Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 68

Thread: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

  1. #41
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    14,221

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    I assume you meant to say "aren't a sin"
    Well you have been around long enough to know my typing is a bit poor since my concussion and seizures I do believe I have mentioned it before. I do try to clean my errors but it usually takes stepping away for a while and looking at them again to see where I say doubled a word or garbled what I wanted to say.

    Your second sentence shows you pretty much missed the point entirely, which has pretty much nothing to do with hell. During a child's development the first part that gets developed is his ability to act on desires and impulses. What is only learnt only later on, and yes, it's learnt as opposed to preinstalled, is the child's ability to first distinguish between right and wrong and then also to not do the wrongs. A child is thus with sin from the start. When we say a child is innocent, the child's inability to know what actions are wrong are what is actually meant by that. Same goes with animals. We don't usually call animals evil, except when we're anthropomorphising them in some sense, with the exception of some reptilians as an evolutionary response.
    Umm I think you misunderstood me. You are talking about learned impulse control and socialization and the time it takes depending that for individual (given their environment ). Vs Sin which implies an indelible blood attainder you are doomed to have.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  2. #42
    Cookiegod's Avatar Civus Divus Ex Clibane
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,260

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Well you have been around long enough to know my typing is a bit poor since my concussion and seizures I do believe I have mentioned it before. I do try to clean my errors but it usually takes stepping away for a while and looking at them again to see where I say doubled a word or garbled what I wanted to say.
    I have not known about your health at all. Sorry to hear about those issues. Anyhow I didn't do a snarky remark about a typo (I do those myself), I meant it more as in: This is what I think you meant, so this is what I'll argue against. I do that from time to time to avoid misunderstandings when I'm not 100% sure, not be passive aggressive.
    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Umm I think you misunderstood me. You are talking about learned impulse control and socialization and the time it takes depending that for individual (given their environment ). Vs Sin which implies an indelible blood attainder you are doomed to have.
    I'm talking norms vs biology. The capacity for sins are in all of us preprogrammed, for some of us in worse ways than for others. Not do to the bad stuff is learnt. With the ultimate point being that the concept of original sin, being very valuable from a philosophical, psychological and even anthropological perspective, and is reflected very well by e.g. Freuds distinction between "Id", "Ego" and "Super-Ego".

    Obviously you can debate the religious (baptist) viewpoint that basics will argue from, but what's the point? Hence why I am not interested in debating the religious angle at all. No one will gain any insight from theological debates whatsoever.

    From my perspective, in this case at least, the religious angle doesn't even matter at all. Even with theology set entirely on pause there is still merit in the story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  3. #43

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Again, we are not talking about a capacity to sin.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  4. #44
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    10,187

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Cyclops,

    Quite a response ole fella, and well reasoned out from man's point of view but wrong on all counts, why? God is God and there is no other. We were made to make a story about Himself for His good pleasure and that is our history as a creation until the first part is concluded. You say it is a con job to enforce obedience but the term enforce is wrong but obedience certainly important. You see by the fall it came about because Adam and Eve were persuaded to both disbelieve God and disobey Him, the two most major factors employed by the world right up to this very day. That's the reason why people die.

    Concerning violence, it doesn't just mean slaughter. Killing is violent just as rape is, as mugging is, as beating is, as anything that can bring distress to another can be. Mankind does all these things with impunity. Evil thinking and evil gossip very often lead to violence. I'd like to wager that many would love to see me dead because of what I write. So, when you write that God enjoys violence you have to justify that by what He Himself says for I believe He said He doesn't enjoy it at all, Psalm 11:5. Therefore He has to punish sin no matter what.

    Now if God had killed Adam and Eve and the serpent immediately there would have been no story to unfold as well as no humans to make it, yet they did die as does everyone else in the world. Therefore their sin was the original sin that plunged the world into chaos. God sent His Son to die on a cross so that a certain amount of people would be saved from their sin. He rose again after three days and was seen by over four hundred people, is now back in heaven only awaiting the day for His coming again. You only doubt that because your eyes have been blinded to that truth. I used to be in that position too and if you had known me you'd be asking how it is possible that I am not now.

  5. #45
    Cookiegod's Avatar Civus Divus Ex Clibane
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,260

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Again, we are not talking about a capacity to sin.
    We're talking the original sin. If you want to artificial restrict the topic to one narrow interpretation please do justify that.

    I'm all for religion critique but those who do the simple minded bashing without any interest into putting much thought into the subject aren't particularly different from the missionaries knocking on doors unasked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  6. #46

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    We're talking the original sin. If you want to artificial restrict the topic to one narrow interpretation please do justify that.
    I'm all for religion critique but those who do the simple minded bashing without any interest into putting much thought into the subject aren't particularly different from the missionaries knocking on doors unasked.
    We're not talking with an interpretation of the original sin either. We are talking about a person bearing the responsibility of his or her ancestors' sins.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  7. #47
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    10,187

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    The origin of sin came about because Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Until then they had no knowledge of evil as what they lived under was in God's words " good." The Bible says that on eating to their shame they discovered they were naked and so they tried to hide, why? The word naked therefore had two implications here. The first on being naked and the second on being naked to what? Obviously the first is about our need to be clothed and the second being having no excuses for disobeying and disbelieving God. Both are just as applicable today as they were in that garden. This is shown at the crucifixion when Jesus hung naked covered only by blood, sweat and dirt on that cross. That was His shame in place of all the shame of those that He was dying for.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    The origin of sin came about because Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Until then they had no knowledge of evil as what they lived under was in God's words " good." The Bible says that on eating to their shame they discovered they were naked and so they tried to hide, why? The word naked therefore had two implications here. The first on being naked and the second on being naked to what? Obviously the first is about our need to be clothed and the second being having no excuses for disobeying and disbelieving God. Both are just as applicable today as they were in that garden. This is shown at the crucifixion when Jesus hung naked covered only by blood, sweat and dirt on that cross. That was His shame in place of all the shame of those that He was dying for.
    This is quite a problematic take. Adam and Eve knew they were disobeying god before they actually ate the apple. They listened to the snake and decided to eat the apple. The act of decision precedes the act of eating. By nature, they were already capable of evil before they ate the apple. Yet, your accounting of eating the apple is not tied to today's humans. You make a jump just by claiming that the act of eating the apple is applicable now without providing any explanation on why.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  9. #49
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,244

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Cyclops,

    Quite a response ole fella, and well reasoned out from man's point of view but wrong on all counts, why?
    Well I'm not a God. I see a book, I read an argument, I use what God has given me.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    God is God and there is no other.
    Except the other two (I was going to post two "Yoda pontificating" images but it was too cryptic, and against the ToS, like preaching is). And the ones Solomon built shrines to. And the Six million they worship in India. So many Gods. I mean there's a bunch of Gods in the Bible, El Elyon (who made the nations), YHWH (who chose the people of Israel out of those nations as his own), etc etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    We were made to make a story about Himself for His good pleasure and that is our history as a creation until the first part is concluded.
    ...so the Holocaust was for God's pleasure?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    You say it is a con job to enforce obedience but the term enforce is wrong but obedience certainly important.
    Obedience to who? Original Sin a con job made by humans. Jesus never said the words "original sin". He never once condemned homosexuality (unlike banking that he raged against) yet alleged Christians obsess over original sin and homosexuality, yet happily bank their money. Its a con job.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    You see by the fall it came about because Adam and Eve were persuaded to both disbelieve God and disobey Him, the two most major factors employed by the world right up to this very day. That's the reason why people die.
    Scripture says God made the world and the world is Good. Your words deny scripture. Or was there a second creation, and a second creator, making something new that God did not?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Concerning violence, it doesn't just mean slaughter. Killing is violent just as rape is, as mugging is, as beating is, as anything that can bring distress to another can be.
    ..and according to you God made it for his pleasure.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Mankind does all these things with impunity.
    ...wait isn't this about the punishment of sin? Your argument is frankly incoherent.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Evil thinking and evil gossip very often lead to violence. I'd like to wager that many would love to see me dead because of what I write. So, when you write that God enjoys violence you have to justify that by what He Himself says for I believe He said He doesn't enjoy it at all, Psalm 11:5. Therefore He has to punish sin no matter what.
    You yourself wrote just now that God made the world for his own pleasure, you have already conceded the point.

    The Bible contains a lot of contradictory statements, almost as if it is filled with human errors. Scripture tells us God inflicts violence: Joshua 10:40 summarises God's command to slaughter "all that breathes" (the ealrlier verses describe how Joshua wipes out entire cities, men, women and children: one prostitute and her family in Jericho are spared) which Joshua fulfills.

    There are endless examples, are you not familiar with the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Now if God had killed Adam and Eve and the serpent immediately there would have been no story to unfold as well as no humans to make it, yet they did die as does everyone else in the world. Therefore their sin was the original sin that plunged the world into chaos. God sent His Son to die on a cross so that a certain amount of people would be saved from their sin. He rose again after three days and was seen by over four hundred people, is now back in heaven only awaiting the day for His coming again. You only doubt that because your eyes have been blinded to that truth. I used to be in that position too and if you had known me you'd be asking how it is possible that I am not now.
    This is not a logical argument. Are you claiming the chaos was not God's plan? If God made the world and all that is in it, then the sin and evil is his too. In Genesis 1 God sees all he has made is good. Unless there is some other Creator, then the events in Eden were God's work, not Adam's or Eve's or the Serpent's.

    The words "Original Sin" do not appear in the Eden story, saying the story is about sin is unscriptural. It is first mentioned in the story of Cain and Abel, how can someone who believes the Bible claim sin existed before God's Word even mentions it?

    So many problems with your argument, the first being there is no mention of Original Sin in Genesis 2.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  10. #50
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    10,187

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Cyclops,

    There is only One God. He is a Being of three Personalities, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Anything else called gods are but the imagination of man.

    The holocaust is a part of the story of fallen man. Some twenty-seven million Russians died in that war. Fallen man did those things but, if you believe as you do why then were most deaths the result of unbelievers doing them? God gave man a will, many saying it is free, so why did they kill each other?

    Jesus may never have used the word " original " when talking of sin yet He had plenty to say about sin itself. And, He may never have expressed His feelings about homosexuality but He certainly knew of " a man cleaving to his wife and becoming one flesh," and He certainly knew about Sodom and Gomorrah being wiped off the map because of its homosexuality. Paul wrote about the lusts of the flesh in his book to the Romans and did not Jesus pick him out to be that special apostle to the Gentiles?

    When God finished His work on creation He rested after saying it was good. He never said that man was good although in Adam and Eve before they fell from grace were included. Their fall and punishment was that all creation fell as well. So, my words do not deny Scripture at all.

    God made all things for His good pleasure. Revelation 4:11.

    The punishment for sin is death and so that death comes in many ways and forms. Sin has been embodied in everyone and the only escape is Jesus Christ no matter what anyone says or believes. Man sins with impunity.

    The Bible appears to you as having contradictory statements yet to any Christian born of the Spirit of God it is inerrant. The golden rule of learning Scripture is context and flow meaning that one cannot quote something without reading the whole context which must flow with the rest of Scripture as God cannot and does not lie.

    In the garden God gave Adam and Eve a will else why would He have said that they could eat of any tree but one. The serpent as we understand it is the angel who fell from grace in heaven yet put into the world to tempt and persuade anyone that he could but only as far as God allows. So as God is Sovereign He is in control of everything that happens on this planet even having put it under the power of sin.

    We read that many angels followed Satan into sin and did so in the heavens so it is logical to assume that this happened before the worlds were made.

    The story is about God in His Three Personages dealing with a world fallen into sin. So, what is sin? The Oxford Dictionary explains it thus, quote, " an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
    "a sin in the eyes of God" unquote. Adam and Eve in disobeying and disbelieving God committed the first sin making their action the origin of sin or the original sin.

    Therefore the only problems in my argument as you put it are yours, not mine.

  11. #51

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    We have already established what you're saying to be false per Ezekiel 18, basics. Bible too has the idea of individuality for sin. If its also supporting the idea that Adam and Eve's sin's responsibility is shared by people who had nothing to do with it then its a fundamentally contradictory book by that account alone.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  12. #52
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    I'm going to zebra post, because it's convenient. I know people hate it. Soz brah.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    innocent of the interpretations being forced onto it.
    It seems that that is the essence of religion.
    Relatively innocent source material with layers of nefarious interpretations layered over it by generations of self serving pedants.

    Reason is itself highly over-rated.
    I'll drink to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    If Adam's fall in the garden was not the " original sin, " then what was?
    If I were to reinterpret the source material without its 2000 years of baggage and create my own religion, I'd set the vanity and pride of God in creating mankind in his own image as the original sin.
    That way humanity can still be said to be tainted by sin and God is pure, having purified himself like a snake shedding its skin and making us out of the leftovers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Meh, not really. Children following in their parents footsteps even when those were missteps is observable in real life. I'll go ahead and quote a psychology teacher of mine (whom I hated, who was a pink & short haired men hating feminist who was not in the slightest religious), who went on a tangent once and started talking about this: "When I went to Catholic school I used to give the teachers a hard time about it. But in this case they were right. Children do inherit the sins of their fathers."


    Children choosing to follow in their parents' footsteps is their own sin, not something inherited by blood.
    Your implications of brainwashing or conditioning is an interesting point however.

    As such there's nothing wrong whatsoever with the original sin as a very nice philosophical, psychological and anthropological concept. Nota bene I'm intentionally disregarding the religious angle entirely because there's zero point in religious debate on the internet


    Anthropological: Yes, it is weird, wacky and interesting. The others, no.
    You've probably never seen an old woman continuously, weep in genuine agony, over the bones of a baby. Dead sixty years, doomed to eternal hellfire by default, due to original sin.
    And in philosophy, bah. Universal condemnation is the negation of all nuance and cannot allow for any significance given to good/evil acts, as it follows from original sin that redemption can only come through grace.

    It is obviously in conflict with our more modern belief that everyone starts out with an equal blank slate.


    It's not modern. It's more ancient than the original sin concept. Jews, for example, don't accept the original sin concept.
    It's a Hellenistic notion baked in thanks, in large part, to that odious bigot Saul of Tarsus.

    The capacity for sins are in all of us preprogrammed
    I do agree with that in a way, I too am something of a Hobbesian.
    But that is very very different from original sin. Having the potential to sin is not equal to being guilty of sin. It would be absurd to equate potential with actuality.
    We're born ignorant and savage (redeemable through deeds/learning), which isn't the same as sinful (unredeemable).
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  13. #53
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    10,187

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    We have already established what you're saying to be false per Ezekiel 18, basics. Bible too has the idea of individuality for sin. If its also supporting the idea that Adam and Eve's sin's responsibility is shared by people who had nothing to do with it then its a fundamentally contradictory book by that account alone.
    PointOfViewGun

    Once again you are quite wrong, why? The book is about keeping the Statutes of God which no person has ever done. As Paul and others say, " All have fallen short of the Glory of God," Jesus Christ being the only sinless Person to have lived on the planet and He is the Son of God sent to save whom? Why sinners of course since no sinner can save him or herself from the wrath of God or ever could. Everyone who was alive before Jesus came and were accounted as righteous before God, it was put to their account that Jesus when He came and died on that cross for them their accounts were cleared of sin by Him. So Abel was the first to be accounted righteous before God meaning he was the very first Christian or saint as they were then called.

  14. #54

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    PointOfViewGun

    Once again you are quite wrong, why? The book is about keeping the Statutes of God which no person has ever done. As Paul and others say, " All have fallen short of the Glory of God," Jesus Christ being the only sinless Person to have lived on the planet and He is the Son of God sent to save whom? Why sinners of course since no sinner can save him or herself from the wrath of God or ever could. Everyone who was alive before Jesus came and were accounted as righteous before God, it was put to their account that Jesus when He came and died on that cross for them their accounts were cleared of sin by Him. So Abel was the first to be accounted righteous before God meaning he was the very first Christian or saint as they were then called.
    Once again, you're unable to address Ezekiel 18 that precisely contradicts what you preach. Ignoring the Bible to establish the Bible as the truth is not exactly a good argument.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  15. #55

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    I’m not sure what Ezekiel 18 is supposed to prove. The blood sacrifice as symbolic atonement for sin is mentioned throughout the OT, with Leviticus going into detail about which sacrifices pertained to which sins. Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice ended the necessity of the practice, and the Bible is loaded with symbolic references connecting Jesus “the Lamb” to the sacrificial lamb as a burnt offering in the OT.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    No, we don't care about your libertarian "evidence".
    “To live without faith, without a heritage to defend, without battling constantly for truth, is not to live but to ‘get along’; we must never just ‘get along’.” - Pier Giorgio Frassati

  16. #56
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,244

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Jesus was a great teacher and his teachings are more important than vainglorious quibbling about his nature. Its a sort of "ad hominem" fallacy, but attempting to bolster a doctrine by deifying is expounder.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    ... He never said that man was good although in Adam and Eve before they fell from grace were included. ..
    Bungfoodling nonsense, Genesis 1:26-28, when God makes man and woman he says that it is very good.

    Very hard to discuss scripture with you old chap if you freely invent things that aren't in your Bible. There's no mention of sin in Eden, not even a mention of original sin in Genesis 2 at all. Your doctrine is as unbiblical as Papal Infallibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    The Bible appears to you as having contradictory statements yet to any Christian born of the Spirit of God it is inerrant. The golden rule of learning Scripture is context and flow meaning that one cannot quote something without reading the whole context which must flow with the rest of Scripture as God cannot and does not lie.
    This is a terrible argument, you're stating (and not for the first time) only you as a believer can understand scripture: in fact you keep making incorrect statements about it. In particular you ignore the context and flow of Genesis which clearly indicate two contradictory creation stories compiled by a later editor, and the numerous examples of contradictory ideas representing understandably flawed human understandings of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Therefore the only problems in my argument as you put it are yours, not mine.
    Usually we say "therefore" when delivering a logical conclusion after you've established your premises. Your conclusion is not logical and your premises were weak.

    Faith has nothing to do with logic, its just gratifying when they coincide. Your faith is strong, it doesn't need logic. If you experience God, and declare that in good faith, then I laud you for your faith. When you offer me weak arguments from scripture you don't know well, and tell me I can't understand it when its plain the reverse is true, makes me feel pity, not respect.

    I respect the Bible as a great collection of writings, and I respect the feelings and experiences about Gods the authors express. I respect your feelings and experiences about God too.

    I don't respect people saying frankly silly things about the Bible.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  17. #57

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    I’m not sure what Ezekiel 18 is supposed to prove. The blood sacrifice as symbolic atonement for sin is mentioned throughout the OT, with Leviticus going into detail about which sacrifices pertained to which sins. Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice ended the necessity of the practice, and the Bible is loaded with symbolic references connecting Jesus “the Lamb” to the sacrificial lamb as a burnt offering in the OT.
    Ezekiel 18 explicitly declares that sins of a father is not carried to the sins of the son, that each individual is judged by his or her own actions. That doesn't click with Jesus's non-sacrifice to relieve people today from sins of Adam and Eve.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  18. #58
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    10,187

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Cyclops,

    After making all the animals etc God said " It was good." verse 25 of genesis 1. Verse 26 He then says, " let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness, and let them have dominion etc," Verse 31, And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good." God talks of everything He had made as being very good until Adam and Eve fell from grace, for after that all creation fell with them and violence reigned even among the creatures He had made. Verse 26 does not refer in any way to anything being good in that verse.

    As for interpreting the Scriptures Jesus said on occasion that even the Jewish leadership did not know the Scriptures and Peter firmly attests to the fact that only by the Spirit can the Scriptures be properly understood. As Metcalfe says unbelievers only see the dead letter of Scripture. So, would you please give me examples of me making incorrect statements.

    So, in response to your last statements we must agree to disagree.

  19. #59
    Derc's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    __DIR__
    Posts
    1,714

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Is that so?

    You read and interpreted these verses in a foreign language. For that, in the Middle Ages, you risked to be burned at the stake already. But it doesn't matter. We have learned from these old times, haven't we? Still, age old questions remain:

    "How good is that 'good' god created with all the pain and suffering in our world? What is 'good' and 'evil' anyway? Where do you draw the line between?"
    Y'know. Just stuff like that.

  20. #60
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    10,187

    Default Re: Original Sin and the Nature of Christ

    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    Is that so?

    You read and interpreted these verses in a foreign language. For that, in the Middle Ages, you risked to be burned at the stake already. But it doesn't matter. We have learned from these old times, haven't we? Still, age old questions remain:

    "How good is that 'good' god created with all the pain and suffering in our world? What is 'good' and 'evil' anyway? Where do you draw the line between?"
    Y'know. Just stuff like that.
    Derc,

    God being Sovereign and Holy demands that His creation obey and believe that what He says and carries out these instructions. If man being bound in sin cannot and will not obey whose fault is that?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •