• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

If Christ was completely without sin...

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Jesus being man means that he suffered temptations just as all people do--that was the point. Temptation and sin are two different words, and are not the same thing. The whole point of Jesus was to be human. In that instance God showed us the perfect human, who rejects sin despite temptation, and who shows us the nature of God- that God loves so greatly he would take on the sufferings of humanity and more. He would have been attracted to women. He would have had to learn from Joseph the craft of carpentry. He would have had to urinate and defecate. He would have had to sleep. He would have had to eat. He would have gotten angry, disappointed, happy, tired, excited--all things, save sin.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
And naturally we can only be redeemed by the perfect blood sacrifice, the sacrifice of the innocent lamb of God, Jesus.

And interestingly, Mary his mother, being innocent of original sin as well, is called our co-redeemer.
This is about as close as Christians ever come to acknowledging the feminine divine. As Oberon correctly points out, protestant denominations tend not even to have this.
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
No, it's for making rude remarks to people about their ideas about their religion.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Jesus has no feminine qualities?
Men have feminine qualities, just as women have masculine ones. This, however, no more acknowledges the divine feminine than it makes an all-male community organization admit women. I don't know what kind of religious services, if any, you attend; but when was the last time you heard Christian clergy refer to God as She?
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Men have feminine qualities, just as women have masculine ones. This, however, no more acknowledges the divine feminine than it makes an all-male community organization admit women. I don't know what kind of religious services, if any, you attend; but when was the last time you heard Christian clergy refer to God as She?

That could just be an old habit of referring to God as He. It's been that way since before the biblical books were written and old habits die hard, if they die at all. It's not realistic to expect people to break an timeless habit because contemporary society all of a sudden has a feminist awakening. It's what they've been taught forever. All mature reasonable believers understand that God is not the old man with the beard.
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
nebby's in the right place, then.

You're so right.

It does boggle the mind that seeming-rational people still want to argue about the minutia of a fairytale. I feel fortunate to have been spared this delusional state by my parents.
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Nebbykoo: I congratulate you!

Coriolis: I feel it's unnecessary to talk about He or She when we talk about God. It seems completely extraneous to the conversation and puts an emphasis on something that doesn't belong. I know this is a feminist issue and I understand and to some extent agree with the ideas about gender equality being reflected in authoritative texts, but if we're really going to talk about God, God has no gender. And to me it's important to find common ground to talk about God, rather than reasons to criticize other religions. So this insistence on a divine feminine being represented in the Christian church (or any other) seems to me to be a red herring. Also to the extent the female is represented in the Catholic church, with all respect, that is not my idea of the perfect woman, either, so I don't especially see it as an improvement over no female figurehead at all.

But again, to anthropomorphise God to such an extent seems to me to somewhat miss the point.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
The excluded writings to which I refer appear to have been written well within the first century, and thus significantly predate the "canonization" of the Bible. These include gnostic writings, and the texts in the "Nag Hammadi library" that came to light only in the last century, such as the gospel of Mary (Magdalene), and the gospel of Thomas. The latter contains what is probably the oldest recorded account of words Jesus actually said; predates the 4 gospels of the Bible; and is credited as a source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke.
The Gnostic texts generally date from the second century onwards. The Nag Hammadi texts themselves date from the third and fourth centuries, and they did not have much of a wider impact on the Christian world, as partially can be seen by the fact they weren't mentioned at all by Church Councils when determining the Biblical canon.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
You're so right.

It does boggle the mind that seeming-rational people still want to argue about the minutia of a fairytale. I feel fortunate to have been spared this delusional state by my parents.

It would appear, then, that you put no stock in the logical premise outlined in the thread title, and therefore the discussion herein would be of no significance to you. Which does lead one to wonder... why are you posting in the thread, if not to ridicule other forum members?
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
It would appear, then, that you put no stock in the logical premise outlined in the thread title, and therefore the discussion herein would be of no significance to you. Which does lead one to wonder... why are you posting in the thread, if not to ridicule other forum members?


I stated my opinion. Feel free to ignore it, if that is the highest imperative here. But know that I am not in awe of your illogic.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
I stated my opinion. Feel free to ignore it, if that is the highest imperative here. But know that I am not in awe of your illogic.

So are you ridiculing other posters on this thread, or not? Or does my question represent a bifurcation fallacy?
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Which does? The Catholic point of view, or the Protestant one?

The Catholic. I'm still not entirely sure how 'sin' or moral actions and their consequences play a roll in Catholicism. For instance, do you need direct forgiveness from God for your actions? Do you compensate for your sins with good deeds like charity? It's almost like, to Protestants, you are only free to do evil. Meanwhile, both good and bad deeds are incorporated into the notion of free will for Catholics. It also seems as if Catholics use a mixture of scripture, tradition, and reason to derive their concept of sin, while Protestants are more affirmative about the Bible and it's view on sin, particularly the NT, which was exceptional because Jesus was teaching forgiveness in a time of ridicule and rigid traditional roles. He ate with all the wrong people. Talked with prostitutes washed people's feet, etc. I know it doesn't sound like much but at the time it was a major reformation.

The fact that some Protestants really only consider the Bible as the only canonical text gives them appearance of disregarding the events that took place after the 1st Century, the formation of the Catholic/Orthodox Churches in Rome, etc. Also gives them the appearance of not knowing... well, much else, not unlike myself.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
In fairness, many of the mainline Protestant churches do pay homage to the Church Fathers, especially St. Augustine of Hippo. I think it's more a certain strain of Evangelicals who take Sola scriptura rather literally.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
In fairness, many of the mainline Protestant churches do pay homage to the Church Fathers, especially St. Augustine of Hippo. I think it's more a certain strain of Evangelicals who take Sola scriptura rather literally.

In my experience in NI its every protestant congregation besides the Church of Ireland and the Church of England which practice solo scriptura, they tend to see the RCC church as evil because it is "unbiblical", to me I'd be embarrassed if my entire faith could be explained away as a brief but explosive reaction to mass publishing.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Well that maybe in regards to NI, I'm referring however to say Lutherans and Prebysterians at the very least.
 
Top