|
|
Post by gadreel on May 28, 2019 22:40:59 GMT
Why would I care what a bunch of anonymous anecdotal believers say about sin? Quite right too. That St Augustine (to whom the idea is typically attributed) is nobody worth caring about, I guess.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_of_good So let's not care and move right along. To be fair ALL Christians pick and choose from the pool of the faith, at least he is being honest about dismissing stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 29, 2019 14:53:56 GMT
Quite right too. That St Augustine (to whom the idea is typically attributed) is nobody worth caring about, I guess.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_of_good So let's not care and move right along. To be fair ALL Christians pick and choose from the pool of the faith, at least he is being honest about dismissing stuff. I don’t pick and choose anything except the beliefs that best match scripture. The concept of sin matches scripture until it’s proven otherwise which it hasn’t. It would be awesome to not have sin but even the staunchest religion haters define the religious as sinners. It’s hypocritical to suggest no one can do wrong but religious are wrong. It doesn’t even make sense. I think what theophobiacs do is see what causes an argument and pretend there’s a conflict that doesn’t actually exist. If it did they would actually be debating the merits of the conflict rather than simply saying other people don’t believe it. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 29, 2019 15:01:18 GMT
Why would I care what a bunch of anonymous anecdotal believers say about sin? Quite right too. That St Augustine (to whom the idea is typically attributed) is nobody worth caring about, I guess.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_of_good So let's not care and move right along. I'm not Catholic. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 29, 2019 15:38:32 GMT
Quite right too. That St Augustine (to whom the idea is typically attributed) is nobody worth caring about, I guess.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_of_good So let's not care and move right along. I'm not Catholic. That doesn't affect my original point: that here, as so often is the case, there is no unanimity between believers on a major point of faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 29, 2019 16:48:18 GMT
That doesn't affect my original point: that here, as so often is the case, there is no unanimity between believers on a major point of faith. Youre the only one that requires there to be unanimity. I’m only concerned with accuracy. Some dude saying sin doesn’t exist is not automatically the same weight as scripture that sin does exist unless proven otherwise. . But if you want to continue pretending that all of Christendom believes the same in order to create a pretend contradiction then you are just being you. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 29, 2019 17:43:37 GMT
That doesn't affect my original point: that here, as so often is the case, there is no unanimity between believers on a major point of faith. Youre the only one that requires there to be unanimity. Please quote where I require there be unanimity. I was only making the point that other views exist on some occasions. It might be observed, however, that it is likely harder to convince the sceptical of supposed general religious truths when the religious can't even agree on them among themselves ... especially when they are those who might be best expected to know! That would be the point really. There can be no 'accuracy' in matters transcendental since knowledge of anything is hard to obtain and views vary about matters supposedly understood. But one imagines you really know this, which makes one wonder why you are so exercised by the prospect here - and why, in effect, you are attacking the messenger rather than the message. Some dude. St Augustine (and St Aquinas too, come to that.) LOL The point is, my friend (for those who care) that in this understanding, we are made absolutely responsible for our actions. "Existence is good, so evil does not exist except as the lack or deprivation of some good that a being should have. We can therefore only recognise evil in the context of a prior understanding of the good of any being. If evil were completely annihilating of the good then it would have to annihilate itself because it depends upon the good of existence to manifest itself as lack... From a metaphysical perspective, Aquinas asserts that the world is better for having evil within it, because evil serves a greater good... For Aquinas, God's goodness is beyond all definitions of the good, and we cannot hold God to account by our moral standards. Of course the world could be other than it is, but that would be a different world, and this is the world God created." www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/12/thomas-aquinas-question-evil This is admittedly a pretty subtle and intellectual idea from the great thinker(s) but there it is. I hope that helps. If all Christendom believed the same then, er, surely there would be no contradiction. Have you thought this through? In the meantime I know which dudes in this spat carry most weight ... should I be inclined to worry any more about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on May 31, 2019 20:26:57 GMT
But your missing one crucial thing... ALL people do sin.
basically short of Jesus Christ and His mother Mary, everyone else who walked the earth is a sinner.
after the fall of Adam/Eve, humanity has a fallen nature inclined toward sin. we were created good but now we have a distorted view on things and don't always see things as they truly are after Adam/Eve fell.
|
|
