Dondi
Well-Known Member
Tao Equus said:
I dream of salmon myself.
Is Christianity a Negative Religion?
- Thread starter lunamoth
- Start date
I dream of salmon myself.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Snoopy-san!
Do you speak Japanese? Nihongo dekiru kao shite irun desu keredomo....
Do you speak Japanese? Nihongo dekiru kao shite irun desu keredomo....
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Snoopy-san!
With your knowledge of koi (a product of the Japanese culture) I was hoping that perhaps you also spoke the language. (Nick the Pilot sips a little green tea, kicks off his geta, and ponders what might have been....)
And, if you play Go, let's have a game sometime.
With your knowledge of koi (a product of the Japanese culture) I was hoping that perhaps you also spoke the language. (Nick the Pilot sips a little green tea, kicks off his geta, and ponders what might have been....)
And, if you play Go, let's have a game sometime.
I decided to "chime in" because I wanted to express a thought on "original sin". I do want to say I have not yet read all of the previous 11 pages so I apologize if someone has allready had the same thought. I did at one point study Christianity, cosidered myself to be a Christian and then "left" the religion. My opinion is this, I do not believe in original sin. I think it is obviously a man conceived idea. I believe that we are all birthed without "stain" or sin. I think that we begin pure and only of love. Especially if you believe we are made in Gods image. I would say to believe we were made in Gods image but then also say we are born in sin, sounds to me like saying Gods nature is sinfull. I would also say that maybe those who believe this are correct and that they (themselves) were originally sinful and that they should then speak for themselves. I think that it is really sad that people can not even begin to believe that they could be made of just goodness and love. How can a religion that teaches God is love also teach we are born in sin? It makes God sound evil in my opinion. God is Good and Love! The recent decision by the vatican has also been more proof to me that this type of thinking is all man made. Just based on the fact that men sit down and discuss these things and make these choices on what happens when we die.
please excuse my bad spelling.
please excuse my bad spelling.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
-oOo-
Selbora,
Since I am not a Christian, I often choose not to post in a Christian thread out of respect. If you wish, we could continue your discussion in a Comparative Religions thread.
I have found spellcheck.net to be very helpful.
SpellCheck.net - Free Online Spell Checker
Selbora,
Since I am not a Christian, I often choose not to post in a Christian thread out of respect. If you wish, we could continue your discussion in a Comparative Religions thread.
I have found spellcheck.net to be very helpful.
SpellCheck.net - Free Online Spell Checker
lunamoth
Episcopalian
I decided to "chime in" because I wanted to express a thought on "original sin". I do want to say I have not yet read all of the previous 11 pages so I apologize if someone has allready had the same thought. I did at one point study Christianity, cosidered myself to be a Christian and then "left" the religion. My opinion is this, I do not believe in original sin. I think it is obviously a man conceived idea. I believe that we are all birthed without "stain" or sin. I think that we begin pure and only of love. Especially if you believe we are made in Gods image. I would say to believe we were made in Gods image but then also say we are born in sin, sounds to me like saying Gods nature is sinfull. I would also say that maybe those who believe this are correct and that they (themselves) were originally sinful and that they should then speak for themselves. I think that it is really sad that people can not even begin to believe that they could be made of just goodness and love. How can a religion that teaches God is love also teach we are born in sin? It makes God sound evil in my opinion. God is Good and Love! The recent decision by the vatican has also been more proof to me that this type of thinking is all man made. Just based on the fact that men sit down and discuss these things and make these choices on what happens when we die.
please excuse my bad spelling.
Hi Selbora, welcome to CR.
You're far from alone in your thoughts about original sin. FWIW, not even all Christian denominations accept the doctrine of Augustine on Original Sin. For example, Eastern Orthodoxy has never accepted this doctrine. The EO theology concerning the Garden and the Fall are overall much more subtle and helpful in understanding God and our relationship with Him, in my opinion.
peace,
luna
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Selbora,
Oh my goodness, this is in the Comparative Religions section. Let's put the term "Original Sin" aside, and go straight to the Bible. In Genesis 3:16 God places previously-unrequired pain-during-childbirth on Eve as punishment for her interaction with the Serpent. This is one example of what is refered to as "stain" or sin". I cannot fit Genesis 3:16 into my belief system, so I choose to be a non-Christian.
Oh my goodness, this is in the Comparative Religions section. Let's put the term "Original Sin" aside, and go straight to the Bible. In Genesis 3:16 God places previously-unrequired pain-during-childbirth on Eve as punishment for her interaction with the Serpent. This is one example of what is refered to as "stain" or sin". I cannot fit Genesis 3:16 into my belief system, so I choose to be a non-Christian.
Hi Selbora, and welcome to CR.
The question is then, is Scripture a 'revealed' text, or is it a philosophy?
You are entitled to your opinions, I will not try to take them from you, but rather frame other questions in which one can view one's opinions. I was once of that opinion myself, I no longer hold that position. Curiously, it was philosophy that led me to the answer, not theology.
This assumes that God wills sin. The traditional Christian belief is in a God who is Good (there is no sin in God), so are obliged to ask themselves 'what happened?' or 'where does sin originate, if not in God?' If we are made in God's image and likeness, why do we not know God as we know ourselves?
I would say that's a foundational Christian belief – that there is hope, in God.
The 'born again' means a second time, and 'water and the Holy Spirit' means the rite of 'baptism' (a sacred cleansing that is common to many traditions).
Now here's the thing – if we say, "Ah, yes, but ... " then we are making our own opinions count, we're putting words in His mouth, and we stand accused of the very thing you speak of ... it's man made.
If we say, "the idea that the blameless are punished does not sit with the total message of Scripture – the Love of God – so we must search again for a deeper wisdom in what Our Lord says..." then this is true Theology.
The short answer, is we don't actually know what happens. We can only hope.
The longer answer is that there are a multitude of texts which support the idea that, regardless of sin, it is God's will that we are all saved. My favourite, for one, being "And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43) – this to a robbber who was not baptised.
But we cannot say for certain, without assuming too much, but then again, "For all things are possible with God" (Mark 10:36).
+++
I found it useful to think of sin this way, not as 'bad', but the absence of 'good'.
The big question is, if we are born pure and perfect, then why cannot we maintain that perfection ... why do we suffer? It cannot be God's will that we suffer ... but we do.
We and the planet suffers ... we have to ask ourselves, if God is Good, how did it get this way?
Welcome again to CR!
Thomas
The question is then, is Scripture a 'revealed' text, or is it a philosophy?
You are entitled to your opinions, I will not try to take them from you, but rather frame other questions in which one can view one's opinions. I was once of that opinion myself, I no longer hold that position. Curiously, it was philosophy that led me to the answer, not theology.
This assumes that God wills sin. The traditional Christian belief is in a God who is Good (there is no sin in God), so are obliged to ask themselves 'what happened?' or 'where does sin originate, if not in God?' If we are made in God's image and likeness, why do we not know God as we know ourselves?
I would say that's a foundational Christian belief – that there is hope, in God.
Because it believes we are all born free, and none of us born perfect, and we can all be better than we are ... so 'original sin' is like a condition that is transmitted from one generation to the next – it effects the human race, it effects the species, rather than picking on babies.
Then I am obliged to say you have misunderstood Christian teaching. Furthermore because you have been taught badly.
Christian Scripture says so, ceaselessly.
The decisions made are based on what Scripture and Tradition informs them. Jesus Himself said that s/he who is not baptised will not see the Kingdom of God: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)
The 'born again' means a second time, and 'water and the Holy Spirit' means the rite of 'baptism' (a sacred cleansing that is common to many traditions).
Now here's the thing – if we say, "Ah, yes, but ... " then we are making our own opinions count, we're putting words in His mouth, and we stand accused of the very thing you speak of ... it's man made.
If we say, "the idea that the blameless are punished does not sit with the total message of Scripture – the Love of God – so we must search again for a deeper wisdom in what Our Lord says..." then this is true Theology.
The short answer, is we don't actually know what happens. We can only hope.
The longer answer is that there are a multitude of texts which support the idea that, regardless of sin, it is God's will that we are all saved. My favourite, for one, being "And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43) – this to a robbber who was not baptised.
But we cannot say for certain, without assuming too much, but then again, "For all things are possible with God" (Mark 10:36).
+++
I found it useful to think of sin this way, not as 'bad', but the absence of 'good'.
The big question is, if we are born pure and perfect, then why cannot we maintain that perfection ... why do we suffer? It cannot be God's will that we suffer ... but we do.
We and the planet suffers ... we have to ask ourselves, if God is Good, how did it get this way?
Welcome again to CR!
Thomas
Thank you for your replies. Lunamoth where can I read more about Eastern Orthodox Christianity? I mean I could just google it but who knows what I would get?. I find what you and Nick say an interesting point. To Thomas, I have been evangelized to by many different "Christians" who all say the other has taught badly. It is a canned answer to me. That being said I did not mean to offend you I just disagree. Do you believe scripture can be interpreted differently?
Hi Selbbora –
Yes. There are many ways (and the wrong ways are many).
Having said that, Scripture should 'point' in a given direction, at least, and our task is to seek that direction wisely, and present the details accordingly.
In light of that, I seek first a sense of God in Scripture that informs the idea of God I have, then an understanding of the friendship and love that Scripture informs me God extends to all creatures, regardless, and then what stands in the way of the full realisation of that love.
And I have come to realise that, eventually, it is I who stand in the way.
It's a bit like illness and cure ... by taught badly I mean those who excess about the condition, who delight in banging on about sin, condemnation, justice, punishment ... teaching well is about cure and restorative, it is by example ... by love – that's the way I taught my children to be good, and they delight me daily.
You can then ignore the bad, love won't have it any other way, and it gets better along the way.
If Christianity is about anything, it is about a Love that transcends everything by its mercy.
The worst sort of Christianity teaches that one deserves to be punished.
Thomas
Yes. There are many ways (and the wrong ways are many).
Having said that, Scripture should 'point' in a given direction, at least, and our task is to seek that direction wisely, and present the details accordingly.
In light of that, I seek first a sense of God in Scripture that informs the idea of God I have, then an understanding of the friendship and love that Scripture informs me God extends to all creatures, regardless, and then what stands in the way of the full realisation of that love.
And I have come to realise that, eventually, it is I who stand in the way.
It's a bit like illness and cure ... by taught badly I mean those who excess about the condition, who delight in banging on about sin, condemnation, justice, punishment ... teaching well is about cure and restorative, it is by example ... by love – that's the way I taught my children to be good, and they delight me daily.
You can then ignore the bad, love won't have it any other way, and it gets better along the way.
If Christianity is about anything, it is about a Love that transcends everything by its mercy.
The worst sort of Christianity teaches that one deserves to be punished.
Thomas
Must be sincere (imo), requires acceptance of the Holy Spirit as guide in one's life (imo).
P.S. and indeed -Welcome to CR Selbora!
Excellent post, Thomas!
"It's me, it's me, it's me O Lord
Standin' in the need of prayer..."
Boy isn't that the case!
"It's me, it's me, it's me O Lord
Standin' in the need of prayer..."
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Selbora,
I am glad to see you have an open mind about this. That being the case, I would like to share these two passages.
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
--> The idea that we are all born in sin seems to support the idea of Original Sin.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
--> I can only assume this also applies to babies that die in infancy. Therefore, this, too, leads me to believe Original Sin is an important Christian teaching.
The more I see Original Sin ideas being taught in Christianity, the further I move away from Christianity.
I am glad to see you have an open mind about this. That being the case, I would like to share these two passages.
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
--> The idea that we are all born in sin seems to support the idea of Original Sin.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
--> I can only assume this also applies to babies that die in infancy. Therefore, this, too, leads me to believe Original Sin is an important Christian teaching.
The more I see Original Sin ideas being taught in Christianity, the further I move away from Christianity.
Children who die before the age of ascention, are given the full measure of God's grace. Even the Catholic church has agreed to this.
Innocence can not by it's very nature, be convicted or condemned.
v/r
Joshua
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Quahom1
According to the Bible, all children are born in sin. Grace-giving and sin-removing (according to Christianity) comes later. Selbora has expressed an interest in why I shy away from Christianity. This ongoing giving and taking of sin is an answer I give to Selbora, no more, no less.
I find it curious that here, in a thread encouraging non-Christians to talk about why we are non-Christians, I have to defend my answers. I feel my posts are reasonable and fair, and do not belittle Christiantiy at all. (If my all-babies-as-sinners post was belittling to Christianity, please let me know. I do not wish to belittle anyone's belief system, and I expect the same respect in return.)
Very curious.
I again applaud Luna's willingness and open-mindedness to start this thread. Such a willingness to reach out to non-Christians, with all its risks, is commendable. Luna has taken the phrase "religious pluralism" to a new high.
According to the Bible, all children are born in sin. Grace-giving and sin-removing (according to Christianity) comes later. Selbora has expressed an interest in why I shy away from Christianity. This ongoing giving and taking of sin is an answer I give to Selbora, no more, no less.
I find it curious that here, in a thread encouraging non-Christians to talk about why we are non-Christians, I have to defend my answers. I feel my posts are reasonable and fair, and do not belittle Christiantiy at all. (If my all-babies-as-sinners post was belittling to Christianity, please let me know. I do not wish to belittle anyone's belief system, and I expect the same respect in return.)
Very curious.
I again applaud Luna's willingness and open-mindedness to start this thread. Such a willingness to reach out to non-Christians, with all its risks, is commendable. Luna has taken the phrase "religious pluralism" to a new high.
Hi Selbora—welcome to CR
I’ve been alloted the label of “Liberal Christian” through no real design of my own. I didn’t care too much for the nametag at first, but I am learning to wear it well for what I see as a good cause. I have several other shades of understanding in my box of paints as well which do not seem to present a conflict for me. Anyway….
I don’t normally argue too much either way on the doctrine of Original Sin. But to me, it does not seem necessary to assign malice to God in the reading of Genesis 3. Obviously, God allows for nature to point out patterns wherever we look. Why should humans be excluded from this? For example, if a human parent tells his or her child not to touch something because it will hurt them, but they do it anyway, is the parent to blame? No. We can take this scenario a little further, too. If a wise parent knows that the child is going to get burned by touching something hot, and warns the child not to do it, all the while knowing that the child will probably do it, then what does the wise parent do? He or she watches so the child is not irreparably injured. I think that this would hurt a loving parent more than it would hurt the child. But the parent, out of love, realizes that sometimes the child will need to accumulate his own wisdom from experience. So a taste of the pain that comes from a small injury that can be fixed with tender loving care is much more helpful than never letting the child understand that the stove can indeed be very hot. It might just keep the child from playing too close to whatever may be boiling over!
Gee, I sound quite fundamentalist at the moment, don’t I? Oh well, it happens from time to time. What I am trying to say is this: A careful reading of the third chapter of Genesis, at least for me, does not show a God that punishes anyone for the sake of punishment. In fact, I don’t even see where the punishment comes from God. Humans punish themselves by coveting the position of ultimate wisdom-giver (and sadly, all too often, seem to enjoy punishing one another and then pointing to Scripture in order to justify the action).
A hopeful 2 cents.
InPeace,
InLove
I’ve been alloted the label of “Liberal Christian” through no real design of my own. I didn’t care too much for the nametag at first, but I am learning to wear it well for what I see as a good cause. I have several other shades of understanding in my box of paints as well which do not seem to present a conflict for me. Anyway….
I don’t normally argue too much either way on the doctrine of Original Sin. But to me, it does not seem necessary to assign malice to God in the reading of Genesis 3. Obviously, God allows for nature to point out patterns wherever we look. Why should humans be excluded from this? For example, if a human parent tells his or her child not to touch something because it will hurt them, but they do it anyway, is the parent to blame? No. We can take this scenario a little further, too. If a wise parent knows that the child is going to get burned by touching something hot, and warns the child not to do it, all the while knowing that the child will probably do it, then what does the wise parent do? He or she watches so the child is not irreparably injured. I think that this would hurt a loving parent more than it would hurt the child. But the parent, out of love, realizes that sometimes the child will need to accumulate his own wisdom from experience. So a taste of the pain that comes from a small injury that can be fixed with tender loving care is much more helpful than never letting the child understand that the stove can indeed be very hot. It might just keep the child from playing too close to whatever may be boiling over!
Gee, I sound quite fundamentalist at the moment, don’t I? Oh well, it happens from time to time. What I am trying to say is this: A careful reading of the third chapter of Genesis, at least for me, does not show a God that punishes anyone for the sake of punishment. In fact, I don’t even see where the punishment comes from God. Humans punish themselves by coveting the position of ultimate wisdom-giver (and sadly, all too often, seem to enjoy punishing one another and then pointing to Scripture in order to justify the action).
A hopeful 2 cents.
InPeace,
InLove
I'm not asking you to defend anything. I thought I was answering a question you had about sin and children. Original sin is passed from parents to child. However, a child is not accountable until they know right from wrong (according to Christian thought). Christians are not that calloused to condemn the innocent...it wouldn't be, well, Christian!
v/r
Joshua