|
Post by What Hat on Jul 28, 2015 14:34:09 GMT -5
WhatHat, what would you need to change? I've seen your cooking on FB and I think you are as close to perfection as any one man needs to be~ LOL. That certainly put a smile on my face.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 28, 2015 14:51:10 GMT -5
I agree that Christianity has a lot of unnecessary hand wringing and prohibitions. But the thread reminded me of this recent podcast on NPR, www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/07/03/419543470/episode-363-why-people-do-bad-thingsIt's not necessary to listen to the whole thing. The idea is that we as humans are not inclined to ethical behaviour without some guidance along that line. Another way of saying that we are sinful by nature? Another way of looking at it is that evolution has left us with a nature, impulses and instincts, contiguous with the animal world. Only a process of reason and faith will lift us above it. We are animals and sure we have all the same instincts. I do see our ability to reason as our reason we can think about things in an ethical manner rather than just instinctual. I really don't see that faith factors into it much because people who have no faith are still capable of living loving, compassionate existences by just using reason. I do see that some people do not feel strong enough within themselves to do all the things religion wants them to do and so they turn to God for strength to do what non believers just do through reasoning that it is the better way for society to exist and co-habitate in a successful manner. If that's what makes it work for some people then 'may their faith make them stronger'. But mostly what I see is failing, blaming themselves for not letting God guide them better and feeling shame and guilt, then turning back to God for strength and on it goes. I just depend on myself and my belief that I do have impact on this world in the things I say and do. If I want a better world to live in then it is my responsibility to do my part. Yes, living a compassionate, loving life makes sense. Doing good is its own reward. But I wonder if that is enough for people in general. It is certainly enough for some people, but most people seem to serve themselves and maybe their family before they think anyone else. That's not a very optimistic view of humanity, but I have doubts that mankind will go very far in a post-religious world. Of course, I don't know that, and don't worry much about it either. Que sera sera.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 28, 2015 15:19:44 GMT -5
Don't you think sin can control a person Dmmichgood? People who are loving, gracious and honest seem to have a lot fewer problems in life than those who are not. It is the idea of "SIN" that is used by other people to control the person. example: The idea that smoking is a "sin," not an addiction; therefore the workers were able to control the person by not allowing them full fellowship. example: divorced & remarried? can't take part n the meetings.
Neither of those things has anything what so ever to do with religion.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2015 16:25:19 GMT -5
We are animals and sure we have all the same instincts. I do see our ability to reason as our reason we can think about things in an ethical manner rather than just instinctual. I really don't see that faith factors into it much because people who have no faith are still capable of living loving, compassionate existences by just using reason. I do see that some people do not feel strong enough within themselves to do all the things religion wants them to do and so they turn to God for strength to do what non believers just do through reasoning that it is the better way for society to exist and co-habitate in a successful manner. If that's what makes it work for some people then 'may their faith make them stronger'. But mostly what I see is failing, blaming themselves for not letting God guide them better and feeling shame and guilt, then turning back to God for strength and on it goes. I just depend on myself and my belief that I do have impact on this world in the things I say and do. If I want a better world to live in then it is my responsibility to do my part. Yes, living a compassionate, loving life makes sense. Doing good is its own reward. But I wonder if that is enough for people in general. It is certainly enough for some people, but most people seem to serve themselves and maybe their family before they think anyone else. That's not a very optimistic view of humanity, but I have doubts that mankind will go very far in a post-religious world. Of course, I don't know that, and don't worry much about it either. Que sera sera. I suppose it depends more on the person. Some people only obey the law so they don't get punished and if they think they can get away with it they do it. Those people have never really thought about why the law might exist and the benefits of it. Some people don't need laws to know they shouldn't be doing it because it makes better sense not to. I suppose it's the same with God. Some need to have the threat of eternal punishment held over their heads in order to do what others just see as the best route for humanity to take. So in some ways I suppose it serves it's purpose. I look forward to the day where humans have evolved enough to want to do things that benefit humanity because it's good for them and humanity. Like you said 'doing good is it's own reward'. I have no idea if that will ever happen though. I have hope since there are people that don't believe in God and eternal punishment that do try and do no harm just because it makes sense. If some can do it, hopefully that number will grow, because it's obvious it can happen.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 28, 2015 17:15:52 GMT -5
Yes, living a compassionate, loving life makes sense. Doing good is its own reward. But I wonder if that is enough for people in general. It is certainly enough for some people, but most people seem to serve themselves and maybe their family before they think anyone else. That's not a very optimistic view of humanity, but I have doubts that mankind will go very far in a post-religious world. Of course, I don't know that, and don't worry much about it either. Que sera sera. I suppose it depends more on the person. Some people only obey the law so they don't get punished and if they think they can get away with it they do it. Those people have never really thought about why the law might exist and the benefits of it. Some people don't need laws to know they shouldn't be doing it because it makes better sense not to. I suppose it's the same with God. Some need to have the threat of eternal punishment held over their heads in order to do what others just see as the best route for humanity to take. So in some ways I suppose it serves it's purpose. I look forward to the day where humans have evolved enough to want to do things that benefit humanity because it's good for them and humanity. Like you said 'doing good is it's own reward'. I have no idea if that will ever happen though. I have hope since there are people that don't believe in God and eternal punishment that do try and do no harm just because it makes sense. If some can do it, hopefully that number will grow, because it's obvious it can happen. I think that they are growing.
I can see it happening in my own lifetime.
With the desire for more democracies and secular governments, - it can change.
All one has to do is look at some religious governments today and realize that a belief in a god, any god, is not good for all the people.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2015 17:42:47 GMT -5
I suppose it depends more on the person. Some people only obey the law so they don't get punished and if they think they can get away with it they do it. Those people have never really thought about why the law might exist and the benefits of it. Some people don't need laws to know they shouldn't be doing it because it makes better sense not to. I suppose it's the same with God. Some need to have the threat of eternal punishment held over their heads in order to do what others just see as the best route for humanity to take. So in some ways I suppose it serves it's purpose. I look forward to the day where humans have evolved enough to want to do things that benefit humanity because it's good for them and humanity. Like you said 'doing good is it's own reward'. I have no idea if that will ever happen though. I have hope since there are people that don't believe in God and eternal punishment that do try and do no harm just because it makes sense. If some can do it, hopefully that number will grow, because it's obvious it can happen. I think that they are growing.
I can see it happening in my own lifetime.
With the desire for more democracies and secular governments, - it can change.
All one has to do is look at some religious governments today and realize that a belief in a god, any god, is not good for all the people.
Unfortunately some religions cannot exist with church and state separate. Islam is a good example of that because it is a lifestyle that is totally wrapped up in governing also. What scares me is the infiltration of fundamentalist Christians into government and the courts that believe church and state shouldn't be separate. It not only doesn't work for all people but it also won't work for all Christians. I'm pretty sure most Christians wouldn't like to see the beliefs of Christians like Westboro Baptist Church in power. But it's those guys that would love to govern and force everyone to live like they live.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 28, 2015 17:47:21 GMT -5
I suppose it depends more on the person. Some people only obey the law so they don't get punished and if they think they can get away with it they do it. Those people have never really thought about why the law might exist and the benefits of it. Some people don't need laws to know they shouldn't be doing it because it makes better sense not to. I suppose it's the same with God. Some need to have the threat of eternal punishment held over their heads in order to do what others just see as the best route for humanity to take. So in some ways I suppose it serves it's purpose. I look forward to the day where humans have evolved enough to want to do things that benefit humanity because it's good for them and humanity. Like you said 'doing good is it's own reward'. I have no idea if that will ever happen though. I have hope since there are people that don't believe in God and eternal punishment that do try and do no harm just because it makes sense. If some can do it, hopefully that number will grow, because it's obvious it can happen. I think that they are growing.
I can see it happening in my own lifetime.Me too. I am a believer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 18:05:07 GMT -5
Quote - "It is the idea of "SIN" that is used by other people to control the person. example: The idea that smoking is a "sin," not an addiction; therefore the workers were able to control the person by not allowing them full fellowship. example: divorced & remarried? can't take part n the meetings. Neither of those things has anything what so ever to do with religion"
So why did Jesus mention it?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 28, 2015 19:00:34 GMT -5
Yes, living a compassionate, loving life makes sense. Doing good is its own reward. But I wonder if that is enough for people in general. It is certainly enough for some people, but most people seem to serve themselves and maybe their family before they think anyone else. That's not a very optimistic view of humanity, but I have doubts that mankind will go very far in a post-religious world. Of course, I don't know that, and don't worry much about it either. Que sera sera. I suppose it depends more on the person. Some people only obey the law so they don't get punished and if they think they can get away with it they do it. Those people have never really thought about why the law might exist and the benefits of it. Some people don't need laws to know they shouldn't be doing it because it makes better sense not to. I suppose it's the same with God. Some need to have the threat of eternal punishment held over their heads in order to do what others just see as the best route for humanity to take. So in some ways I suppose it serves it's purpose. I look forward to the day where humans have evolved enough to want to do things that benefit humanity because it's good for them and humanity. Like you said 'doing good is it's own reward'. I have no idea if that will ever happen though. I have hope since there are people that don't believe in God and eternal punishment that do try and do no harm just because it makes sense. If some can do it, hopefully that number will grow, because it's obvious it can happen. I don't think it is only, or even mainly, the threat of punishment that causes people to do right. That's never worked all that well, and as you pointed out leads to hypocrisy, and a pendulum back and forth between 'sin' and 'sorry'. Rather the salutary effect resides in people obtaining a sense of a bigger picture, and perhaps social conformity and respect within one's peer group also have a role. Of course, there is all the bad stuff too. It might help non-religious types to organize around some active principle - other than sports teams or hobbies. I'm painting a poor picture of the non-religious and that is not my intention at all. What I mean is that some people need a little more guidance and inducement to do right. At the extreme end of the spectrum, some only do right when they are confined in prison. So there you have the continuum: atheistic do-gooders at the top of the pyramid, religious lemmings in the middle, criminals at the bottom. Take religion out of the picture and which way will the lemmings go: up or down? A bit farcical, I admit.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 28, 2015 19:08:43 GMT -5
"I do not perceive the scriptures to be justification for behavior." I wonder why you said that - do you see scripture used for justification for behavior more than for inspiration of behavior? Hi Jesse, I am not sure I can be called to account in a few words (but when has that ever stopped me in the past?) In the two choices you offer, I will err on the side of seeing scripture as an "inspiration of behavior". I guess it would be fair to say that I am a "throw-back", old-fashioned curmudgeon. In my narrow worldview, an individual is completely, absolutely and unequivocally responsible for their own behavior. It is my view that each individual must take full and unquestioned responsibility for their own actions. I believe that actions have consequences and I believe that the consequences of some actions can effect the welfare of our neighbor. I do not believe that I can escape responsibility for my actions by saying "The Devil made me do it" (as Flip Wilson used to say). I can't escape responsibility by saying "Oh, so and so, coaxed me (coerced me, forced me, convinced me) to act in this manner". So and so may in fact coax, coerce, force or convince me to act in a certain way, but in the end, I am ultimately responsible for acting or not acting. I don't believe that behavior is negotiable. I do not accept the premise that the receipt of a reward (let's say "eternal life") is, should be or could be the foundational principle of "good behavior". I do feel comfortable with Whathat's comment "good (righteous)" behavior is it's own reward." In my mind, the scriptures are an incredible source for guidance and reflection on meaningful and purposeful behavior. As a youngster, I became familiar with the "Ten Commandments", "The Sermon on the Mount", and other parts of the Bible. When I left the fellowship, my Bible went in the dresser drawer and stayed there, but the teachings I had learned earlier stayed with me. Even now, the Bible is not a primary source of reading material for me. But with all of that being said, when confronted with confusion and uncertainty, I feel very comfortable turning to scripture and reading about other experiences and the role of faith in getting from point A to point B. Sometimes a path toward resolution of whatever challenge I face becomes apparent to me quickly. Other times, it will take a long time of reflection proceeding slowly but certainly in the background before I reach a point of resolution that enables me to act/react in a way that I feel comfortable in accepting full responsibility. I do not consider the scriptures as "justification" for my actions in these instances but I certainly do credit the scriptures for assisting and guiding me toward behavior that I am willing to accept responsibility for. Perhaps for some, this will be a distinction without a difference. For me, however, it is a distinction that helps me get a good night's sleep with conscience intact. The biggest challenge I face with this worldview does not revolve around the big questions of "right" and "wrong", rather it is those behaviors and actions that set me firmly on a slippery slope. These situations are really tough for me. The action taken to put be on the slippery slope is not in and of itself "evil" or "wrong" but by not thinking through an action I well could slide into a situation where I feel I am in the wrong. Ain't much to do, once in this situation, but make amends where appropriate and change behavior. The other flaw in my worldview is the fact that consequences of "wrong" action/behavior are often not immediate nor necessarily obvious. I do not believe in a transcendent consciousness concerned with retribution for human transgressions. Rather, I believe that the consequences of "wrong" behavior are the distractions we experience from achieving our own meaning and purpose. The more time we spend dealing with the consequences of our bad choices the less time we have to aspire to a more meaningful existence. Hope I have at least put a small inroad toward answering your question. I am prepared to accept full accountability for this worldview, but I also would really appreciate feedback on flaws that should be considered.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2015 19:50:47 GMT -5
I suppose it depends more on the person. Some people only obey the law so they don't get punished and if they think they can get away with it they do it. Those people have never really thought about why the law might exist and the benefits of it. Some people don't need laws to know they shouldn't be doing it because it makes better sense not to. I suppose it's the same with God. Some need to have the threat of eternal punishment held over their heads in order to do what others just see as the best route for humanity to take. So in some ways I suppose it serves it's purpose. I look forward to the day where humans have evolved enough to want to do things that benefit humanity because it's good for them and humanity. Like you said 'doing good is it's own reward'. I have no idea if that will ever happen though. I have hope since there are people that don't believe in God and eternal punishment that do try and do no harm just because it makes sense. If some can do it, hopefully that number will grow, because it's obvious it can happen. I don't think it is only, or even mainly, the threat of punishment that causes people to do right. That's never worked all that well, and as you pointed out leads to hypocrisy, and a pendulum back and forth between 'sin' and 'sorry'. Rather the salutary effect resides in people obtaining a sense of a bigger picture, and perhaps social conformity and respect within one's peer group also have a role. Of course, there is all the bad stuff too. It might help non-religious types to organize around some active principle - other than sports teams or hobbies. I'm painting a poor picture of the non-religious and that is not my intention at all. What I mean is that some people need a little more guidance and inducement to do right. At the extreme end of the spectrum, some only do right when they are confined in prison. So there you have the continuum: atheistic do-gooders at the top of the pyramid, religious lemmings in the middle, criminals at the bottom. Take religion out of the picture and which way will the lemmings go: up or down? A bit farcical, I admit. It actually would be interesting to see what would happen, which way it would go, if there was no longer any religions dictating or guiding people's behavior. Not likely to see that any time soon though.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 28, 2015 20:05:46 GMT -5
Hi YKnot, For me, I'd suggest that sin is not primarily what we do or don't do to each other, or how we fail and make mistakes. Sin is, first and foremost, rejection of God. You can be the best, kindest, most loving person on earth, but still be separated from God if you are still at enmity with him. God has set eternity in the heart of man. I doubt the animals worry about it. But there is a reason we morally accountable humans do. Good evening ElisabethColeman, I think I understand what you are saying and I appreciate the way in which you hold and express these convictions. As you undoubtedly recognize from all of the verbiage I have posted on this and other threads I am uncomfortable with a couple of your points. I am an agnostic so I make no pretense to comprehension of the mind of "God". I do believe (as a consequence of experience and not material proof) that there is a consciousness greater than self and I am comfortable to reference that awareness as "God". Beyond that, I believe that there is a meaning and purpose to life. Further, I believe that each element of creation has a meaning and purpose that is part of "plan" that goes beyond any human comprehension. For me, it is the awe I experience in witnessing the small sliver of existence that I experience that draws me toward the goal of finding, knowing and fulfilling the purposes set before us. From this perspective, I am unable to comprehend the meaning of rejecting "God" or being separated from "God". In my view, if there is a "God" as I believe there well may be, then as individuals, we can reject that reality all we want or we can build whatever barriers of acknowledgement we may choose but the consequences of such actions are meaningless. We are a part of a creation that transcends comprehension and railing at the sky with clenched fist will not change that reality. If on the other hand there is no "god" and whatever reality we happen to witness is no more than some arbitrary fluctuations in a quantum flux then spending time rejecting "God" and building barriers is equally meaningless. You may well be correct that "eternity" has been set in the heart of man. I also agree that animals probably don't worry about that so much. I love to experience animals as they live fully in each moment and appear to pay little if any attention to the moments that await them next (unless, of course, there is food involved, they sure do know when to expect those vittles). I have trouble grasping what moral accountability has to do with eternity. As I mentioned in a previous thread I am unable to conceive of an omniscient "God" who engages in these "quid pro quo" arrangements. Arrangements that say "You live a moral life and I will see to it that you live forever." I see such arrangements as common and useful (for better or worse) to humans, I just don't see that as something "God" would have any interest in. But I have already said that I am incapable of knowing the mind of "God" so perhaps those that do understand the mind of "God" grasp the solemn gravity of such an arrangement. Picking up on your idea that "sin is not primarily what we do or don't do to each other, or how we fail and make mistakes", I would tend to agree with you. From my perspective, if the concept of "sin" has any merit, "sin" would be the failure to even try to understand the meaning and purpose of our lives while we have the capacity to do so. I see most other considerations of "sin" as distractions from this less flashy but more substantive goal of simply working toward acknowledging and fulfilling our purpose. I know these view differ substantially from your own but I wonder if somewhere between our respective views there may not be meaningful and useful common ground?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 28, 2015 20:35:02 GMT -5
The idea is that we as humans are not inclined to ethical behaviour without some guidance along that line. Another way of saying that we are sinful by nature? Another way of looking at it is that evolution has left us with a nature, impulses and instincts, contiguous with the animal world. Only a process of reason and faith will lift us above it. Whathat, I wonder if you could give me a hand over a hurdle I encounter as I read your post. Almost every time I come on line, I read your "signature line" (if that is what it is called), the George Eliot quote. I love that quote, it blows me away: "For the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs." But when I read your post above and earlier posts on the topic of "sin", I begin to wonder if we may not be missing the forest on account of the trees. We can comb through our personal experiences and volumes upon volumes of history and pick out innumerable acts of "evil" and "wrong" or "immoral" behavior. We look at these seemingly endless examples and say to ourselves "Wow, mankind is really evil and sinful, there must be an antidote". But by so doing are we not looking just above the sight-line of the infinitely more numerous tombs of those that "lived faithfully a hidden life"? I continue to hold to the view that our species is intrinsically "good" not "sinful". Holding such a view does not diminish the fact that there is much human "evil" in the world. I do not deny the existence of "evil". I challenge the presumptive opinion that "evil" permeates the species. I continue to wonder why we seem to need "sin" to rationalize our beliefs. Why can't we rationalize our beliefs simply by saying it is important to me to find the purpose and meaning of my life, and for that reason I seek the guidance of the spirit than animates my very being?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 29, 2015 10:44:30 GMT -5
Don't you think sin can control a person Dmmichgood? People who are loving, gracious and honest seem to have a lot fewer problems in life than those who are not. It is the idea of "SIN" that is used by other people to control the person. example: The idea that smoking is a "sin," not an addiction; therefore the workers were able to control the person by not allowing them full fellowship. example: divorced & remarried? can't take part n the meetings.
Neither of those things has anything what so ever to do with religion.
I'm pretty happy about the smoking rules. I could attend meetings while a smoker, but couldn't be baptized. I smoked two large packs of 'Number 7's per day when we professed. The workers wanted to see me off the weed for a while before being willing to baptize me. Given that I did quit smoking as a result, and that my father, one uncle and one aunt died from COPD and spent years on oxygen, I think it's a good policy. What does that have to do with religion? A religion that doesn't have requirements is quite meaningless. I do argue with the interpretation that not meeting one church's requirements should disqualify you from heaven. This seems to be quite a burden for a church to take on, that is, to determine to the letter what will get one into heaven or not. If they didn't concern themselves so much with that question they could be much freer to determine what it is that will get you into their church. Let the smokers have their own church if they want to be baptised and still smoke. Wait ... they do.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 29, 2015 11:55:08 GMT -5
The idea is that we as humans are not inclined to ethical behaviour without some guidance along that line. Another way of saying that we are sinful by nature? Another way of looking at it is that evolution has left us with a nature, impulses and instincts, contiguous with the animal world. Only a process of reason and faith will lift us above it. Whathat, I wonder if you could give me a hand over a hurdle I encounter as I read your post. Almost every time I come on line, I read your "signature line" (if that is what it is called), the George Eliot quote. I love that quote, it blows me away: "For the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs." But when I read your post above and earlier posts on the topic of "sin", I begin to wonder if we may not be missing the forest on account of the trees. We can comb through our personal experiences and volumes upon volumes of history and pick out innumerable acts of "evil" and "wrong" or "immoral" behavior. We look at these seemingly endless examples and say to ourselves "Wow, mankind is really evil and sinful, there must be an antidote". But by so doing are we not looking just above the sight-line of the infinitely more numerous tombs of those that "lived faithfully a hidden life"? I continue to hold to the view that our species is intrinsically "good" not "sinful". Holding such a view does not diminish the fact that there is much human "evil" in the world. I do not deny the existence of "evil". I challenge the presumptive opinion that "evil" permeates the species. I continue to wonder why we seem to need "sin" to rationalize our beliefs. Why can't we rationalize our beliefs simply by saying it is important to me to find the purpose and meaning of my life, and for that reason I seek the guidance of the spirit than animates my very being? The question is whether those unhistoric acts are singular or common. They certainly happen often enough. Eliot's words pertain to Dorothea the protagonist of her novel MiddleMarch. When you look at the broad range of characters in the novel, there are a few people trying to do good, a larger number whose efforts are at best mixed or compromised in different ways, and also a fallen angel and a hypocrite and a couple of very nasty and/or shallow types. It's one of the most humanly perceptive novels I know and in the final analysis, would I say that humanity as portrayed there is basically good or basically sinful? Neither one; it is difficult to make sense of the question. But moving to the concept of "original sin" I don't think that the doctrine is attempting to state that mankind is inherently evil and in need of redemption to keep it from evil. The explanations I've read are careful to say that Adam was responsible for what Adam does, and we are responsible for our own actions. Rather, the doctrine is concerned with "the fall" and the consequence that a) there is no free lunch, and b) the world will be plagued by famine, war and disease and also evil action in the general scheme of things. The story of the Fall and the idea of "original sin" serve as a sort of explanation to try and reconcile the ideal of a benevolent Creator and an imperfect Creation. That is, His design was to redeem us from this Creation, so that makes it all alright. I personally don't find the explanation all that satisfying. I do believe in a benevolent Creator but will always struggle with the evidence to the contrary. So, this is a different rationale than the idea that man is evil, and only if we are born again can we be good. That's a fairly naive idea and most Christians today acknowledge that you can be good without God. More commonly expressed is the idea that it doesn't matter how virtuous or good you try to be, you can't be redeemed unless you are born again. This is what Elisabeth Coleman expressed above, in effect. I also find this explanation problematic. It supposes two kinds of good. One kind is doing good, doing right, being virtuous. The other kind of good is observing the rites of Christian practice, or to put a kinder stamp on it, finding a meaningful relationship with the Creator. While I strongly believe in the value of the latter, I think that those who wander in the wilderness, so to speak, but still do good in the ordinary sense of the word, will find the grace and mercy of God in the after-life. There are just too many valid "excuses" for not finding God for me to think otherwise. In a previous post I spoke of the value of faith, and for you to believe as you do, that people are not inherently evil and that most are capable and will do good (is that accurate?), requires faith also. To have faith in the common will and to leave our collective fate subject to the actions of individuals without coercion or pressure is very commendable, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 29, 2015 12:03:54 GMT -5
P.S. I've noticed that the 7 hour BBC miniseries 'MiddleMarch' can be had from amazon.com for under $10. Recommended. Full disclosure: I haven't read the book, just watched the show, but the novel is on my list.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 1, 2015 20:53:15 GMT -5
Luke 7:47
"I tell you, her sins--and they are many--have been forgiven, so she has shown me much love. But a person who is forgiven little shows only little love."
This establishes the connection between love, forgiveness, and repentance. Size, matters not. There are little sinners who don't feel forgiven, and there are big. There are little sinners who feel forgiven, and big. What kind of sinner is forgiven? Those God is calling.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 2, 2015 12:18:49 GMT -5
But moving to the concept of "original sin" I don't think that the doctrine is attempting to state that mankind is inherently evil and in need of redemption to keep it from evil. The explanations I've read are careful to say that Adam was responsible for what Adam does, and we are responsible for our own actions. Rather, the doctrine is concerned with "the fall" and the consequence that a) there is no free lunch, and b) the world will be plagued by famine, war and disease and also evil action in the general scheme of things. The story of the Fall and the idea of "original sin" serve as a sort of explanation to try and reconcile the ideal of a benevolent Creator and an imperfect Creation. That is, His design was to redeem us from this Creation, so that makes it all alright. I personally don't find the explanation all that satisfying. I do believe in a benevolent Creator but will always struggle with the evidence to the contrary. So, this is a different rationale than the idea that man is evil, and only if we are born again can we be good. That's a fairly naive idea and most Christians today acknowledge that you can be good without God. More commonly expressed is the idea that it doesn't matter how virtuous or good you try to be, you can't be redeemed unless you are born again. This is what Elisabeth Coleman expressed above, in effect. I also find this explanation problematic. It supposes two kinds of good. One kind is doing good, doing right, being virtuous. The other kind of good is observing the rites of Christian practice, or to put a kinder stamp on it, finding a meaningful relationship with the Creator. While I strongly believe in the value of the latter, I think that those who wander in the wilderness, so to speak, but still do good in the ordinary sense of the word, will find the grace and mercy of God in the after-life. There are just too many valid "excuses" for not finding God for me to think otherwise. The revealed personality of Christ resolves these disputes. Are you of the opinion they don't?
|
|