on his side. Truly an evil grandfather. So he dies. My father is more understanding. He helps your family by giving you a place to stay, and helping you and your family in limited ways. Yet he still possesses your land. He dies, and passes the house on to me. Times have changed. I am not as wealthy as my father was, and find a new competitive world to deal with. In addition, I am not a prejudiced man, and respect all cultures and peoples. We all are trying to survive. Our ancestors made mistakes, as do we. so....an ambitious liberal comes along and tells you that you were treated unfairly by my ancestors. We go to court and the court finds that you had prior claim to the land that I live on. What should the court decide? Do I have any right to survive? What if tossing me off the land ultimately costs me my life? What if my children suffer? How is my plight any different from your original plight? Who can claim any of the earth as their own, after all? Cant we all just get along?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
My argument has merit. It is irrelevant who first owned the resources. The government has an obligation to provide for all people...not simply those who own things. While the native may well win in court and get back the forest and the water, all of society may need that water. All of society may need that forest.
Lets turn it around. Suppose I own some choice farmland. Perhaps there is a famine. My land is a resource that can help everyone. Do I have a right to jack up the price of grain and make a killing off of everyone's misery? Does the native American deserve to repossess Manhattan and boot trillions of dollars of commerce off his parcel? Add by Edit: Perhaps in the case of the stolen lands, the government should take control of them and split the benefits among all of the people, perhaps giving the original owners a slightly higher share. Edited by Phat, : added
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: I would imagine that the average Atheist is at least as moral as the average Christian and in most cases, likely more moral. What keeps the "average Christian" from morality? Lets look at 1 Corinthians for a moment.(yes, I have read it) We do not know for sure who the author is, though many believe that it was Paul. You always say that content matters more than source anyway, so lets question the content of what is being said.
2:4 writes: Logic, reason, and reality suggest that human wisdom is all we have. What then does the author mean to suggest?
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. 1 Corinthians 2:6 writes: We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Was Jesus killed due to a simple misunderstanding?
1 Corinthians 2:10 writes: these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. Websters writes: Don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to bury you in a quote mine. I will allow that I must test everything I am taught through the lens of logic, reason, and reality. I don't simply accept what the Bible says, and will even admit that I seek to justify my behavior through a scriptural lens...though often aware of the standard of right and wrong. When I earlier questioned you regarding the responsibility of the US in regards to Native land claims, I was testing your response...though you told me to look inward at myself to see if I was justifying doing what one wanted to do versus doing what one should do. discern \di-sern, -zern\ vb 1 : to detect with the eyes : distinguish 2 : discriminate 3 : to come to know or recognize mentally discernible adj discernment n What does the author of Corinthians mean when he declares: quote: Do you think that this applies to you? Is it a silly question? Is it relevant in today's modern society dealing with real world problems? Edited by Phat, : fixed quote Edited by Phat, : thought i fixed it..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Doing whats right and wrong means one has the mind of Christ. Quite simply, would Jesus advise 20th century Americans to give up their land and houses in order to honor some ancient treaty? What would Jesus think of the idea of Original Sin, anyway?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I meant to say Knowing...not Doing. Besides, you never answered my question. What do you speculate Jesus would have done?
I don't expect Him to necessarily favor the Indians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: That has nothing to do with the topic, but do you honestly think that Jesus would support the robbers and not the robbed? The robbers are long dead, as are the robbed. This is a matter to settle between descendants. I have no legal obligation to settle my fathers debts. When he dies, his debts die with him. Right? I am no lawyer. and no, this is getting off topic.
jar writes: And that in a nutshell is the importance of "Original Sin". It is a handy justification for mankind not doing what it should do. If my father commits a sin, am I responsible for it? Who determines what one should do? I am arguing that prior sins in my family are not my responsibility to rectify. We may well prosecute Adolf Hitler were he alive, but we couldn't very well execute his kids now could we? My point is that just as I am not responsible for the sins of my father, I am not responsible for the sin of Adam.=============================================== Admin Phat: Admittedly I too was off topic. Any topic in Bible Study needs scriptural support. Edited by Phat, : No reason given. Edited by Phat, : self sdmonishment
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
A question that might be asked is this:
Was Paul himself a man of integrity who understood the charge laid down by Jesus Christ? Was he chosen by God to be the Apostle to the Gentiles? Is what Paul actually said different than what is now marketed? I suppose that I am asking you whether you believe that Paul was himself a con artist or was he in touch with what God wanted for humanity at that point in time........
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024