|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 9, 2017 14:58:04 GMT
Romans 5:18-19 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Look like Original Sin has been abolished folks...
Only for Christians though. It only becomes "abolished" when one is "born again". John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” 1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. Romans 6:3-4, 6-8 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2017 15:09:57 GMT
Look like Original Sin has been abolished folks...
Only for Christians though. It only becomes "abolished" when one is "born again". John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” 1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. Romans 6:3-4, 6-8 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. Fine - until one realises that someone 'born again' can be just as sinful as anyone else (excluding those so graced in any supposed heaven, presumably). And so that pesky guilt is back again. No doubt it all makes sense to someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 9, 2017 17:00:53 GMT
There is a difference between acknowledging the truth of one's sinful nature, and bearing the guilt of that sin.
Indeed. But if one can have sinned through a sinful nature and yet be innocent of guilt for it then Christian morality collapses.
The Bible also specifically associates the two, several times, quite explicitly:
Ps. 32:5 - "Thou did forgive the guilt of my sin"
Mk. 3:29 - "guilty of an eternal sin"
Jere. 51:5 - "Israel and Judah...their land is full of guilt"
Also the only 'truth' as you would have it, or proof, of such a sinful nature would be necessarily and demonstrably malign. Some of those verses you are quoting out of context. Psalms 32:5 - this is essentially a confirmation as to what I was saying. The guilt of sin is "forgiven", meaning one is no longer guilty. Mark 3:29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” The above passage refers only to the unforgivable sin, not to original sin, or sin in general. Jeremiah 51 is discussing Israel and Judah which had many unrepentant sinners. In that situation, they were in fact guilty because they had not confessed their sins and asked god for forgiveness. That is the point of confession, to be freed from the guilt of sin. I agree with all of that (as far as interpretation goes). Not sure how this is relevant to what I said though. I didn't say anyone was "innocent" of sin. Innocent is not the antonym of guilty in the biblical sense. Those are legal antonyms, but mean something completely different in the spiritual sense. Nobody is innocent of sin. However, the word guilty implies that one is responsible to and accountable for their sins (i.e. Must pay for them). Clearly the bible establishes that this is not the case. Well your presumption is actually incorrect. The bible establishes that God gave us an innocent nature, as man was created in God's image. Man's nature became corrupted because he fell into sin by following his own free will, rather than the will of God. From that point on, mankind's nature was sinful. But it's not what God originally designed (although he allowed it to happen because it's part of a larger plan). That's true (albeit that particular translation is nearly universally deemed to be faulty). The more accurate rendering is that he created calamity (that is natural disasters), and from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to the worldwide flood, the bible reestablishes this over and over. With respect to evil itself, he merely allowed it to spawned. So you could say that he created the conditions for evil to come into existence, and allows it to exist. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 9, 2017 17:04:33 GMT
Only for Christians though. It only becomes "abolished" when one is "born again". John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” 1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. Romans 6:3-4, 6-8 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. Fine - until one realises that someone 'born again' can be just as sinful as anyone else (excluding those so graced in any supposed heaven, presumably). And so that pesky guilt is back again. No doubt it all makes sense to someone.
I don't actually believe in any of this crap! But I understand the theology behind it because I used to be a Christian and I've read the bible. It makes sense in so much as one's ability to rationalize it to themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 9, 2017 18:14:02 GMT
We are not guilty based on the particular actions of the few as the writer is suggesting and what I was commenting on. However, we are not guilty of sin just because we inherited it. After all, even perfect people can sin. We sin often so we personally earn that. Jesus' sacrifice is based on the notion of us being constant screw-ups and acknowledging that increasing the appreciation of it [for some] rather than lessen it. Were not the purported actions of Adam of Eve necessarily those of 'a few'?
Are you saying that we have not inherited their guilt?
And that JC died just to increase our 'appreciation' of sin? How much do we have to have to be a real fan of it, then?
So you are thinking that because Adam & Eve sin, this correlates to me being responsible for the sins of others?
The sins we inherited have no ties to the particular actions of Adam & Eve. We didn't inherit the action only the result of it and only in relation to God's standards which means I couldn't give a hoot about someone being upset with me for something someone else did that has no ties to God or my teaching.
I do realize this is the time that some get bent out a shape over the notion of inherited sin, but that's another topic...
Also I in no way said that Jesus' sacrifice increases our appreciation for sin. Maybe it was a grammar issue but to me it was obvious that tied directly to your notion of it decreasing the value of his sacrifice.
Does your brain automatically jump through hurdles to create a new argument for no reason. There's got to be a medication for it, so keep hope alive!
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 9, 2017 18:21:16 GMT
I can't imagine him being to crazy about the libertarian/free market economics of Christian conservatives (assuming he actually existed). At least Ayn Rand libertarians don't have to clumsily reconcile a hippy messiah with their free market economics.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 9, 2017 18:35:43 GMT
I can't imagine him being to crazy about the libertarian/free market economics of Christian conservatives (assuming he actually existed). At least Ayn Rand libertarians don't have to clumsily reconcile a hippy messiah with their free market economics. Idk, the Christians in the first century lived in a free market.
The church and it's members were simply compelled to provide charity (Not sure if the Roman Empire had tax deductions...) which can happen in the most greedy of environments.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2017 14:55:33 GMT
Fine - until one realises that someone 'born again' can be just as sinful as anyone else (excluding those so graced in any supposed heaven, presumably). And so that pesky guilt is back again. No doubt it all makes sense to someone.
I don't actually believe in any of this crap! But I understand the theology behind it because I used to be a Christian and I've read the bible. It makes sense in so much as one's ability to rationalize it to themselves.
So does mass murder lol
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2017 15:24:06 GMT
So you are thinking that because Adam & Eve sin, this correlates to me being responsible for the sins of others? No; I am saying that sin is, well, sin, and Christianity tells us that Adam and Eve who committed the first sins supposedly got us into the current mess we are in. i.e. they are responsible in this light for all our sins. So, thus, they left us with guilt. There are of course ways in which one can, indeed, be responsible for the sins of others: like being an authority in a major religion heavily involved in child abuse for instance and not exposing the evil hence reducing it. Without at least one or two 'particular acts', then their supposed transgressions related in the myth would not be considered, or it would all just be about thought crime.. That's understandable, but here I thought we were talking about things which are so relevant. And, what part of the human condition really can have 'no connection' to God? My sock drawer? Yes, other views are always available when nothing can be proven, aren't they?
That's good to know, but it is arguable that, unless JC had died for our sins, then we might have assumed that sins mattered less. Also, among other things, what gives Jesus his value and impact is that he, supposedly, did this very thing. He might otherwise just have wondered round the middle east a bit and ended up back making stools and chairs or out shouting at swine. I would suggest that without his death and purported resurrection the effect would hardly have been so compelling. Like the girl at the end of Chinatown, Christ had to die, to make our attention to the story worthwhile.
Even a mild ad hominem is not flattering to the giver, my friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 11, 2017 6:21:12 GMT
I can't imagine him being to crazy about the libertarian/free market economics of Christian conservatives (assuming he actually existed). At least Ayn Rand libertarians don't have to clumsily reconcile a hippy messiah with their free market economics. Idk, the Christians in the first century lived in a free market.
The church and it's members were simply compelled to provide charity (Not sure if the Roman Empire had tax deductions...) which can happen in the most greedy of environments.
Free market in the 1st Century? Rome did not impose any controls? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 11:07:50 GMT
Idk, the Christians in the first century lived in a free market.
The church and it's members were simply compelled to provide charity (Not sure if the Roman Empire had tax deductions...) which can happen in the most greedy of environments.
Free market in the 1st Century? Rome did not impose any controls? You can have a free market and controls. We have that right now. in Rome, you could buy & sell what you wanted, including people, and taxes helps the empire survive and grow along with the standard bureaucracies. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 11, 2017 16:24:42 GMT
Free market in the 1st Century? Rome did not impose any controls? You can have a free market and controls. We have that right now. in Rome, you could buy & sell what you wanted, including people, and taxes helps the empire survive and grow along with the standard bureaucracies. How many controls need to be put in place that you would no longer consider a market to be free? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 17:35:56 GMT
You can have a free market and controls. We have that right now. in Rome, you could buy & sell what you wanted, including people, and taxes helps the empire survive and grow along with the standard bureaucracies. How many controls need to be put in place that you would no longer consider a market to be free? I have no idea.
I'm not an economist.
My point is that we are considered to be in a free market now despite there being a ton of laws, regulations, & taxes that can't help but liit the free market.
Ancient empires shouldn't be considered too different in relation to what individuals experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 11, 2017 19:08:34 GMT
How many controls need to be put in place that you would no longer consider a market to be free? I have no idea.
I'm not an economist.
My point is that we are considered to be in a free market now despite there being a ton of laws, regulations, & taxes that can't help but liit the free market.
Ancient empires shouldn't be considered too different in relation to what individuals experience.
First Century Palestine was basically a colony. I don't think the American colonies considered themselves to have a free market when they declared independence. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 19:35:05 GMT
I have no idea.
I'm not an economist.
My point is that we are considered to be in a free market now despite there being a ton of laws, regulations, & taxes that can't help but liit the free market.
Ancient empires shouldn't be considered too different in relation to what individuals experience.
First Century Palestine was basically a colony. I don't think the American colonies considered themselves to have a free market when they declared independence. American colonies were quite a bit younger than Jerusalem and the Roman Empire.
Bottom line is people were buying and selling freely and under typical run of the mill market pressures as well as supply and demand. If they weren't under a free market system, then neither is modern day United States which I am fine with conceding.
|
|
