Original sin?

[Mole]

Child Rearing and Theology

We can find the History of Childhood by clicking on - http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/p1x22.htm

Child rearing practices and their effect on the personality can be empirically observed.

Whereas Theology had no empirical basis.

 

[Ginkgo]

What's interesting if you study the culture of it is how everything is spun around and rationalized so that those kind of gender roles become "positive affirmations" of gender differences rather than some sort of oppression of subgroups within the faith.

Same thing with some of the doctrines, like Original Sin, which basically are spun around to assert that God is awesome because he loves us even if we're so screwed up.

Struggling with doubt and persecution are also spun around into faith affirming occurrences.

 

[Coriolis]

It's your choice. I'm under grace.

Good luck telling that to a police officer. Perhaps you can flirt your way free.

 

[Salomé]

But it is truth [and all scripture in the Bible is inspired by God].

Our faith produces good fruit because we have the Holy Spirit in us. Faithless men can brag all they want about the good things they do, but to God it's in vain without Jesus. The good of a faithless man will be judged as fruitless and those men as fools. On the surface it might look good to you, but it's not good to God (no matter how well intended).

This isn't true, according to Paul (Romans 2):

1Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whosoever you are that judge: for in what you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you that judge do the same things.

2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them who commit such things.

3And do you think, O man, that judge them who do such things, and do the same, that you shall escape the judgment of God?

4Or despise you the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

5But according to your hardness and unrepentant heart treasure up unto yourself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life:

8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that does evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;

10But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that works good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:

11For there is no respect of persons with God.

12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

It's your choice. I'm under grace.

Poole?

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

This isn't true, according to Paul (Romans 2):

The consistent context of the matter:

Romans 2:14 is essentially saying, it is the spirit, not the letter, of the law which matters. So we are deferred to Romans 2:6, which then brings us back to the original question: what is good and what is bad?

Here's our context, we'll call them #7 and #8 for the following explanation:

7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life:

8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,


All which does not proceed from faith is sin. The original lie was planted in unfaithfulness in this fashion: the serpent, satan, suggested to eve she did not have all she thought she did. Eve had a perfect God and a perfect provider, Adam, but did not completely reject the notion that God was holding out on her by misleading her about what would happen if she ate the fruit. Adam failed God and Eve by his own weak indifference, a standard of faith that has long been abandoned by men.

Had Eve been totally faithful, she would not have believed the lie(8), she would have rejected the notion that God was not totally good, loving, and generous, and that He was withholding something from her. She would have asserted for the 3rd time, the truth: that God said if we eat of the tree, we will surely die(7). She did not love the Lord her God with all her heart soul mind and strength.

Had Adam been totally faithful, he would have obeyed God instead of Eve's wishes and ate (8). He would have remained totally strong in his conviction of God's loving goodness and stood between his wife and the snake(7). He did not love the Lord her God with all his heart soul mind and strength.

So if sin is borne in the heart of unbelief (and the resulting behavior of unfaithfulness), then sure enough a man can do nothing considered good apart from believing God. They are not in disagreement, apart from a legalistic twisting of word and meaning.


In depth explanation:

Those who obey by the law will live by it. This is true. But the question is, can a man be justified by following the law? No, nobody can. The point is this, God is life, and the law is from God, so if you obey the law you'll enjoy the benefits of obeying the law... whether you have belief in God or not. But that would be a little foolish, no? To miss the life of the one who gave the law? This is the mistake the Pharisees make... they forgo relationship in favor of religion... they want to keep all the rules but take God out of the picture because then they can mix in a little of their own rules and make life nice and comfortable for themselves, but this is a great hipocricy! Remember when you were a kid and playing a new game, remember those kids who would make up rules in the middle of the game so they can win? That's the mindset of the pharisees for you.

The law is about the Lord Jesus, so the law of Moses and the law of love brought by Christ are the same law as God is righteous and does not contradict Himself... the law of love is merely the law fulfilled... it was nailed to the cross. It is good to follow the law because you love God, not because you think this will justify you before Him--is that not just a manifestation of the original lie? That by knowing good and evil we can be equal to God, yet without Him? To do the law for this reason is no better I assure you.

The law is not gone, as Jesus said not a single period will be removed from it. As if God had made a mistake and now would need to repeal the law... it was never so! The law of love is just the law fulfilled by love, Jesus Himself, so that through Him all can be justified and come before God in prayer, the blood is sprinkled on the conscience and those who believe in Jesus are made clean.

THIS! is the true nature of right and wrong: with-God-agree conscience and God-apart conscience. The state of the conscience itself is where the mark of sin is found, because God is the creator of it all--yes your eternal soul and conscience too, which in sin, by birth in sin, are dirty, and must be washed by the eternal blood sacrifice of Christ. It is not a man made set of rules or behaviors although it manifests itself amongst men and a man's behavior. When you start to think of sin in the light of God, you'll see that it is a conscience which does not trust Jesus, which is love. Jesus is the same one who walked in the garden, all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:3).

You might ask, then, did Jesus make sin? No... sin is not a thing, but a lie and a departure from truth, trust, faith, love--the fallen conscience of those who are not saved. Sin is not a substance in itself that was created, it is a separation within a total loving relationship, the life Jesus has in the trinity, and the separation from his own life he suffered on our behalf, to bring those who are being redeemed to a glorified state through Himself since alone we are all fallen short of God's glory. Those who justify themselves in their hearts by the law apart from Christ, are entirely without truth, for they claim perfection and yet remain fallen. And yet those who account themselves to Christ are perfect in God's eyes because the Father is well pleased in the Son, and faith in the Son is likewise pleasing to Him. We are being perfected from the very nature of sin in obedience, and shame in conscience. We strive to take hold of that for which God has taken hold of us.

 

[A window to the soul]

This isn't true, according to Paul (Romans 2):

In Romans 2, Paul is speaking to all groups of unbelievers who go by a code of moral behavior in order to gain eternal life. Romans 2 teaches that no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by observing law. All men without exception are lost. Paul later states, no man is good, nor is he a doer of the law (Romans 3:19-20). The means of justification for sinners, entirely by faith in Christ, is set forth in Romans 3:21-8:39.

God can easily distinguish the unbelievers from the believers by their righteousness. RIGHTEOUSNESS IS A GIFT in the New Covenant (blood of Jesus). Righteousness cannot be earned by deeds. It can come ONLY as a gift from God through faith in Jesus, which means you are either righteous or you are not. (See Romans 5:17.)

I'm guessing the reason you misunderstood Romans 2 is because you are confused by conventional theology that teaches even though you were made righteous by grace, you now have to do right and keep the law to continue being righteous. But if you fully understand the context of what you're reading in the Bible, Paul never teaches that!

There is only one righteousness in Jesus. Paul said, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God," (Romans 10:3). So it is clear that Paul is against any teaching that says that you have to earn and merit your own righteousness.

"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law, but under grace," (Romans 6:14). This means the more grace you have, the more power you have to overcome sin.

Poole?

I don't know what that means.

Had Adam been totally faithful, he would have obeyed God instead of Eve's wishes and ate (8). He would have remained totally strong in his conviction of God's loving goodness and stood between his wife and the snake(7). He did not love the Lord her God with all his heart soul mind and strength.

So if sin is born in the heart of unbelief (and the resulting behavior of unfaithfulness), then sure enough a man can do nothing considered good apart from believing God.

The Bible seems pretty clear, the Holy Spirit is the root of good in us, and that's precisely where you are going in your post. Good post.

as a female I happen to hold a grudge against any doctrine that paints my gender as the cause of the "fall of man" and therefore the originator of all sin in humanity... original sin has been used as an excuse for years for subjugating an entire gender, which is absolutely bullshit (similar to the Hammitic myth and the belief that less white people are therefore more sinful)

also the concept that you're born guilty and automatically need salvation in order to avoid damnation is kind of disturbing... and opposite of the basis of the american legal system's belief in innocent until proven guilty... what kind of asshole just presumes that people are evil before they have proof to prove otherwise?

Your rationale is feeler rationale based on value judgements of the facts, thus you reject them as such because they're not pleasant to hear? (I thought we were talking about the scripture-based interpretation of original sin from the Bible.)

What's interesting if you study the culture of it is how everything is spun around and rationalized so that those kind of gender roles become "positive affirmations" of gender differences rather than some sort of oppression of subgroups within the faith.

Gender roles? Everything is not spun around gender roles. That is not a fact.

Same thing with some of the doctrines, like Original Sin, which basically are spun around to assert that God is awesome because he loves us even if we're so screwed up.

Aren't you a Christian??

 

[LucidLegend1984]

My interpretation of sin is emotional impulse. Acting without rationalization will always have consequences.

Life is the most powerful thing in universe, whether it’s something being created or being taken away. So in a human's life the taking of a life is one of the worst things you can do. Despite how the entertainment world has made the killing of another person equivalent to breathing, in reality taking a life is a very intense emotion, both traumatizing and stressful. It only makes sense that feeling bad for ones well being caused by your own actions would be deemed a sin.

I have this theory of connecting God and Devil to modern psychology. Where the devil is the ID and God is the rationalization that keeps the ID from dong stupid shit (tempting shit). Naturally the people who originally wrote about this phenomenon were naive to the interworking of themselves.

My other theory is that god controls everything a person does not understand and people also are afraid of what they do not understand. So if something happens as if by "magic" then not as frightening if it’s connected to a God like figure, which makes the situation a bit less scary and more understandable.

I'm no intellect or educator or scientist in the tradtional sense. I just go by what makes sense to me. I will change my answer when a more reasonable and more logical one comes about.

 

[Totenkindly]

Gender roles? Everything is not spun around gender roles. That is not a fact.

Girl, what have you been smokin' lately? Yes, gender roles are VERY entrenched; the very fact being a stay-at-home dad is a cause for suspicion in the church only highlights it, but there's lots of other similar constraints based on gender. Go to any Evangelical conference and you'll see it, and they're moderates compared to the Baptists. Even the Pentecostals get hung up on gender in their doctrine.

I was happy the egalitarian influence FINALLY seemed to be growing starting in the mid-90's; until then, egalitarian orgs had no funding compared to the gender traditionalists in this country.

Aren't you a Christian??

Remarkable. Thank you for publicly reinforcing my earlier point.

 

[Salomé]

I don't know what that means.

I can tell.

I'm not prepared to debate scripture with you. Life's too short an' all that. Also, you sound kinda nuts.
Hence, Grace Poole.

 

[Ginkgo]

Girl, what have you been smokin' lately? Yes, gender roles are VERY entrenched; the very fact being a stay-at-home dad is a cause for suspicion in the church only highlights it, but there's lots of other similar constraints based on gender. Go to any Evangelical conference and you'll see it, and they're moderates compared to the Baptists. Even the Pentecostals get hung up on gender in their doctrine.

I was happy the egalitarian influence FINALLY seemed to be growing starting in the mid-90's; until then, egalitarian orgs had no funding compared to the gender traditionalists in this country.



Remarkable. Thank you for publicly reinforcing my earlier point.

It's true. Women are almost always placed in a more subservient role. Something about women not being fit for teaching men blah blah blah. I see church going women content with it. I remember discussing this topic with my mother, which led me to the conclusion that the underlying principle is undeniably a sexist one.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

"Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray lifting up holy hands without wrath or dissension. Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

EDIT: I mean, in all honesty, even though the story of Adam and Eve has sexist undertones, I don't think the sexism is clear enough to build a solid case for how women have been oppressed. I think that's more man's fault (including inactive women) than scripture's.

 

[Salomé]

^You have to think about that in its historical context.

Women also were not allowed to cut their hair. What one must question is why one requirement is still adhered to rigidly (in some faiths) whilst the other is considered out of date. This is a political and not a religious question.

 

[Beorn]

It's important to note that while oppression does occur often within the church (and pretty much everywhere else in society) technically many Christians don't believe submission to necessarily mean unequal. This is made most obvious in the trinity where Jesus submits to the father, but is equal to him.

 

[Ginkgo]

^You have to think about that in its historical context.

Women also were not allowed to cut their hair. What one must question is why one requirement is still adhered to rigidly (in some faiths) whilst the other is considered out of date. This is a political and not a religious question.

From a historical perspective it's not religious, but for those who would take everything in the Bible to heart, it brings a more religious question up: Why cherry pick from religious doctrine? The answer is more political and has more to do with the preference of protestants - I can't help but to suspect protestant males. So yeah. I hope I'm making sense.

 

[Salomé]

^Not really, but we're used to that.

It's important to note that while oppression does occur often within the church (and pretty much everywhere else in society) technically many Christians don't believe submission to necessarily mean unequal. This is made most obvious in the trinity where Jesus submits to the father, but is equal to him.

Christians have this way of twisting logic that is outstanding.

 

[Beorn]

Christians have this way of twisting logic that is outstanding.

Many of those who hate Christians have an amazing ability to be dismissive and avoid making real arguments.

 

[Salomé]

Many of those who hate Christians have an amazing ability to be dismissive and avoid making real arguments.

Who's hating?
And who's being passive-aggressive?

I've argued with Christians many, many times. It's pointless because faith doesn't respond to reason, and reason is all I have to offer.

 

[Beorn]

Who's hating?
And who's being passive-aggressive?

I've argued with Christians many, many times. It's pointless because faith doesn't respond to reason, and reason is all I have to offer.

It's your lack of generosity that bothers me. Christians are far more reasonable than most people. You simply disagree with the presuppositions we make. You may be able to point to some things that you find inconsistent, but the bottom line is you have faith in a different set of unprovable presuppositions.

 

[entropie]

It's your lack of generosity that bothers me. Christians are far more reasonable than most people. You simply disagree with the presuppositions we make. You may be able to point to some things that you find inconsistent, but the bottom line is you have faith in a different set of unprovable presuppositions.

Yea but he doesnt kill for it

 

[Salomé]

^He could be persuaded.

It's your lack of generosity that bothers me.

Here, have a blah, blah, blabbity blah.

I heard you like those.

/generous

 

[Beorn]

Yea but he doesnt kill for it

Maybe, but I doubt Salome has a logically consistent reason for NOT killing people who disagree. Without God, being against murder only amounts to a preference, but at least you don't have to worry about being oppressed... Until you encounter someone with a different preference and an inclination to kill you.