Original sin is introduced at Gen 3. Gen 1 & 2 depicts a creation of humanity without sin. So while there is consensus on original sin and that is proper doctrine, there is no belief that the inclusion of original sin is how God created us. Even read the link you posted...."Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. "
about to go into another meeting so I'll answer part with a disclaimer that I'll answer the rest more throughly later. The analogy on divorce only goes so far, particularly when you superimpose the construct of our own man made legal system on it. But if I had to use that part of the analogy then certain God would be the judge if you believe (as Christian's would) that God is perfect and therefore best to be just and fair. On the issue of why children pay for their parents mistakes......on one hand I can say it's not as though the children you refer to our innocent. Original sin is part of all humanity.....and children as well. That is passed on to all, so the debt is for all humanity. On the other hand, if you're like most people we can all say there are shortcomings from our parents that we all as children suffer from today (bad anger management, addictivie behaviors, co-dependency....these are all learned as passed on behaviors from our family of origin. Is it right? no, but it is the outcome of a sinful and broken world. I'll just have to say the Christian viewpoint disagrees with your viewpoint of the human condition and level of responsibility. I understand you take issue with that....just saying that's probably where the difficulty is. And let's just say we both characterize God in the way each of us understands and interprets the bible. I'm fine with you believing in your characterizations. I'm just here to explain the Christian understanding......and yes I've studied my bible at length to speak with confidence on the matter from the Christian perspective.
I'm only 41, however, and not old enough to be grandfathered by the fall of man. I'm still, according to Christian doctrine, collectively guilty at birth and commanded to repent for it, however. Jewish theologians are divided on the issues, and Islam is on the other side completely, believing no one is born with sin. Either way, I refuse to be answer to an entity I've never met, for crimes committed by people only known in a book written more than 2000 years before I was born, in a language I can read better than the majority of people who profess to believe in the literal words it is written in. And even if this god and these events were proven to be irrefutably true, I would still refuse to accept the indebted circumstance of sin prescribed to me as just, any more than a slave laborer in a North Korean prison camp should feel a need to declare his love and gratitude to Dear Leader.
I would take our version of justice any day than this character you are portraying to be fair. There is a reason why America got away from monarchy as history has proven that this type of system does not work well. Even countries that still use this system does not allow full domain authority to one person as we know what it can lead to. You have yet to explain how this is MORAL. Christian understanding? Haven't we learned from our past what religious Christian interpretations of the bible in the past has lead to? Since youre sharing ur past experince on the years of bible reading , let me share mine, 15yrs of Catholic school with 1 hr of bible study everyday, 2-3 masses a week. Does that make us even or do you have to claim that youre an authority figure to try and make your point?
I had 10 years of Catholic school too and 1 hour bible study every other day. And going to mass every Sunday with my aunt. I was as far away as I was from God all those years because that was religion. God seeks relationship and from this relationship you get revelation. I pray you get that kind of waking up experience too. I was dead inside when I was a Catholic.
And also, since I've been getting ridiculed for my posts here with no time to reply, let me just say this. Because you're not getting an answer you expect does not mean I'm not giving you an answer. I'm sorry I'm not giving you a M. Night Shamylan type answer about God, but it doesn't work that way. It's something you have to pray for your eyes to see and your ears to listen.
You are imperfect because God gave you free will. To choose to love Him or not. If you obeyed His commands to a T because it was in your nature to do so, then you could call yourself perfect. But is that love? Do you do things for your wife like open the door for her, do errands for her, go the extra mile....because you're doing it out of obedience? Or have you chosen to do it because you love her? Same with God.
Well, it's much easier to love a wife that you can confirm existence of. That is the large difference. It's not about loving God. It's about proving his existence. We can discuss 'loving' him after we have confirmation of his existence. And don't assume like many Christian apologists do that us atheists don't 'try' to find 'God' or we didn't 'open' our ears and eyes to the possibility of his existence. Considering what is at stake, eternal damnation, your damn straight that if I had solid evidence of this God's existence I would have no choice but to 'love' him even though I believe as a moral agent I would be compelled to have some distaste for this higher power based on his actions such as allowing slavery and murdering babies. So if you don't make these assumptions about us not trying to find the truth you would realize we already examined all the claims that you are going to throw at me to prove his existence from Biblical 'prophecies' to Muslims' claims to 'scientific miracles' in the Quran and we already know that these 'prophecies' and 'miracles' are nothing more than confirmation bias.
Modified a bit... Imagine if your congregation heard somebody say that. Would it be a far stretch to think that somebody or maybe the whole group would come up in arms to defend and denounce that statement? Clutchfans certainly reacted to Parsons statements. Not sure if that statement is required. Not sure if you noticed, my views are nowhere close to what Catholics believe. . I woke up a heck of a long time ago LOL.
Actually, it happens often. That would be a season of dryness, a season where we feel away from the Lord, what our brothers and sisters do at church is we edify one another, and encourage each other to come running after Christ.
Yes, you did. You just refused to accept it because the source is Scripture. My answer has always been to seek Him in the Word. But you don't think the answer is found there even when I have told you it is.
I asked you very specific questions. You never replied specifically to my post where I corrected your anatomy and physiology nonsense, called you out on your lame Pascal's wager bit, and asked for a citation for your made up/misrepresented/lying for Jesus Dawkins' quote. You just repeat the same pablum over and over. It's post #122 on page 7. Go read it and reply honestly to the questions. I'll wait.
This is a canned response. It means nothing as is non responsive. It isn't consistent with the New Testament or early Christianity. It is completely dismissive and a diversion.
A good starting point would be to read more in depth about the life of Paul of Tarsus. Then look up the council of Chalcedon and the council of Nicaea.
Fair enough, I don't think i've argued here that you or anyone should submit themselves to this. It's every under every person's volition to choose for themselves. My only reason for articulating this is to simply explain the Christian viewpoint as it seem some have asked legitimate questions about it here.
That's fair, render unto Caesar type of thing.....we each chose the authority we ultimately submit to. Just as long as we're clear on what is Christian orthodoxy and not. And just as a side note, it seems a little presumptuous to speak so highly of an American institution that's only 250 years old and comparing it to monarchies, empires and even theocracies that dwarf American in legacy. I think the fact that you question the morality of this indicates our understanding of moral justice, the measure of offense and the means to make amends for the offense is on very different terms. Which is fine.....I'm not here to convince you of anything, just to be clear on what Christian theology actually says It is worth learning that poor hermeneutics and understanding of the bible has brought calamity on the world. But that's not an issue of Christianity, but more about what happens when people mishandle the bible. I don't claim to be an end all authority, but I have no issue saying I have more education and experience that most on this matter. Though i didn't grow up as a Christian (i was raised buddhist), I have been doing ministry for 15 years, I have a masters in biblical counseling and theology (in the middle of my doctorate in ministry, and one of the pastors of a 5000 member church. Again, I don't say that to throw some weight around, but only to say many people who think they know what Christianity says don't really know their theology well enough to represent it well.
