Human Nature: Inherently Good or Inherently Evil?

Not to mention contradictory.

This is not how I see it, nor do we descent into Incarnation.

God causes all those destined from the foundation of the world (Matt. 25:34), to be chosen in Christ, that they should "fall away" (2 Thes. 2:3) from the Truth and "leave their first love" (Rev. 2:4) before they can be truly spiritually converted. Yet this is the plain declaration of Scripture.

Peter fell away:

"Jesus said unto him [Peter], Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, you shall deny me thrice [three times]" (Matt. 26:34).

All the apostles fell away:

"Then said Jesus unto them, ALL YE shall be offended because of Me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad" (Matt. 26:31).

"And they ALL forsook Him, and fled." (Mark 14:50).

Paul fell away:

"As for Saul [renamed Paul], he made havock of the church…" (Acts 8:3) [while at the very same time he was "blameless" in keeping the Law of Moses] (Phil. 3:6).

ALL the Churches in Asia fell away after being in full support of Paul’s ministry. First:

"The churches of Asia salute [greet] you…" (I Cor. 16:19).

Later near the end of Paul’s ministry:

"This you know, that ALL they which are in Asia be TURNED AWAY FROM ME…" (II Tim. 2:15).

Paul warned the Ephesian Elders about the "flock—church" falling away:

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock [the whole flock]." (Acts 20:29).

Jesus prophesied that all who will become overcomers will have first fallen away temporarily by leaving their first love:

"Nevertheless I have somewhat against you, because you [the seven-in-one golden candlestick church of God that is, was, and will be] have LEFT YOUR FIRST LOVE" (Rev. 2:4).

Jesus Himself calls this leaving of our first love, a falling away:

"Remember therefore from whence you ARE FALLEN, and REPENT…" (Rev. 2:5).

Whenever we "fall," we leave our "first love." For spiritual falling IS, LEAVING LOVE. Jesus said that when we leave our first love we are to ‘remember from whence we are FALLEN…’ Love itself has not failed us, but we have failed love, for true love is not capable of failure or falling:

"Charity [Old English for ‘love’] never fails…" (I Cor. 13:8).

In ALL cases the falling away was caused by man's presumed "Free will".

Man's presumed ability that he HIMSELF ALONE can choose God and follow the path of righteousness.

I believed this once...we ALL did/do.

"For ALL [all mankind] have sinned, and come [Greek: ‘fall’] short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).

"MANY [not few] will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity [margin: ‘lawlessness’]" (Matt. 7:22a & 23).

"But the scripture has concluded ALL UNDER SIN…" (Gal. 3:22).

"But the natural man receives NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED" (I Cor. 2:14).

"For the carnal mind is enmity [deep-seated HATRED] AGAINST GOD..." (Rom. 8:7).

It all starts with God, not with us:

"We love Him [God] because He FIRST LOVED US" (I John 4:19).

God made mankind spiritually "naked" (as explained in my previous post).

"Naked"...as in exposed...weak...subject to the lusts and sins of his own heart, so that man will learn that he CANNOT love God first; he cannot obey spiritual laws and commandments; he cannot please God; he cannot accomplish anything of lasting value through his wicked and deceitful heart. (Jer. 17:9). And therefore God's ways will justify His means. The rewards and the blessings are not even to be compared with the glory that God is creating in the human race (Rom. 8:18).

We believe we control our own destiny...we believe we are not subject to higher powers...this is the lawlessness (Matt. 7:23), (II Thes. 2:3) and the beast Revelation talks about.

 

This is just your opinion?

Did you read my previous posts...I already proved Eve committed sins BEFORE she ate the fruit.

Then you fail to acknowledge the parable.

It was not possible for Satan NOT TO SIN -- he was created for the express purpose of being God’s Adversary, and so, of course, he was a sinner "FROM THE BEGINNING".(John 8:44)

It was not possible for Adam and Eve NOT TO SIN -- they were created for the express purpose of being molded into the "image of God;" and so of course, they had to eat of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil or they would have NEVER reached this first spiritual step in becoming LIKE GOD (in His IMAGE,) a step of paramount DIVINE REQUISITE:

"And the LORD God said, Behold [consider, to perceive, to know, to understand], the man is BECOME AS ONE OF US [Hebrew for ‘God’ is elohiym which is the plural of elowahh, hence ‘us’], TO KNOW GOOD AND EVIL..." (Gen. 3:22).

Knowing "good and evil" is one of the most essential requisites in being formed in the image of God. To truly "know" both good and evil they HAD to partake of its source, which was the "TREE of the knowledge of good and evil," which then DEMANDED that they SIN in order to obtain this "knowledge." NO OTHER TREE IN THE GARDEN POSSESSED THIS NEEDED KNOWLEDGE!

And so it was GOD, and none other than GOD, Who intended from the beginning that Satan and man SIN! That does not make God a sinner, for a sin is a "mistake," a "missing of the mark," a "falling short of the glory of God," and God has NEVER MADE A MISTAKE OR FALLEN SHORT OF TOTAL PERFECTION! God knew what He was doing and how things would turn out BEFORE He created ANYTHING! "Declaring the end from the beginning..." (Isa. 46:10). Satan and man are "accountable" for their sins, because they sinned willingly from their heart, but God takes "responsibility" for their sins, and therefore had already provided them a Saviour BEFORE the foundation of the world:

"But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was FOREORDAINED BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, but was manifested in these last times for you" (I Pet. 1:19-20).

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb [Christ] slain from the FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD" (Rev. 13:8).

LOL. Somehow I knew you would say this.

You see, Gatekeeper if one is LYING or their assumptions are based on ERROR, inconsistencies INEVITABLY arise.

That is why NOT ONCE has ANYBODY in the entirety of this forum has EVER refuted a point I have put forward using scripture.

If these truths are false then it can be contradicted (using scripture)...and I assure you they CANNOT be contradicted.

 

Gatekeeper, welcome back to the funhouse. Very good post, IMHO.

See, Azure, the point is even if you quoted scripture (that is looked at the original text not some translation or concortdance) it would not matter. You may think that what you consider scripture can proove anything. I do not believe that is reasonable For example, what would happen if I was in something as mundane as a trig class and I used Kings 7 to prove that pi equals three. I would fail. Suppose in the real world I used pi equals three to desin my geodesic dome. Guess what, the walls could not close.

AndrewX "The idea that we were somehow once perfect and have strayed from the path ... is misleading" so show me how a new born infant is not (we are talking spiritually not physically or mentally here. Oh, if that is not the case and it seems that at least daoism and ch'an postulate a "return" are you stating they must be flawed paths? Based on your opinion?

"If this is what people believe, I will challenge you as an individual to attest to what conditions were like, from your own memory of that condition." Memory of the condition is not the only way to prove things. How does one prove sub-atomic particles? Certainly not by direct experience of them (this is analogous to "experience of perfection"). By (what I beleive are the two remaining ways to knowledge) reasoning with logic or observing with instruments. In that case the entire corpus of the free will and sin debates, Eastern and Western, philosophical and theological, can be brought to bear to reason about it. And all the many proofs of "tabla rosa" from the psychological and neuroscientifical can be used for observation.

Your demand seems to imjply we only learn or can know from experience or memory. This is just (I beleive) not so.

 

Of course, internal consistency of a document does not mean or equate to truth.

 

Why do you constantly accuse me of this? I have looked at the translation/s, notice the square brackets.

The scriptures can prove anything? Where did I insist the scriptures can prove anything?

What? I believe the scriptures were inspired by God. This is concerning the Word of God not "pi equals three."

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe the scriptures.

However, we're not referring "documents" are we?

 

Are we not? Thought you were quoting from the Christian bible?

 

The scriptures are the Word of God...the Word of God is Spirit it is also Life.

"It is the spirit that quickens [gives life]; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are life" (John 6:63).

"But this spoke He of the SPIRIT…" (John 7:39).

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the SPIRIT which IS the word of God" ( Eph. 6:17).

 

Gee, for someone who claims to beleive the scriptures, you sure do nto understand. The scriptures are not the words from a translation (like Rotheham or a Concordance) as the following quote indicates:

"And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph the [son] of Eli..."

whereas Rotherham reads : "...the son of Joseph of Heli."
and the Concordant reads: "...being a son (as to the law) of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, of Levi."

And you have never offered a rebuttal to real scriptural questions where I went to the Greek or Hebrew. Hence, you do not use scripture--you use some translation as your basis. That is not good enough for me or a (even basic) theology class.

You try to use scripture to prove scripture (I never said "prove anything"--strawman argument). It does not work. "Pi equals three" is what the scripture (even your Rotherham translation) says in the referred to Kings 7--no fuzz here, no interpretation. Sorry it is not true. So (in at least one point) the scriptures (and it does say this in the Hebrew) is in error.

I believe the scriptures (OT and NT) to be words inspired by G!d. Perhaps the most perfect lessons for life and plan for a good life. But it is ignorance to say they are not riddled with errors we must riddle out to make sense of them. Just like any other document.

You have finally revealed your true nature... a believer in the inerrancy of the Bible in light of your interpretation. Fine. I would point out that that the "Aryan Scinetists" at Stormfront.org interpret relativity as false. Fine they can believe that too. It is just a matter of non-ideological hard core reasoning that the chance of Biblical Inerrancy is about the same as those shaven-headed dropouts disproving Einstein (so close as to be indistinguishable from zero).

"Scipture" as used in common English does not imply inerrancy. I believe in scripture. You believe in a fantasy that just does not exist.

 

I'm afraid so. I might challenge you, however, to "prove" that children aren't as I suggested. As I stated, they are new, clean, and empty slates waiting to be filled by parental and environmental influence. They have not yet experienced the consequence of missing the mark. They can barely even lift their heads until they've grown strong enough to do so.

I once read about a guy who would bounce his children on his lap whilst calling them wicked little sinners. This seems quite inappropriate to me. We need to build our children up, encourage them, and give them the tools to be better than us. Life tends to taint some children earlier than others, but they are not born "sinners". They are born with the potential to sin, just as they are born with the potential to rise above the world they live in.

I'm afraid you give yourself too much credit. You quoted some scripture that alluded to Eve having desire prior to her actions, but she did not miss the mark until she acted on the desire itself. Desire is not the flaw, sin, nor do our desires make us wicked.

We are inherently good by nature, but we become less good the more we act in an anti social manner. We learn what is anti social through our experiences, whether first hand or second. Eve lacked knowledge ... She was not sinful prior to her actions. Adam and Eve were simply ignorant, which is why they fell. It was a necessary step in order for mankind to one day know perfection ... to be complete.

Nor is it possible for us to not fall into temptation. All of us miss the mark God has set for us to some extent, yet we are born into this world for a reason. That reason is to gain knowledge and understanding. That reason is to learn from our mistakes, so we might one day desire higher achievement, pursue love in all we do, and become who we were born to be. We are all destined to become.

Yes, we are reaching for perfection ... completeness. We are not complete until we know the difference between good and evil. Even so, many know the difference, yet still seek destruction. This is where the feet hit the pavement. This is when we are held responsible for our actions. Once we lose our ignorance, we are no longer innocent.

I too think it was a necessary step.

You assume the writ is the end all be all authority. I prefer to acknowledge what we know about life itself. By all means read your book, bury your head in it until it spins, but don't presume to think that a book trumps what we know about life. The bible is surely a helpful tool, but life tends to lead us where we need to be. The laws that govern our existence tend to teach us well enough when we are mindful of the way life works.

 

Thank ya, radarmark. I'm not sure how long my presence will last this time round, but I'm here for a bit anyway. Nice to be back at the funhouse. lol

 

Whatever else they are, the scriptures are words in a book written by people i.e. a document. Just like the Koran, the Torah, the Pali canon...

That is no criticism, just a statement of fact.

Inerrancy is a dangerous step to take IMO. If we don't maintain critical faculties, a sceptical turn of mind and a desire to investigate then trouble lies ahead.

 

I've posted this elsewhere on this forum, but it seems relevant here;


The Original Sin as the tradition of the Fall from the Garden of Eden' is an archetypal structure embedded deep within our unconsciousness. The Original Sin is Man's guilt of being carnivorous and lycanthropic.

We are all descended from males of the carnivorous lycanthropic variety, a mutation evolved under the pressure of hunger caused by the climatic change at the end of the pluvial period, which induced indiscriminate, even cannibalistic predatory aggression, culminating in the rape and sometimes even in the devouring of the females of the original peaceful fruit-eating bon sauvage remaining in the primeval virgin forests.

It was the 'clothes of skin' and the 'aprons of fig-leaves', that produced the nakedness of man, and not the other way round, the urge to cover man's nudity that led to the invention of clothing. It is obvious that neither man nor woman could be 'ashamed' (Gen. ii. 25) or 'afraid because they were naked' (Gen. iii. 10 f.) before they had donned their animal's pelt or hunters' 'apron of leaves', and got so accustomed to wearing it that the uncovering of their defenseless bodies gave them a feeling of cold, fear and the humiliating impression of being again reduced to the primitive fruit-gatherer's state of a helpless 'unarmed animal' exposed to the assault of the better-equipped enemy.

The uncovered body could not have been considered 'indecorous' or 'im-moral'. The very feeling of sin, the consciousness of having done something 'im-moral', contrary to the mores, customs or habits of the herd, could not be experienced before a part of the herd had wrenched itself free from the inherited behaviour-pattern and radically changed its way of life from that of a frugivorous to that of a carnivorous or omnivorous animal.

- from a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine by ROBERT EISLER - First published in 1951 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, London, B.C.4
Printed in Great Britain by Butler and Tanner Limited Frome and London

 

Why do you always accuse me of not looking up the original words? If you are going to quote me quote me COMPLETELY!

Did you notice my emphasis on CAPITALS, the bold and underlining on the words "Greek" and "translators"? What say you now?

Didn't you?

What say you now?

I read this several times...and yet I can't quite believe this quote, because it reads SO RIDICULOUSLY...

What is your point about "Pi equal three" exactly?

 

How many times...shall I repeat I HAVE ALREADY PROVED EVE SINNED BEFORE SHE ATE THE FRUIT.

"But the natural man receives NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED" (I Cor. 2:14).

Natural man...one who is born NATURALLY (earthly) unlike Jesus Christ.

You seem to think because one is a sinner they are therefore EVIL...have you read the whole of this thread?

Besides...more opinion...find me scripture that says this. Oh, wait. You can't because it ISN'T there...I wonder why?

Oh really?

But I say unto you, That whosoever LOOKETH [You see that! Not TOUCH or FORCINATE....LOOK] on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her ALREADY[But Lord! I did not actually do anything I just looked] in his heart. (Matt. 5:28)

Your ignorance amazes me.

EVIL is not the same as SIN...yet you say Eve was not sinful...then you imply that she is NOT perfect.

Can one that cannot SIN (SIN MEANS MISSING the MARK...i.e. NOT PERFECT) not be perfect? ...

ONE WHO CANNOT SIN----IS----(DID YOU READ THAT "IS") PERFECT!! Yet you say she is not perfect, but also did not sin. You contradict yourself!

Gatekeeper have you read this out loud?

You say WE ALL MISS THE MARK (missing the mark is SIN...did you know that)?

So if we are not born sinful YET WE ALL SIN (as you mentioned yourself)...WHERE does this sin come from?

Think about this...for YOUR benefit...I WILL NOT converse with you again.

I will pray that God gives you understanding.

 

No you have not. None of what you quoted proves anything. Sinning and being spiritually discerned are not the same beast. Eve was without knowledge, which is why Eve was spiritually discerned. Eve gained knowledge because of her misguided deed. The knowledge gained was that of evil. Eve now has the ability to distinguish between the good she had always known and the evil gained by her actions. She missed the mark (sinned), experienced the consequence, and was perhaps wiser for it. This was just the beginning, however. There would be many more mistakes for her and Adam to endure, surely.

The natural man is un-knowledgeable, ignorant, and like a child. Adam and Eve were natural, i.e. ignorant. They were new creatures waiting to be molded into who God created them to be. The "forbidden fruit" served as the first temptation and became their first sin. You are making the mistake of equating "natural" to sinful, however. The point is that we are created very good, yet without knowledge. We are unable to be perfected (completed) until we can distinguish right from wrong. This is why the fall was necessary. It gave them knowledge, just as every sin we commit gives us knowledge, which ultimately gives us understanding, making us wiser than before.

No, this is not what I think at all. I think we are born into a tainted world where it is easy to lose heart. We become evil not because we sin, but because of the lack of compassion present in this world. We get accustomed to all manner of wickedness. We drink from tainted wells. It isn't until we are given clean water that we are able to discern that which is spiritual. Adam and Eve on the other hand lived in paradise. They knew only good prior to the fall. The problem is that they were pioneers. They were forced to lead the way for the rest of humanity, learning as they cautiously took each step forward. They simply did not have the spiritual knowledge, the guidance, the parental influence to help them avoid evil, hence the world as we know it today.

... and it is your opinion that the scriptures are an absolute authority, yet they never claim to be such. They are profitable, inspired, good for teaching, instruction, etc. but they are NOT an end all, be all, go to concerning matters of life.

Yes really ... Do you understand the difference between lustful adultery and love? Jesus promoted an unselfish love. Lust is desiring to posses another as property, whereas love only desires the best for them and their happiness. Lust leads to jealousy, anger, and wrath. Lust has torment, but love is gentle, kind, and is far from self seeking. Lustful adultery is having a lustful desire to possess, whereby the one who desires possession becomes tormented by that desire.

Look at David and Bathsheba. David had Bathsheba's husband murdered because he lusted after her and desired to take her as his own. Lustful adultery has nothing to do with sexual thoughts about another individual and everything to do with the desire to possess another as human property. This adultery takes place in the heart, but lets not confuse a persons desire with wickedness or sin. They can lead to physical sin, but until our actions reflect what is in our hearts, there is no sin ... there is no missing the mark.

Does it amaze you? Really? Less condescension and a bit more tact may be in order here. I'm just saying ....

Eve was not evil, nor perfect, nor sinful. She was naturally without knowledge (as are children).

I never suggested that Eve could not sin. I stated she was without knowledge. She, like the rest of us, was perfectly able to "miss the mark". Which she did (obviously). Eve was not perfect, but she was without sin until she was deceived and acted on her temptation.

Don't get you knickers in a bunch! Geesh! This is a discussion board. There's no need to let it effect your mental foundation here. Eve missed the mark after acting on her temptation. I have said nothing about Eve being perfect, nor being unable to sin. Please read my posts before posting to me.

No need to, but it may help you to read my posts more thoroughly.

I actually stated as much.

It comes from lack of knowledge and from one's misguided desires, but as I stated before, desire is not the sin. The sin comes after acting on certain desires. You know, Some people tip toe throughout their lives always afraid of making a mistake, while others are more bold and make them freely, knowing these mistakes have the ability to serve as learning experiences able to promote growth.

okey dokey

Luke 18:9-14

 

So Eve is Spiritual discerned BECAUSE she was without knowledge?

...And you ALSO agree Adam and Eve were NATURAL?

With these two quotes you have stated you believe Adam and Eve were SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED because they were NATURAL?

Another contradiction:

"But the natural man [which you agree are Adam and Eve] receives NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are [the things of the Spirit of God -----NOT ADAM AND EVE] SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED" (I Cor. 2:14).

Adam and Eve CANNOT receive the things of the SPIRIT of God BECAUSE----did you read that? "BECAUSE" they ARE [that is the things of the Spirit of God ---NOT Adam and Eve] Spiritually discerned.

So Eve gained knowledge of ONLY evil because she ALREADY knew good?

Where exactly do you get these ideas from?

The Tree of Knowledge had knowledge of BOTH GOOD AND EVIL...Why? Because she had knowledge of NIETHER.

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know GOOD and EVIL..."(Gen. 3:22).

Not just evil BUT BOTH. Can you know Light without darkness? Can you know Love without hatred? Can you know Life without Death?

No! You cannot APPRECIATE something if you do not experience the other!

You seem confused by basic facts...and you find it hard to read basic Scripture.

For this reason my contribution to this thread is OVER. I will neither READ replies to my posts nor POST in this thread again.

 

Azure24--

Pi equals three is what (if you look) "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." 1 Kings 7:23 (KJV). 30/10 = 3.

That is just one example of why the Bible is not inerrant.

 

I mentioned I would no longer post in this thread, but I as your post is in regards to another subject...

The Scriptures (the Bible is inerrant because of mistranslations) are inerrant.

Do you want me to explain to you why?

 

Another buk buk buk

 

The things of the Spirit of God are spiritually discerned? Doesn't it make more sense that the natural man is spiritually discerned because of lack of knowledge? Likewise, Adam and Eve knew a very good life prior to the fall. They gained the knowledge of evil in contrast to the good they had always known, hence the knowledge of "good and evil". You're grasping at straws, azure. Somehow I think you are arguing for sake of argument.