|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 26, 2015 16:27:35 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." I get that -- but that's not the premise upon which Christianity was constructed, that's supposed to be the foundation of Jesus' teachings. It wasn't "Christianity" until Saint Augustine invented the concept of original sin and adopted Paul's concept of a Greek "christ" -- note, lower case "c".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 16:30:29 GMT -5
Asserting for none other than myself here. I know without having been "born again" what I would be. Why?
Because this nature of mine has enough flaws as it is, even with the guidance and control of what I believe to be spiritual help from my Lord.
When did I first become aware of such concepts? I do not know, however was certainly in my childhood.
When did I become aware of having been born again? When I experienced what some here proclaim was an hallucination. Do I believe that is what it was? Of course not. Why not? Because from that time and experience since, all fear of death, even fear of pain in life preceeding death has completely vanished, where it had existed before.
Smile! Now that kind of "hallucination" I'd wish on everyone!
Am I content to believe what is recorded about what my Lord believed? Absolutely!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 26, 2015 16:33:19 GMT -5
Was it Jesus who said we were all born in sin?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 26, 2015 16:41:32 GMT -5
Was it Jesus who said we were all born in sin? Chapter and verse? A quick google search would indicate pretty much everybody other than Jesus said this?
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 26, 2015 16:45:44 GMT -5
The seed will grow and live forever....you need the seed.
Why is this so cruel? God will give it to eveyone that wants it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 16:46:28 GMT -5
Was it Jesus who said we were all born in sin? From what I know of His teachings my Lord was more concerned about people being forgiven and being set free from their sin than when it originated.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 26, 2015 16:51:49 GMT -5
Was it Jesus who said we were all born in sin? From what I know of His teachings my Lord was more concerned about people being forgiven and being set free from their sin than when it originated.John the Baptist got it too: "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 26, 2015 17:01:00 GMT -5
Was it Jesus who said we were all born in sin? Chapter and verse? A quick google search would indicate pretty much everybody other than Jesus said this? Thanks SharonArnold, I too have been looking for similar information. Still looking.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 26, 2015 17:01:55 GMT -5
“The most fortunate are those who have a wonderful capacity to appreciate again and again, freshly and naively, the basic goods of life, with awe, pleasure, wonder, and even ecstasy.” —Abraham Maslow I just came across this quote. placid-void, I suspect this answers every question we might ever have over "original" (or any kind of) sin. It's so simple. But, yet again, I am learning... and learning...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 26, 2015 17:59:32 GMT -5
Was it Jesus who said we were all born in sin? Chapter and verse? A quick google search would indicate pretty much everybody other than Jesus said this? Which emphasizes my point that original sin was not part of Jesus' "gospel".
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jul 26, 2015 18:04:26 GMT -5
Was it Jesus who said we were all born in sin? Chapter and verse? A quick google search would indicate pretty much everybody other than Jesus said this? The concept arrived with the fall of man. You can blame Adam and Eve.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 26, 2015 18:35:57 GMT -5
“The most fortunate are those who have a wonderful capacity to appreciate again and again, freshly and naively, the basic goods of life, with awe, pleasure, wonder, and even ecstasy.” —Abraham Maslow I just came across this quote. placid-void, I suspect this answers every question we might ever have over "original" (or any kind of) sin. It's so simple. But, yet again, I am learning... and learning... That is such a wonderful quote. It is so elegant in it's simplicity. I definitely count myself among the most fortunate. Just a few minutes ago, as the first large drops of rain began to fall, my 10 year old dog ran 75-80 feet across the front yard, jumped and caught the Frisbee I had just thrown. I was struck with wonder. As she returned to me with a grin on her face and the Frisbee in her mouth we shared a moment of sublime joy and pleasure. It was awesome. Within the quote is the idea of having "a wonderful capacity to appreciate again and again . . . . the basic goods of life". This idea does not negate rational inquiry and fundamental knowledge. Rather it seems to me that it speaks to the opportunity of even the most reductionist among us to step back and embrace the whole experience of which we are a part. Thank you again, a wonderful quote.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 26, 2015 18:43:44 GMT -5
I get that -- but that's not the premise upon which Christianity was constructed, that's supposed to be the foundation of Jesus' teachings. It wasn't "Christianity" until Saint Augustine invented the concept of original sin and adopted Paul's concept of a Greek "christ" -- note, lower case "c". I take your point BobWilliston but, for me, it is a "distinction without a difference".
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 26, 2015 18:57:26 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." Except that teaching,"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" has been around a lot longer than Christianity! Long before Jesus uttered those words!
It is know as the golden rule on how to treat others & it was in most ancient religions.
No doubt it evolved out of necessity for people to be able to trust one another & cooperate for the welfare of all.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 26, 2015 19:02:00 GMT -5
“The most fortunate are those who have a wonderful capacity to appreciate again and again, freshly and naively, the basic goods of life, with awe, pleasure, wonder, and even ecstasy.” —Abraham Maslow I just came across this quote. placid-void, I suspect this answers every question we might ever have over "original" (or any kind of) sin. It's so simple. But, yet again, I am learning... and learning... That is such a wonderful quote. It is so elegant in it's simplicity. I definitely count myself among the most fortunate. Just a few minutes ago, as the first large drops of rain began to fall, my 10 year old dog ran 75-80 feet across the front yard, jumped and caught the Frisbee I had just thrown. I was struck with wonder. As she returned to me with a grin on her face and the Frisbee in her mouth we shared a moment of sublime joy and pleasure. It was awesome. I have experienced a few moments like this already today with Jake, our border collie. And also, now, as I capture the summer's basil in packets of pesto, that will see us through to next spring...with purring, grooming Persian kitties in the background. This idea does not negate rational inquiry and fundamental knowledge. Rather it seems to me that it speaks to the opportunity of even the most reductionist among us to step back and embrace the whole experience of which we are a part. Yeah. And should I see evidence of that here, it will reconfirm for me "I am a believer". (But, even if I don't, I am still a believer. )
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 26, 2015 19:02:53 GMT -5
The concept arrived with the fall of man. You can blame Adam and Eve. Bubbles, at this juncture, you and I would probably part ways in our thinking. From my perspective, it is only the weight of "sins" for which we can and should not be held accountable that the need to find someone to blame arises. I find the exercise of finding someone to blame for anything to be a distasteful exercise. In my little black book of Do's and Don'ts, I begin with the premise that if there is blame to be passed around, accept full responsibility for my contribution to the incident and then move forward to act more responsibly and compassionately in the future. The world is loaded with individuals waiting for the opportunity to assign blame, they sure don't need me. Secondly, bubbles, my thinking differs from yours in that I do not accept the premise that there ever was a "fall of man". Certainly there have been evil characters who have done evil acts, but I do not accept that these acts no matter how heinous condemn all of mankind.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 26, 2015 19:09:27 GMT -5
I get that -- but that's not the premise upon which Christianity was constructed, that's supposed to be the foundation of Jesus' teachings. It wasn't "Christianity" until Saint Augustine invented the concept of original sin and adopted Paul's concept of a Greek "christ" -- note, lower case "c". I take your point BobWilliston but, for me, it is a "distinction without a difference". Actually, no, it's not a distinction without a difference. If you do not believe in the doctrine of original sin, then you are not a Christian. You are better described as a Jesus-believer (something like a Jew for Jesus). Christians have been trying to eliminate them from the earth for the last 1800 years.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 26, 2015 19:11:37 GMT -5
The wiki article on the subject of 'Original Sin' is very good. The 1938 explanation from the Church of England is the most succinct of all. Man is by nature capable of communion with God, and only through such communion can he become what he was created to be. "Original sin" stands for the fact that from a time apparently prior to any responsible act of choice man is lacking in this communion, and if left to his own resources and to the influence of his natural environment cannot attain to his destiny as a child of God. There is a significant difference in shade of meaning between Catholic and Protestant views of the concept of Original sin. Surprisingly the Catholic doctrine is more plausible than the Protestant one. But the Catholics often have the edge on doctrine having had 1500 more years to think about things.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 26, 2015 19:12:49 GMT -5
Chapter and verse? A quick google search would indicate pretty much everybody other than Jesus said this? The concept arrived with the fall of man. You can blame Adam and Eve. The fall of man was not interpreted as the origin of the doctrine of original sin until Saint Augustine invented it. That's historically documented.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 26, 2015 19:21:39 GMT -5
Except that teaching,"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" has been around a lot longer than Christianity! Long before Jesus uttered those words!
It is know as the golden rule on how to treat others & it was in most ancient religions.
No doubt it evolved out of necessity for people to be able to trust one another & cooperate for the welfare of all.
No argument. I am familiar with the concept and process of establishing proprietary boundaries and establishing precedence for originality in conceptual art and academic research. In my reflections on meaning and purpose, "tic-toc analysis" has provided me with little critical or meaningful understanding.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 26, 2015 19:25:18 GMT -5
Actually, no, it's not a distinction without a difference. If you do not believe in the doctrine of original sin, then you are not a Christian. You are better described as a Jesus-believer (something like a Jew for Jesus). Christians have been trying to eliminate them from the earth for the last 1800 years. I respect your opinions which differ from my own.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 26, 2015 19:51:41 GMT -5
The wiki article on the subject of 'Original Sin' is very good. The 1938 explanation from the Church of England is the most succinct of all. Man is by nature capable of communion with God, and only through such communion can he become what he was created to be. "Original sin" stands for the fact that from a time apparently prior to any responsible act of choice man is lacking in this communion, and if left to his own resources and to the influence of his natural environment cannot attain to his destiny as a child of God. There is a significant difference in shade of meaning between Catholic and Protestant views of the concept of Original sin. Surprisingly the Catholic doctrine is more plausible than the Protestant one. But the Catholics often have the edge on doctrine having had 1500 more years to think about things. I will check out the wiki article later this evening. Building off the 1938 explanation you provided, I remain terribly confused. Who among us (all 7 billion of us) can claim to "know/have known" if a Nez Perce native boy walking up an Idaho river value in 1859 had the experience of communion with his creator? Obviously, all 7 billion of us can "claim to know" that such communion did not occur, but my question is who "knows/knew" that it did not occur. For a more contemporary example who among us (all 7 billion of us) knows whether or not I have experienced communion with my creator in the last 48 hours. There is a presumptuousness surrounding this whole issue of "sin" that I find disturbing. Can anyone claim to know the mind of "God"? I rather think not. Can anyone know what I value and hold sacred in my personal life? I rather think not. So I return to the original question, why the obsession with "sin". Why isn't our fellowship dominated by the joy of renewal and the gift of a generous spirit? I will have to quit soon but I have truly enjoyed, learned from and appreciated everyone's contribution to this thread. It has been a true delight for me. Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 20:03:07 GMT -5
The wiki article on the subject of 'Original Sin' is very good. The 1938 explanation from the Church of England is the most succinct of all. Man is by nature capable of communion with God, and only through such communion can he become what he was created to be. "Original sin" stands for the fact that from a time apparently prior to any responsible act of choice man is lacking in this communion, and if left to his own resources and to the influence of his natural environment cannot attain to his destiny as a child of God. There is a significant difference in shade of meaning between Catholic and Protestant views of the concept of Original sin. Surprisingly the Catholic doctrine is more plausible than the Protestant one. But the Catholics often have the edge on doctrine having had 1500 more years to think about things. There is a presumptuousness surrounding this whole issue of "sin" that I find disturbing. Can anyone claim to know the mind of "God"? I rather think not. Can anyone know what I value and hold sacred in my personal life? I rather think not. So I return to the original question, why the obsession with "sin". Why isn't our fellowship dominated by the joy of renewal and the gift of a generous spirit? why the obsession with sin? probably because it seperates us from God, who would want that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 20:04:15 GMT -5
The concept arrived with the fall of man. You can blame Adam and Eve. The fall of man was not interpreted as the origin of the doctrine of original sin until Saint Augustine invented it. That's historically documented. Adding my heretical viewpoint from memory here... There are existing three original sin hypotheses, none of which can be directly pointed to as based upon direct Biblical quotation nor scripture. It is an evolved belief. Do I believe it? Let's answer that by saying it hasn't been proven to me yet.
The Hebrew people believed the living could go to the dead, but the dead were in Shoel or Hades (not believed as a place of torment) as far as I have been able to find, until Yahu'shuah's teaching of a place of retribution He referred to as Gehenna a garbage pit outside the city where fires burned and maggots abounded. Then he referred to the rich man, being in torment.
Are children and truly innocent humans there? If one is in torment by their wrong doings, how could they be? It is my conviction that a great gulf is fixed between those in eternal torment, and those enjoying the presence of their God. For me, that great fixed gulf is where those innocent souls may be found, I simply do not know. David is recorded as saying, I can go to my child but my child cannot come to me.
My Lord made it clear, "ye MUST br born again!"
Smile, I guess such thoughts make me not a "traditional Christian" even though He alone is my absolute.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 26, 2015 21:27:49 GMT -5
Actually, no, it's not a distinction without a difference. If you do not believe in the doctrine of original sin, then you are not a Christian. You are better described as a Jesus-believer (something like a Jew for Jesus). Christians have been trying to eliminate them from the earth for the last 1800 years. I respect your opinions which differ from my own. Are you looking for an explanation of why Christianity doesn't add up for you, or are you looking for someone to help you make sense of Christianity?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jul 26, 2015 21:38:04 GMT -5
The concept arrived with the fall of man. You can blame Adam and Eve. Bubbles, at this juncture, you and I would probably part ways in our thinking. From my perspective, it is only the weight of "sins" for which we can and should not be held accountable that the need to find someone to blame arises. I find the exercise of finding someone to blame for anything to be a distasteful exercise. In my little black book of Do's and Don'ts, I begin with the premise that if there is blame to be passed around, accept full responsibility for my contribution to the incident and then move forward to act more responsibly and compassionately in the future. The world is loaded with individuals waiting for the opportunity to assign blame, they sure don't need me. Secondly, bubbles, my thinking differs from yours in that I do not accept the premise that there ever was a "fall of man". Certainly there have been evil characters who have done evil acts, but I do not accept that these acts no matter how heinous condemn all of mankind. I respect your view point. Its what I have been taught and when looking at the larger picture works or makes sense to me. I can be wrong. I always thought Adam and Eve were the first humans on the planet. I now know that is impossible to be correct and true. In my search for truth I am challenged on a number of things. When I try to condense the reality of my existence I conclude easily to my earlier a post.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 26, 2015 21:39:00 GMT -5
The fall of man was not interpreted as the origin of the doctrine of original sin until Saint Augustine invented it. That's historically documented. Adding my heretical viewpoint from memory here... There are existing three original sin hypotheses, none of which can be directly pointed to as based upon direct Biblical quotation nor scripture. It is an evolved belief. Do I believe it? Let's answer that by saying it hasn't been proven to me yet.
The Hebrew people believed the living could go to the dead, but the dead were in Shoel or Hades (not believed as a place of torment) as far as I have been able to find, until Yahu'shuah's teaching of a place of retribution He referred to as Gehenna a garbage pit outside the city where fires burned and maggots abounded. Then he referred to the rich man, being in torment.
Are children and truly innocent humans there? If one is in torment by their wrong doings, how could they be? It is my conviction that a great gulf is fixed between those in eternal torment, and those enjoying the presence of their God. For me, that great fixed gulf is where those innocent souls may be found, I simply do not know. David is recorded as saying, I can go to my child but my child cannot come to me.
My Lord made it clear, "ye MUST br born again!"
Smile, I guess such thoughts make me not a "traditional Christian" even though He alone is my absolute.Despite the fact that many people will not separate the two. I don't think being born again needs to have anything to do with sin -- original or otherwise. It's popular with once saved always saved types, for sure. But you've pointed out the most distressing aspect of all about Christianity -- the innocent who die -- presumably unsaved according to Christianity. Except for the book of Revelation, there's nothing else in the Bible to substantiate the modern traditional understanding of the afterlife.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jul 26, 2015 21:45:11 GMT -5
The concept arrived with the fall of man. You can blame Adam and Eve. The fall of man was not interpreted as the origin of the doctrine of original sin until Saint Augustine invented it. That's historically documented. The Fall of Lucifer and the Fall of man are linked in scripture. You are trying to stretch my uneducated brain are you not?
|
|