| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/17/2008 11:54:13 AM · #176 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The question I have, and I either haven't gotten any, or not seen any, answer to, is the varying degrees thing.
Must it be black and white?
Can there be a tip of the scales.....i.e., maybe people like Lincoln, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa were still human, but so far toward the good side of the spectrum to NOT be sinners?
It just seems a little too much to be cast as a sinner simply for being human. |
"Original sin", according to Christian theology, is a condition of mankind, not a whole lot different than being a mammal, say, or a biped; it just is, it represents being separated from God's grace, and it is remedied by willingly giving yourself back to God, basically.
From wiki:
Original sin is said to result from the Fall of Man, when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit of a particular tree in the Garden of Eden. This first sin ("the original sin"), an action of the first human beings, is traditionally understood to be the cause of "original sin", the fallen state from which human beings can be saved only by God's grace.
It's NOT the same thing, not the same category of thing, as being an evil person in one's life. It's just that the theology says that all the way back with Adam and Eve mankind engineered its own fall from grace, and it's up to each of us, individually, to seek a return to grace.
So I think that answers your question: nobody's saying newborn infants are evil and despicable. Indeed, they are a blank slate, and because they have (or will have,a s they mature) free will, each infant is capable of growing into its own condition of grace, and this is what the Bible is teaching us, exhorting us, to do.
R. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 01:38:57 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This first sin ("the original sin"), an action of the first human beings, is traditionally understood to be the cause of "original sin", the fallen state from which human beings can be saved only by God's grace. |
Right. Two particular people with absolutely no concept of right and wrong committed the ultimate crime of eating from a tree that an omnipotent being placed in their living room along with a persuasive talking (!) reptile that they had no reason to distrust, so now everyone requires salvation. YOU must repent for a crime of naivete committed by two ancestors thousands of years ago... an absolutely prehistoric concept of justice that sane people would find abhorrent in any other context. Imagine being taught to recite from childhood that that you are damned for all eternity unless you express heartfelt remorse for a crime said to have been committed by two people East Africa six thousand years ago. Kill your brother and you walk the earth with a mark, but eat the wrong snack and your great, great grandchildren burn in hell. Sorry, that story goes in the reject pile for me. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 01:50:27 PM · #178 |
With respect Shannon... Robert answers a question posed by Jed in a reasonable manner, giving a Christian perspective. Your emphatic post then pops up with the same arguments you've presented over and over. Robert stated "according to Christian theology,..." when he posted. To isolate one part of his reply and then post a mini rant is a little disjointed.
Robert doesn't need someone to stick up for him--I'm just commenting on how your post comes across in the context of this discussion. :( |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 01:53:32 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So I think that answers your question: nobody's saying newborn infants are evil and despicable. Indeed, they are a blank slate, and because they have (or will have,a s they mature) free will, each infant is capable of growing into its own condition of grace, and this is what the Bible is teaching us, exhorting us, to do. |
Well, that is the standard current interpretation of the doctrine of original sin, but it certainly was not the original understanding. Historically, all persons who didn't receive baptism were condemned to hell - this included infants. As our moral understandings advanced, such a view became less and less acceptable to modern religious followers. In order to retain its believers, religion had to adapt the doctrine to be less draconian. It is only because our modern sensibilities rightfully see such a doctrine as abhorrent, that it was changed.
This adjustment in the idea of original sin so that unbaptized infants and children are no longer summarily condemned to hell is simply one of numerous examples of how religion -- rather than being a guide in matters of moral concern as its adherents generally claim -- is at best a follower of the moral considerations of its followers, and typically more of a stumbling block to increased moral understanding and advancement.
|
|
|
|
05/17/2008 02:03:54 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Robert stated "according to Christian theology,..." when he posted. To isolate one part of his reply and then post a mini rant is a little disjointed. |
Which part of my reply is untrue? I didn't address anyone, but expressed why I don't believe the "one part" in question. If someone posted a news article about people being tortured for the crimes of a distant relative, this community would be all over it. The only difference is that some have been taught to accept a particular version of the exact same principle. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 02:34:59 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
With respect Shannon... Robert answers a question posed by Jed in a reasonable manner, giving a Christian perspective. Your emphatic post then pops up with the same arguments you've presented over and over. Robert stated "according to Christian theology,..." when he posted. To isolate one part of his reply and then post a mini rant is a little disjointed.
Robert doesn't need someone to stick up for him--I'm just commenting on how your post comes across in the context of this discussion. :( |
Shannon's post simply pointed out how ridiculous the idea of holding everyone responsible for the "original sin" really is.
|
|
|
|
05/17/2008 02:57:55 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mpeters:
Robert stated "according to Christian theology,..." when he posted. To isolate one part of his reply and then post a mini rant is a little disjointed. |
Which part of my reply is untrue? I didn't address anyone, but expressed why I don't believe the "one part" in question. If someone posted a news article about people being tortured for the crimes of a distant relative, this community would be all over it. The only difference is that some have been taught to accept a particular version of the exact same principle. |
I understand you consider the idea of 'original sin' (along with the rest) ridiculous, and if that was the intent of your post, then why not just say so outright? Phrases like "living room", "wrong snack", etc., look out of place. But if one believes it is a fairy tale...
|
|
|
|
05/17/2008 03:17:13 PM · #183 |
Baptism is also viewed as a symbol of entering into God's grace rather than the actual means to salvation. An infant is not capable of this knowledge or action and as such isn't condemned strictly by being born. As the child gains knowledge, they have the opportunity and ability to enter into grace.
This is a view not held by all Christian denominations and disagreement over the issue led to major divisions in church history.
|
|
|
|
05/17/2008 05:35:31 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
... disagreement over the issue led to major divisions in church history. |
Isn't the fact that you can "divide" something predicated on the concept of a single God, a single Truth, a single path to salvation, proof in and of itself that there is no single Truth? Or that out of the 200 or so Christian secta, only one will be saved and the rest damned? Seems like it might be safer to stick with Judaism, where you have about a one out of three chance of practicing according to the right set of rules, or maybe Unitarian-Universalism where you can use 'em all ...
For some reason, when I think of trying to pick the correct version of Universal Truth I get a vision of a text-covered dartboard and a blindfold ... :-( |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 05:53:21 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Historically, all persons who didn't receive baptism were condemned to hell - this included infants. |
The Conquistadors took Mayan (?) infants away from their mothers, baptised them, and smashed them to pieces against some rocks in order to save their souls. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 06:00:12 PM · #186 |
| I think that was the Aztecs (Cortez) in the north and the Inca (Pizzaro) in the south -- I think the Aztecs had already largly displaced the Mayan empire by then, though maybe Balboa trampled them on his way to the "Pacific" Ocean ... |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 06:09:21 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mpeters:
Robert stated "according to Christian theology,..." when he posted. To isolate one part of his reply and then post a mini rant is a little disjointed. |
Which part of my reply is untrue? I didn't address anyone, but expressed why I don't believe the "one part" in question. If someone posted a news article about people being tortured for the crimes of a distant relative, this community would be all over it. The only difference is that some have been taught to accept a particular version of the exact same principle. |
Maybe that you made it look like my quote from Wikipedia was my own words? I'm not a hard-liner for Christian doctrine; I was just pointing out that there is considerable misunderstanding of what "original sin" really is, doctrinally. I* don't know any Christian who would say all infants are born doomed to hell: it's just that by Christian doctrine we are born into a condition of being "fallen from grace" and we should strive to elevate ourselves. is that so bad? I strive for grace every day in my life. it seems to me a worthy goal. And I am NOT talking about doctrine; I am talking about personally, as a fallible human.
It disturbs me how some nay-sayers seem willing to draw an "absolute line" when it suits them, and then fuzz the line up when that suits them better. I have no particular problem with the notion that we, as a species, have fallen from grace with God, and that we, as individuals, might seek to aspire to grace. Do you?
R. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 06:14:51 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
I understand you consider the idea of 'original sin' (along with the rest) ridiculous, and if that was the intent of your post, then why not just say so outright? Phrases like "living room", "wrong snack", etc., look out of place. |
My saying so outright doesn't make it so. The story speaks for itself, and I find it odd that you don't take issue with the principle, but in calling one's primary habitat a living room or a fruit a snack (things that don't really matter one iota). I have no problem with people believing whatever they like, but I find the proposition of punishing any person for the crime of another to be repugnant and, yes, ridiculous. In this particular story, the "crime" that curses all of humanity is one of poor judgement. How would you rate the judgement of any person who heeds the spoken advice of a reptile? How would you rate the veracity of any "history" that even includes talking animals? Though not everyone views Genesis as literal history, even as a parable the idea of punishing an entire species for the actions of two individuals should be a non-starter. Add to that the notion that redemption for the actions of these two people comes thousands of years later in the form of sacrificing the offended party's innocent son (huh?).
"No one comes to the Father except through me."- JC So for several thousand years before Jesus, and right up to this day for anyone who didn't get (and accept) the Good News, the sentence for all descendants of two people who made the grievous mistake of trusting one of God's creations has been an eternity of torture. This is the supposed source of all morality? You're welcome to it, but I'll pass, thanks. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 06:24:38 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Maybe that you made it look like my quote from Wikipedia was my own words? |
Could be. My post wasn't directed at you or anyone else (promise), but at the idea that all humans are sinners simply because they're human.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have no particular problem with the notion that we, as a species, have fallen from grace with God, and that we, as individuals, might seek to aspire to grace. Do you? |
Yes. As noted above, I have a huge problem with the notion that an entire species should be cursed for the actions of two individuals, and that, doomed or not, even a newborn should be in any way out of favor.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It disturbs me how some nay-sayers seem willing to draw an "absolute line" when it suits them, and then fuzz the line up when that suits them better. |
Out of curiosity, what hard line? Nobody is arguing that people are perfect, only that ALL people aren't so inherently terrible that they require salvation from their evil ways to avoid eternal torment. That's quite the opposite of a hard line, and I'm doing nothing more than you might in dismissing the tasks of Hercules or stories of Perseus as works of fiction. I don't need a book to tell be to try to be a better person (as if illiteracy were some sure path to wickedness). :-/
Message edited by author 2008-05-17 19:59:26. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 06:33:18 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Maybe that you made it look like my quote from Wikipedia was my own words? I'm not a hard-liner for Christian doctrine; I was just pointing out that there is considerable misunderstanding of what "original sin" really is, doctrinally. I* don't know any Christian who would say all infants are born doomed to hell: it's just that by Christian doctrine we are born into a condition of being "fallen from grace" and we should strive to elevate ourselves. is that so bad? I strive for grace every day in my life. it seems to me a worthy goal. And I am NOT talking about doctrine; I am talking about personally, as a fallible human.
It disturbs me how some nay-sayers seem willing to draw an "absolute line" when it suits them, and then fuzz the line up when that suits them better. I have no particular problem with the notion that we, as a species, have fallen from grace with God, and that we, as individuals, might seek to aspire to grace. Do you?
R. |
So Bear (or Stan or whoever), if babies are born "fallen from grace" or with "original sin" the wording doesn't matter the bottom line is they are seperate from God and haven't accepted Jesus as their saviour...what happens to them if they die?
|
|
|
|
05/17/2008 06:45:25 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... we should strive to elevate ourselves. is that so bad? I strive for grace every day in my life. it seems to me a worthy goal. |
I believe that I and many other atheists/agnostics can agree without the need of the threat of damnation or any other religious doctrine/dogma ... given that out population had exceeded the capacity of the planet to sustain hunter-gatherer societies, it seems that most of the essential purposes for religion -- making people behave more or less cooperatively rather than self-servingly -- are sufficiently embedded in our secular laws and mores as to render the existence/non-existence of what would be commonly considered a god irrelevant.
Unless you really want to experience a Mad Max-style post-apocalyptic hell-on-earth (or a reversion to feudalism at best) we darned well better start learning to cooperate, and share what we have just un muy poco more equitably. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 07:45:57 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... we should strive to elevate ourselves. is that so bad? I strive for grace every day in my life. it seems to me a worthy goal. |
I believe that I and many other atheists/agnostics can agree without the need of the threat of damnation or any other religious doctrine/dogma ... given that out population had exceeded the capacity of the planet to sustain hunter-gatherer societies, it seems that most of the essential purposes for religion -- making people behave more or less cooperatively rather than self-servingly -- are sufficiently embedded in our secular laws and mores as to render the existence/non-existence of what would be commonly considered a god irrelevant.
Unless you really want to experience a Mad Max-style post-apocalyptic hell-on-earth (or a reversion to feudalism at best) we darned well better start learning to cooperate, and share what we have just un muy poco more equitably. |
Everybody, hopefully, has their own path. Assuredly, I myself do not seek grace through fear of damnation. I don't believe in hellfire. My only point is, the Book says we should strive for grace. Who can argue with that? Your path to grace may be different from mine, who knows, but the striving is what counts.
R. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 08:03:35 PM · #193 |
| I personally believe that Jesus's sense of morality was closer to Louis's than to Christianity's. The reason he went to great pains to say everyone is sinful was just a call to humility and self-examination. He wanted people to live a carefully examined moral life. I think he'd be mortified to find out he's become a Get Out Of Hell Free card. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 08:11:14 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I think he'd be mortified to find out he's become a Get Out Of Hell Free card. |
Agreed. He's probably rolling in his grave. Uh... nevermind.
Unrelated, but I thought it was funny given this discussion: All men are not created evil. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 08:16:27 PM · #195 |
The fall from grace in the garden was not a matter at all of eating this snack or that, but entirely a matter of distrust and rebellion against the plainly revealed will of God.
The concept of baptising babies is not present in the bible.
Rather than pick a set of doctrines and "hope" you get the right one, why not ask God, seek His will for you in His word, humble yourself, and accept what you learn from the Word. I've been in a few denominations, and have to say I see silliness and corruption in most all of them. But I've also read scripture, in the spirit of desiring to learn at the Masters' feet, and don't think I've ever been lead wrong...
"Let God be true, and every man a liar."
|
|
|
|
05/17/2008 08:24:51 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
The fall from grace in the garden was not a matter at all of eating this snack or that, but entirely a matter of distrust and rebellion against the plainly revealed will of God. |
...by people who, at the time, didn't know any better and may have thought a talking serpent was another incarnation of God (who wouldn't?). Given people who don't yet know the difference between good and bad, it's kinda like damning a disobedient labrador retriever.
Originally posted by farfel53:
Rather than pick a set of doctrines and "hope" you get the right one, why not ask God... |
Contradiction alert. Again. Why not ask Buddha?
Message edited by author 2008-05-17 20:30:12. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 08:31:02 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I personally believe that Jesus's sense of morality was closer to Louis's than to Christianity's. The reason he went to great pains to say everyone is sinful was just a call to humility and self-examination. He wanted people to live a carefully examined moral life. I think he'd be mortified to find out he's become a Get Out Of Hell Free card. |
Is that belief based on any fact, or is it just what you would like to think?
Isaiah chapter 53 tell you who He is, what He was to do, and why He came. Written several hundred years beforehand. Quite frankly, Isaiah described this man as a "Get out of Hell Free" card, as you say. Go read it and see, and base your beliefs on something other than fantasy and wishes.
Jesus Himself told the disciples what He would do. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:14
"For the Son of man is come to seek and save that which is lost." Luke 19:10 Not point you to morality, or tell you to be nice and not to fight with each other. To SAVE.
And read the sermon on the mount to see if He was really pointing the people to morality and sinlessness, or if He was trying to show how impossible it is to live a perfect and sinless life, in complete harmony with God. Matt 5,6,7
Or make up your own ideas about who He is/was and how sweet and lovely we all are.
|
|
|
|
05/17/2008 09:42:48 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Is that belief based on any fact, or is it just what you would like to think?
Isaiah chapter 53 tell you who He is, what He was to do, and why He came. Written several hundred years beforehand. |
Is Isaiah based on any fact or is it just what you would like to think? Note that this is the same prophet who predicted a cockatrice and dragon (14:29), predicted the son of Mary would be named Immanuel (7:14), that Damascus would cease to be a city (17:1), and that the Nile would completely dry up (19:5). A veritable fountain of knowledge, eh? Shall we also accept as fact that God instructed Isaiah to wander around North Africa completely naked for three years (20:3)?
PS- Isaiah 53, which you seem to attribute to a prediction of Jesus, is written in past tense some 700+ years BC. :-/
Message edited by author 2008-05-17 22:12:27. |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 09:59:11 PM · #199 |
| Do you think Adam and Eve ate meat??? |
|
|
|
05/17/2008 10:05:33 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Do you think Adam and Eve ate meat??? |
Well, Adam had spare ribs at least once. ;-D |
|
