Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 22:32:48 GMT -5
You are a sinner *** to God **** because you are born with a human nature. And all mankind is under the condemnation of death.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 25, 2015 23:21:32 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1437867898000" class="time" title="Jul 25, 2015 18:44:58 GMT -5">ul 25, 2015 18:44:58 GMT -5</abbr> yknot said: This is what all religions do & have done since time immemorial. It isn't about Jesus or Christianity, it is what all religions do.
It has been ongoing ever since human-kind began to realize that certain things happened for which that they did understand the cause.
It didn't take much for a shaman, witch-doctor, priest;( -whatever you want to call them) to have enough perception of how he/she could use that lack of knowledge & concern of the people to provide food & material necessities for themselves by convincing the people that they had sinned.
It really didn't take a lot of perception on the part of someone in the group to understand this. That person became the leader. The priest could intercede for them if they would give him/her material necessities.
Look it happened with the animal sacrifices in the OT of the bible! The priest ate the sacrificed animal!
So it has been throughout the ages!
Still does today!
The people who support the material needs of the Workers still do so today . Good evening DMG. As we have noticed in previous conversations with each other, we tend to color our respective rhetorical styles with significantly different brushes. I tend to use smaller bristled brushes with a narrower profile. I am uncomfortable with broad brushes that color all of a topic mono-chromatically. I cannot speak of all religions, because I am not in possession of data regarding all religions. I am unable to speak of time immemorial, records of the human experience become spotty the further back you go. I do not support the hypothesis that being "unable to know" is a harbinger of bad behavior. I do believe in awe and the reality of phenomena beyond the comprehension of our species. Rather, it has been my experience that it is much too easy to embrace the beliefs of others without critical reflection and it is much too easy to dismiss the beliefs of others if they do not accord with our own experiences. As I look at things, it is the ease with which we can be trapped in these intellectual dead-ends that enables others to exploit our insecurities.It has been my experience that religion is not the only realm of human endeavor where such malefactors lurk. There are those capable/willing to exploit no matter what the endeavor. My comments reflect the dismay I feel that personal-engagement beyond self should be so manipulated, in my view, we all suffer as a consequence. However, unless we understand the past & the needs of humanity that are "painted by a much broader brush," we can't begin to understand how such religious beliefs took hold.
Early on humankind needed oxygen, water & food in order to survive. From those three requirements, others began to play a part such as shelter from the elements. When those elements created by natural geological conditions were unexplained, people had no gauge to understand. They accepted just about any explanation that someone could give. In stepped the shaman.
I don't believe "unable to know" is a harbinger of necessarily "bad behavior" either, -but it is rather the way that behavior evolved; -both for the people & for the "shaman."
No doubt the "shaman" believed in what he was doing & was not doing it for any particularly personal power at that moment. However, control through paranormal beliefs IS what ultimately happened. Until some serious thoughtful people untangled the real reasons.
You speak of being uncomfortable. I am very uncomfortable when some people insist that paranormal incidents such as Near Death Experiences just has to be that they were on their way to some after life.
It has nothing to do with my feeling that MY experiences are somehow superior to theirs! All one has to do is look at the prevalence of the supposed paranormal incidents in the past such as return of people from an after life that was a craze during seances. It is distressing to see how gullible people are and so easily taken in!
I think that my main concern is that all humankind would have to experience is one world wide catastrophic event and all humankind's wisdom & knowledge & rationality will disappear down the drain.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 25, 2015 23:39:11 GMT -5
You are a sinner *** to God **** because you are born with a human nature. And all mankind is under the condemnation of death. And that is exactly why I am an atheist.
Who can believe that such a god would have anything at all to do with "love?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 0:39:16 GMT -5
Would you love someone enough to offer up your daughter for them?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 26, 2015 1:40:08 GMT -5
Would you love someone enough to offer up your daughter for them? Neither did the god that you have created in your image!
It is ridiculous to say that some god created a people in his own image but created them so flawed that he had to turn around and sacrifice his own son for their so called redemption from the very flaws that he put into them!
Not only does it not make any sense, it is morally corrupt!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 1:56:45 GMT -5
So if it's "morally corrupt" then I presume the Christian world will become more moral as it sheds Christianity?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 26, 2015 2:04:41 GMT -5
So if it's "morally corrupt" then I presume the Christian world will become more moral as it sheds Christianity? Yes, and it is becoming more moral each day! And don't go over your constant lists of what you consider sexual sins!
I am leaving for Amsterdam next week, Bert, and you will just have to argue with someone else for awhile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 2:17:10 GMT -5
And I suppose, as the world gets more moral, that we are going to put locksmiths, security control rooms, security forces, police, paramilitary, airport security, border control, drug enforcement and the like out of a job.
And suppliers of security videos, drone surveillance, bullet proof vests, riot shields, tasers, tear gas, bomb proofing for aircraft, automotive engine locks, ATM/Bank hardening technology and the like will be out of business.
It's interesting to note that during the "Wild West" of the USA, about a dozen bank robberies over fifty years were recorded. And they didn't even have a police force.
We simply have no idea how other generations lived, do we?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 26, 2015 2:25:36 GMT -5
And I suppose, as the world gets more moral, that we are going to put locksmiths, security control rooms, security forces, police, paramilitary, airport security, border control, drug enforcement and the like out of a job.
And suppliers of security videos, drone surveillance, bullet proof vests, riot shields, tasers, tear gas, bomb proofing for aircraft, automotive engine locks, ATM/Bank hardening technology and the like will be out of business.
It's interesting to note that during the "Wild West" of the USA, about a dozen bank robberies over fifty years were recorded. And they didn't even have a police force.
We simply have no idea how other generations lived, do we? Nope, you are right for once,Bert, YOU don't know!
Aren't you going to ask me why I'm going to Amsterdam, Bert?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 2:29:00 GMT -5
I know, you are going to one of those "coffee shops" to buy some "White Widow" or "Northern Lights" hash. Maybe you can ogle the girls in the red light district shop windows.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 26, 2015 2:43:05 GMT -5
I know, you are going to one of those "coffee shops" to buy some "White Widow" or "Northern Lights" hash. Maybe you can ogle the girls in the red light district shop windows. Nah, wrong again, Bert!
I am surprised that you didn't know that the first 2 weeks in August is Amsterdam Gay Pride, -not just a day but 2 whole weeks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 2:52:07 GMT -5
So when did YOU "decide" (you know, completely independent of anyone else's thinking) that "gay pride" was to celebrated? Certainly you wouldn't have wanted to celebrate it when you were a girl.
You okay with Pederast Pride too?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 26, 2015 3:12:19 GMT -5
So when did YOU "decide" (you know, completely independent of anyone else's thinking) that "gay pride" was to celebrated? Certainly you wouldn't have wanted to celebrate it when you were a girl.
You okay with Pederast Pride too? Oh boy! Bert! do I know how to pulls your strings or not?
Be a good boy & tomorrow I might tell you what I really plan to do in Amsterdam!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 3:32:22 GMT -5
Okay... send photos (no men wearing only see-through underpants)
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 26, 2015 4:20:45 GMT -5
I have run into a brick wall, banged my head badly and now I find I have no understanding of Christianity what so ever. I need a constructive tutorial on what the Christian message was really all about. I will start with several quick questions. Why do most religious conversations persist in their obsession with sin? Why are religious practices enmeshed is rules, dogma and parsed doctrine? If there is a "God", was all of "His" handiwork really directed toward a collection of sycophants who are constantly worried about his mercy and grace and forgiveness for sins real and imagined and who spend hours talking about being saved while all about there are those who might benefit from a simple gesture of sincere love and compassion? Why isn't the equation inverted, why don't we spend most of our time talking about how to show love and mercy toward our fellowman and let all of the angst about whether or not we or someone else is saved and will be going to heaven remain quietly somewhere in the background? I have meandered through several of our threads and it is tough to find posts of people "joyfully participating in the sorrows of the world". Why is that. Why are we more captivated by the symbolic meaning of the crucifixion than the resurrection? When I get up in the morning and take a stroll through the garden and back into the forest, I don't think about all of the flora and fauna that had to die in order to have this rich soil that supports new growth. Nope, I think, "Wow, look at that little sprout, I didn't see that yesterday, somehow it just sprung-up to play it's little role in the infinite web of existence. I wonder how I can best play out my role, today? And then, I walk on!" I am not a conspiracy theorist (I don't think), but I have a bad feeling about all of this. Somehow, I think that all of the focus on sin and original sin and rules and dogma has more to do with providing somebody (or somebodies) with power and control over me and my fellow. Strikes me that "overlords" can't control if they can't convince their followers of their weaknesses and failures. Religions seem to have proven the case, they have succeeded in amassing power and control and convincing their flock of their sins and errors requiring endless forgiveness. All the while we casually walk among the unnoticed masses of our neighbors in need, wondering if WE have been saved! Is that really the message that Jesus intended us to hear? Just focusing on the gospels, aren't most of those homilies and parables about loving our neighbor? (And not about obsessive atonement for sin?) I am not asking about where Paul and St. Augustine and rest led the flock afterwards, I am just confused by how I so totally missed the point of it all. For me it is more about the opening up to new life, the resurrection if you will, and not the constant groveling for things I did and didn't do. Hey I am as sinful as the next guy, probably more so than most, but I ain't helpin' no one if that is all I think about all day long. Let the tutorial begin! Anxious pupil awaits. Hi ynot, I also believe that the resurrection is important, without the resurrection of Christ in the heart we have nothing. As Virgo said, we can read the bible from back to front and know all the verses but without the holy spirit it's nothing. And I was reading about what you said about the garden, Quote. When I get up in the morning and take a stroll through the garden and back into the forest, I don't think about all of the flora and fauna that had to die in order to have this rich soil that supports new growth. Nope, I think, "Wow, look at that little sprout, I didn't see that yesterday, somehow it just sprung-up to play it's little role in the infinite web of existence. I wonder how I can best play out my role, today? And then, I walk on!" Then this got me thinking, without that death, there wouldn't have been the life for you to enjoy, without the death, the nourishment wouldn't have been given, if Gods people don't die and put away their old life and be born again, there is no resurrection of Christ in the heart, and no holy spirit. No life is brought forth for others to enjoy, we have to leave off our old life and put on the new which is the resurrection of Christ. And then because if his resurrection within us, our mind will be changed, and our self should be last, and then we should think and pray and ask, "what am I needed to be doing today, and wait but with our eyes wide open to the needs of others. Also, you would think that by death to self it must be a terrible suffering, but if the hearts right it sets you free, your becoming dead to sin, but alive in God. And you feel free! But only if the heart is right. So even though there's death and suffering, it brings forth life through the power of his resurrection, and that resurrection is here and now in our hearts, if we die daily. Philippians 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death I found your post interesting, thanks. And for me, it's so more important to focus on the beauty of the life of Christ than on his death. And also on his resurrection than on his natural death. Because without the death to self there is no resurrection, but more importantly without the resurrection, there is no life
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 26, 2015 8:59:19 GMT -5
Yknot, in terms of your OP, the Spirit is about generosity, not about any great concern in being overly consumed with Sin. The Spirit is not an antidote to Sin, but an antidote to the struggle and wretchedness that comes from a preoccupation with Sin. Here are some verses to consider. It's good that you think the Spirit of generosity and concern for one's neighbour is what Christianity should be, because in that, the Bible agrees. www.openbible.info/topics/generosityWhathat, thanks for your comments and the link. Perhaps it is a reflection of the posts on TMB that I choose to read or the filters I impose between my understanding and the actual expressions of faith by Christians I listen to but somehow I have fallen into this uncomfortable state of hearing more about people's concern with sin than generosity. Were I a pagan, devoid of the heritage and cultural baggage of Westeren Civilization and the Christian ethic, I am uncertain that I would find much comfort or attraction toward Christianity in today's practice of Christ's message. Do I stand alone in this regard or do you think others share elements of the same misgivings?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 26, 2015 9:06:34 GMT -5
But that is the premise upon which all the rest of Christianity rests. That's why the rest of Christianity isn't going to add up. Again, with regret, I reject your assertion. The Christianity that I am familiar with and that I have affection for rests on the premise: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 26, 2015 9:22:34 GMT -5
But that is the premise upon which all the rest of Christianity rests. That's why the rest of Christianity isn't going to add up. Again, with regret, I reject your assertion. The Christianity that I am familiar with and that I have affection for rests on the premise: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." And the question is, how well do you do that? If you don't do that perfectly, does that make you a sinner?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 26, 2015 9:22:35 GMT -5
Yknot, in terms of your OP, the Spirit is about generosity, not about any great concern in being overly consumed with Sin. The Spirit is not an antidote to Sin, but an antidote to the struggle and wretchedness that comes from a preoccupation with Sin. Here are some verses to consider. It's good that you think the Spirit of generosity and concern for one's neighbour is what Christianity should be, because in that, the Bible agrees. www.openbible.info/topics/generosityWhathat, thanks for your comments and the link. Perhaps it is a reflection of the posts on TMB that I choose to read or the filters I impose between my understanding and the actual expressions of faith by Christians I listen to but somehow I have fallen into this uncomfortable state of hearing more about people's concern with sin than generosity. Were I a pagan, devoid of the heritage and cultural baggage of Westeren Civilization and the Christian ethic, I am uncertain that I would find much comfort or attraction toward Christianity in today's practice of Christ's message. Do I stand alone in this regard or do you think others share elements of the same misgivings? A modern pagan or an ancient one? I think that the current round of Christianity has run out of legs and is in its death throes, perhaps to be resuscitated and perhaps not. It holds no attraction for someone who wasn't raised in it, and less and less for those who were. For an ancient pagan, a religion that doesn't require human sacrifice might be an appealing prospect. In many early religions there is the idea that we can achieve a better state of life through mutual empathetic understanding, and that idea, however explicated, stands against serving our baser passions. It's a tricky business to get a group of people to yield self-interest to mutual interest, and religion seems to be the only way to achieve it. In every religion the original principles are eventually co-opted to the service of a few, and to perpetuating entrenched interests rather than achieving further forward progress. There is a life cycle, from idealistic ardour, yielding to moderation and practicality, then on to entrenched protection of interests within a structure, finally, irrelevance and death, and out of that, hopefully, some kind of renewal.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 26, 2015 9:29:27 GMT -5
You are a sinner *** to God **** because you are born with a human nature. And all mankind is under the condemnation of death. I am unable to dispute your assertion bert because I am unable to know the mind of God. My personal view, however, differs completely from the view you assert. If there is an omniscient "God" and if creation is a manifestation of the handiwork of that "God", then I reject the hypothesis that the creations of that "God" are intrinsically sinful due to either the nature of the creation or the missteps of a couple of his creation back in the garden. The premise appears to me to be fundamentally flawed. Second, I reject the claim that "all mankind is under the condemnation of death". First, I reject the claim because I find it so disturbingly anthropocentric that it strikes me as reflecting extreme prejudice rather than wisdom. Second, I reject the claim because I view death not as a condemnation but rather an essential and integral aspect of creation itself.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 26, 2015 9:39:27 GMT -5
Again, with regret, I reject your assertion. The Christianity that I am familiar with and that I have affection for rests on the premise: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." And the question is, how well do you do that? If you don't do that perfectly, does that make you a sinner? It's impossible to do perfectly because the requirement seems to be limitless. So much suffering and injustice, one hardly knows where to begin. The expected response of the Christian to Sin as explained in the NT is complex, and my personal view is that the NT is intentionally incomplete. To deal only with Sin, and do nothing else, is just not enough. The emphasis of the NT lies elsewhere, and is not on removing Sin, but rather to have a spirit of true Christian charity. Sinning is merely an impediment in that effort, so it's helpful to remove Sin and be a victor over Sin, so one can be at one's best. Sin, and the guilt that goes with it, has been a useful instrument though, for religious leaders from Jesus time to the present. The historical low point was the selling of Indulgences in the Middle Ages.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 26, 2015 9:47:56 GMT -5
You are a sinner *** to God **** because you are born with a human nature. And all mankind is under the condemnation of death. I am unable to dispute your assertion bert because I am unable to know the mind of God. My personal view, however, differs completely from the view you assert. If there is an omniscient "God" and if creation is a manifestation of the handiwork of that "God", then I reject the hypothesis that the creations of that "God" are intrinsically sinful due to either the nature of the creation or the missteps of a couple of his creation back in the garden. The premise appears to me to be fundamentally flawed. Second, I reject the claim that "all mankind is under the condemnation of death". First, I reject the claim because I find it so disturbingly anthropocentric that it strikes me as reflecting extreme prejudice rather than wisdom. Second, I reject the claim because I view death not as a condemnation but rather an essential and integral aspect of creation itself. On that last point, I've lately been reading on what is coming out of genetic research and how that relates to evolution. It's probably not news to anyone up on the subject, but mutation (we might need a less pejorative word to describe the random seeking-ness of the genetic process) is the essence of the forward progress of life and life achieving balance with the ecosystem. Many diseases are the result of the same genetic mechanics without which the forward progress of life would not be possible. Thus, if we didn't have disease we'd all still be slugs. If one believes in God, as I do, then it appears that disease and death were wired inextricably into the very basic processes of life. Strong recommendation for the layperson with a casual interest in the subject: Evolution, the triumph of an idea by Carl Zimmer.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 26, 2015 10:04:17 GMT -5
And the question is, how well do you do that? If you don't do that perfectly, does that make you a sinner? It's impossible to do perfectly because the requirement seems to be limitless. So much suffering and injustice, one hardly knows where to begin. The expected response of the Christian to Sin as explained in the NT is complex, and my personal view is that the NT is intentionally incomplete. To deal only with Sin, and do nothing else, is just not enough. The emphasis of the NT lies elsewhere, and is not on removing Sin, but rather to have a spirit of true Christian charity. Sinning is merely an impediment in that effort, so it's helpful to remove Sin and be a victor over Sin, so one can be at one's best. Sin, and the guilt that goes with it, has been a useful instrument though, for religious leaders from Jesus time to the present. The historical low point was the selling of Indulgences in the Middle Ages. I just accept that I am a sinner saved by grace and don't worry it. I just focus on being changed by the indwelling Spirit--which has, for me, created more love for others and for God. Just a theological lightweight perhaps, but full of joy
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 26, 2015 10:18:54 GMT -5
And the question is, how well do you do that? If you don't do that perfectly, does that make you a sinner? I understand your question to be first, how well do I love my "God" and how well do I love my neighbor. The answer to both of these questions without hesitation is "Imperfectly". On both of these questions I am fundamentally an Aristotilian. I believe perfection to be a state of being to which one might aspire. I believe that the path toward perfection is habitual practice. I believe habitual practice is the conscious and affirmative act of placing oneself in a position to experience. Therefore, for me, the act of "loving my 'God'" is the act of putting myself in a position to experience love, beauty and awe that transcends my knowledge, wisdom or capacity to know. Every moment is pregnant with those possibilities. I experience but few. For me, the act of "loving my neighbor" is striving to escape the shackles of my own ego, super ego and id, so that I might experience and act upon a heuristic of empathy that is not self-directed. Again, every moment is pregnant with possibilities, I succeed in the effort rarely. Then I understand your question to be: failing perfection does that then make me a sinner, to which I respond passionately and emphatically; "NO!" For clarity, I am using the following definition of sin: "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law". I sense, hberry, that you are driving toward a larger point but I fail to grasp that point yet.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 26, 2015 10:38:47 GMT -5
I understand your question to be first, how well do I love my "God" and how well do I love my neighbor. The answer to both of these questions without hesitation is "Imperfectly". On both of these questions I am fundamentally an Aristotilian. I believe perfection to be a state of being to which one might aspire. I believe that the path toward perfection is habitual practice. I believe habitual practice is the conscious and affirmative act of placing oneself in a position to experience. Therefore, for me, the act of "loving my 'God'" is the act of putting myself in a position to experience love, beauty and awe that transcends my knowledge, wisdom or capacity to know. Every moment is pregnant with those possibilities. I experience but few. For me, the act of "loving my neighbor" is striving to escape the shackles of my own ego, super ego and id, so that I might experience and act upon a heuristic of empathy that is not self-directed. Again, every moment is pregnant with possibilities, I succeed in the effort rarely. Then I understand your question to be: failing perfection does that then make me a sinner, to which I respond passionately and emphatically; "NO!" For clarity, I am using the following definition of sin: "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law". I sense, hberry, that you are driving toward a larger point but I fail to grasp that point yet. My point was that as a human being, you simply are a sinner--you can't perfectly live a God-centered, others-centric life, which is the commandment. So if failing to do that--which is a commandment--isn't sin (a transgression of a divine law), then we don't see things the same way at all. And that's fine, because I don't have to be right. It just tremendously helped me to understand sin that way. But then, I accept that I am a sinner--no guilt over that, just joy in my Savior. Anyway, I'm off to church and What Hat will do a much better job with this dialog than I ever could. He's does the heavy lifting and I appreciate What he has to say
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 26, 2015 10:39:07 GMT -5
I just accept that I am a sinner saved by grace and don't worry it. I just focus on being changed by the indwelling Spirit--which has, for me, created more love for others and for God. Just a theological lightweight perhaps, but full of joy This then may well be the crux of the matter hberry. I do not accept that I am a sinner. Rather, I acknowledge that I am capable of acting sinfully and that I have acted in ways that I now consider morally indefensible. By not considering myself a sinner saved by grace, I am obliged to take full and complete responsibility for each and every one of my actions. Being mindful of my actions going forward rather than retrospectively penitent for sins I may or may not have ever committed in the past then gives me the freedom to consider my purpose in life now rather than my fate in an afterlife. Understanding this difference in view might help clarify our perceived different understandings of a spiritual life.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 26, 2015 14:15:38 GMT -5
My point was that as a human being, you simply are a sinner--you can't perfectly live a God-centered, others-centric life, which is the commandment. So if failing to do that--which is a commandment--isn't sin (a transgression of a divine law), then we don't see things the same way at all. And that's fine, because I don't have to be right. It just tremendously helped me to understand sin that way. But then, I accept that I am a sinner--no guilt over that, just joy in my Savior. Anyway, I'm off to church and What Hat will do a much better job with this dialog than I ever could. He's does the heavy lifting and I appreciate What he has to say There are perhaps two definitions of Sin. One is a specific act or acts that are immoral, generally one of the seven deadly sins: greed, lust, sloth and four more. Generally, that's what most people think of when Sin is mentioned. The other definition of Sin is more expansive, referring to the fallen state of Man, and the imperfect condition of the world and our personal existence. While you can't resolve the latter, Man's fallen state, you can live a generally sinless and chaste life. Not completely sinless, but a good, moral life. Paul's lesson in Romans 7/8 is that that isn't enough. What is required is to encounter or acknowledge 'the Christ within', which is exactly what you say, grappling with living a God-centered, others-centric life, which is redeeming and joyful. But that doesn't free one from personal responsibility or guilt from the more narrow kind of moral sin. Certainly overcoming sin, narrowly defined, is something we should strive to achieve.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 26, 2015 15:46:50 GMT -5
I just accept that I am a sinner saved by grace and don't worry it. I just focus on being changed by the indwelling Spirit--which has, for me, created more love for others and for God. Just a theological lightweight perhaps, but full of joy This then may well be the crux of the matter hberry. I do not accept that I am a sinner. Rather, I acknowledge that I am capable of acting sinfully and that I have acted in ways that I now consider morally indefensible. By not considering myself a sinner saved by grace, I am obliged to take full and complete responsibility for each and every one of my actions. Being mindful of my actions going forward rather than retrospectively penitent for sins I may or may not have ever committed in the past then gives me the freedom to consider my purpose in life now rather than my fate in an afterlife. Understanding this difference in view might help clarify our perceived different understandings of a spiritual life. As a sinner saved by grace, I am equally responsible for my own behavior. The difference between our views is that I see my sins, known and unknown, as paid for by my Savior. I am not retrospectively penitent for sin other than to review my actions, thoughts, and desires and learn from them where I have let my human nature, rather than the new nature, assert itself. It is the rather the same for you: unless you review your "history," you cannot learn from it. I live each day seeking the sanctifying power of the indwelling Christ to change my thoughts (renewed mind) and desires (new heart) so that my life each day better reflects that indwelling Christ and glorifies God. I don't seek to become more sanctified each day to change or improve my place in the afterlife--that's already settled-- but to live a life now that glorifies God through my increasingly less self-centered thoughts and actions. I'm not trying to earn a place in heaven but to better reflect my citizenship in heaven here on earth by my behavior. Sounds really dippy trippy, but I don't know how else to put it. I see my purpose as defined by God; you see yours as defined by you, if I read your words correctly. If you believe in purgatory, then your increasingly holy life would shorten your stay there or lighten your punishment, but I don't see that as the issue we are discussing when you refer to "the afterlife."
|
|