Do you reject original Sin?

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by Manji2012, Aug 5, 2007.

  1. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Eh, not quite. A Child should be taught as much as possible, however a parent has the obligation to influence his/her child in the way of faith as they understand it, while such child is growing up. God, put said parent in charge of said child...for a specific reason. What the child does as an adult is no consternation to said parent. Then the job is done.

    v/r

    Q
     
  2. BlaznFattyz

    BlaznFattyz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    parents should teach their children all that they know is right and lead them on the path that they know in their hearts to be straight, and also to be inquisitive, open-minded and humble. if that which is taught is true, then it is passed down as wisdom. but if someone thinks they already know everything then nothing is gained. if parents teach their children beliefs that have never been tested or questioned or just do it because with no good reason, then that is not very responsible. if you have a child, how far will you be able to help them with their math? should you tell them because you cant go any farther that they cant go any farther, or to go as far as they can go?
     
  3. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    49
    Salaam Joseph

    It is just something that troubles me. I do not have children myself but do have 2 boys from my husbands family that live with us most of the week. Obviously they are born Muslim and if I suggested 'choice' would no doubt be whisked off to the shrink but I had the choice, so shouldn't I allow others to have the same choice. Deeply troubling. So I was wondering what the Christian view is and indeed any other view. I can see that if we believe we have found the right path we would not wish those we love to stray from that path but is that not too restrictive, should they not have the choice I had. Sorry repeating myself now. :eek:

    MW
     
  4. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    49
    But as much as I love and respect Jesus (pbuh) as an amazing Prophet of G-d, I do not accept him as the Son of G-d. So surely by default that means, to a Christian, I cannot enter heaven?

    It is so nice to hear someone want a humble job and not wanting to be up there helping to run heaven. By the way if a strange woman turns up, with some rather confused ideas and says "hey you got the job then", please see if you can sneak the gates open. ;)
     
  5. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,767
    Likes Received:
    2,492
    Well according to John Paul you could...of course it appears the new guy would disagree... And in my belief you could... of course in my belief heaven is at hand....
     
  6. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    49
    Don't ever let the horrors of this world change you Wil, not even a tiny weeny bit, you are a treasure.

    I was rather bowled over when Thomas also said I could attain heaven, was certainly one of my many misconceptions of the Catholic faith. :eek:
     
  7. 17th Angel

    17th Angel לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,437
    Likes Received:
    3
    Do you... I, reject, original Sin? Present sin? The concept yes. I am in no way acountable for some apple scumper from years passed. Did my hand touch the farmers apples? Hell no... What of present sin? Oh yea, if I did it, I am acountable for it... But, don't go trying to pin apple scumping on me god.... Thanks bra!
     
  8. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,767
    Likes Received:
    2,492
    um...err....well then who is it in this here picture??? And if not the farmer's....whose apples are they?
     
  9. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    10
    Repentance sounds a lot like the Islamic concept of submission. I'm trying to place it in the context of the "kingdom" theology of the time. The idea being, I guess, that the Kingdom of God was immanent, as John the B. preached, and that participation is a social obligation to a group wherein if each person acts in such a manner as facilitates the Kingdom it will manifest, not in an individual salvation sense, but for the body as a whole. Thinking in line with what Thomas and Josh said, I'm wondering if repentance isn't more an act of submission to the group goal of manifesting the kingdom.

    Chris
     
  10. 17th Angel

    17th Angel לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,437
    Likes Received:
    3
    What picture? I don't care who's! Bottom line I didn't touch no one's fruit trees! I am innocent, and that you can take to the bank brother!
     
  11. Seeker_of_truth

    Seeker_of_truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could somebody please show me where original sin is found in the bible?
     
  12. Pico

    Pico Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    0
    Genesis, chapter 3.
     
  13. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,767
    Likes Received:
    2,492
    lol I figured I could get one of your doctored up pix! btw, double negative...means ya did bro
     
  14. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    49
    I would be interested to explore this idea Chris. I see them rather differently but then I probably have misconceptions about repentance (boy I must have slept well in Sunday School). Could someone expand on repentance for me, what it means to you. Thanks.
     
  15. 17th Angel

    17th Angel לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,437
    Likes Received:
    3
    It's actually a triple negative... So I didn't do it! :D Besides two negatives don't make a right! :D
     
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,293
    Likes Received:
    2,582
    The Ontology of Evil

    Hi Chris — here's a stab at an answer ...

    Aristotle's inquiry into the nature of causes aitia gives a good key by which to unlock the Christian idea of sin.

    'Cause' in modernity is limited to the understanding of cause and effect, whereas for Aristotle, cause might be better understood to mean 'the explanation of a thing'.

    The 'four causes' provide answers to the questions one might ask about something, no less than four will suffice, no more than four are necessary. For example, take a table:

    Formal Cause: What is it?
    by what qualities do we recognise something as a table?

    Material Cause: what is it made of?
    what are its constituents?

    Efficient Cause: Who (what) made it?
    what brought about its existence?

    Final Cause What is it for?
    why does it exist?

    +++

    From the perspective of an Abrahamic monotheist ontology, God is the Efficient Cause and Final Cause of all things — that is, everything starts in God, and proceeds from God, and everything ends in God, and thus proceeds towards God.

    "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" Revelations 1:8.

    "For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers. All things were created by him and in him."
    Colossians 1:16

    This explains cycles, ages, domains, orders, etc. The idea of a purely linear progress is a determination of the western secular mentality — in effect the Enlightenment denies the necessity of a Final Cause, and secular science - its handmaid - denies any Efficient Cause other than that which is accessible to physics (thus meta-physics is axiomatically dismissed). Aristotle is reduced to cause-and-effect, and the 'first cause' traces its way to the Big Bang ...

    Interestingly, Final Cause is creeping back into Quantum theory.

    +++

    "In the beginning God created heaven, and earth" (Gen 1:1) — Efficient Cause, "And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness" (1:26) — Formal Cause, "And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul" (2:7) — Material Cause, "And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it" (2:15) Final Cause.

    These causes, or explanations, then encompass the idea of 'The Good' — as there must be a correlate between the good of a thing, and its cause ... something cannot be a good of a thing if it lies inescapably beyond its nature, any more than, to quote a phrase, 'a fish needs a bicycle'.

    So God, who is the Cause of All, thus determines the good of all, and the good of any thing is its perfection according to its purpose (efficient cause), its act (formal cause), its being (material cause) and its end (final cause). 'Fullness of being' is the perfection of everything.

    Platonism sees the Good as a transcendental, higher than the gods, whereas the Jews sees the Good as a phenomena of God, not as a quality to which it adheres (as the Greeks might see it), but as its very nature. God cannot be not-Good, or other-than-Good, although He can certainly will things which appear to be 'less than good' to us, but then we are not omniscient — we do not know towards what end we and the Kosmos are being directed.

    +++

    Made in His image and likeness, man was created to know God — not as the sum of all material data, a body of knowledge, the 'gnosis so called' (1 Timothy 6:20) but in being, a Union that transcends knowledge, transcends light, and enters into the 'Divine Darkness' of the deity.

    This was the paradisical state enjoyed by the Primordial Couple, living and breathing within the Immanent Presence of God, a primordial simplicity.

    +++

    "the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil ... But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." (Gen 2:9, 17)

    The Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge are the same tree — Death is therefore tied to the knowledge of good and evil ... but how?

    If we accept that the good of a thing is determined by its cause, then the good of everything is determined by God, and the task in life allotted to man is to 'dress and keep' the Kosmos according to the Divine Will. He is a servant of the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Life is God.

    Man is thus allowed to be creative, but with a small 'c'. He can name the animals (2:9), but he cannot make them. If there are two cherries on the tree, he can choose to eat this one, that one, both of them, or neither of them ... he is free within the confines of his nature, and his nature is open to God, and thus to the Infinite, the Absolute, and the All-Possible, which means he knows more than he is, and herein is the great seduction, the serpent of his own lower nature ... because he is subject to his appetites, both of the intellective and the volitive, and because his nature is free, and therefore not fixed, he can choose wisely and well, or not so wisely nor well ... and he has the choice of which to choose, and knows enough to know the better part ... but the lower appetite always wants more ... more of whatever it can get ... it's a quantitative distinction, not a qualitative one.

    (The 7 Deadly Sins are all sins of quantity over quality)

    He can enjoy all the goods God chooses to bestow upon him, but he cannot determine what is good as such — that is God's prerogative.

    But man cannot determine something as 'good' unless it exists in the Good as such, that is, unless it is in God, because God is Absolute Good, and God is Infinite Good, and God is All Possible Goods.

    So anything that man wills, that God does not will for him (or for the object of his actions) must therefore be not only a 'not good' — because if it was a good, it would be willed by God who is the Good as such — but must therefore entail a privation of good that would be realised if man had not chosen to act.

    (Aristotle and Aquinas both reasoned that things tend naturally towards their own good — they tend to try to be fully what they are, only man tries to be something other than himself, to invent himself, as we say, and this is another pointer — for it is his appetites that lead him astray.)

    So anything that man wills that is not willed by God is a priori a privation of the Good, and as such is a privation, by degree, of all that is good, therefore a privation of the good, of beauty, of truth, of reality and ... ontologically ... of being, of existence...

    "... thou shalt die the death... "

    Death is the logical, ontological conclusion of the debate, it is a privation of the Ultimate Good, which is Being. So, ontologically, death is not simply the end of a certain mode of existence, the corporeal state, but also points to the end of being as such, that which was can, actually cease to exist ... not even the soul is immortal.

    +++

    How could man, knowing what he knows, make such a catastrophic blunder?

    Genesis 3:4-5:
    "And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil."

    The serpent, in symbology, is connected to the egoic intellect, in the same way that the worm oroborus signifies the cyclical, or infinite on a flat plane — it goes on and on, but goes nowhere qualitatively (neither higher nor lower — the phoenix represents breaking out of this repetitive cycle) and here we can image the question going round and round in one's head ... Jung reads the serpent as signifying the human psyche.

    Genesis 3:6-7:
    "And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof ... And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked ..."

    Human nature became enamoured of itself — Eve saw the tree as 'good' and 'fair' and 'delightful' because of its promise ... the ability to discriminate ... knowledge according to the self ... so they ate the fruit of self-knowledge, which is discrimination, distinction, separation, individuation ... and their eyes were opened which meant the eye of the soul, which sees all as one, was occluded. The gained external sight, and lost insight into the heart, into the essence, of things ... they saw only the material form, stripped of its grace and inherent beauty, stripped of truth and goodness ... devoid of all meaning ... they saw nothing but evil, for they saw nothing but everything with the good stripped out of it, even themselves, and they covered themselves in their shame.

    They were at a loss ...

    +++

    Once something is seen, it cannot be unseen ... and sometimes we do things which effect the fabric of our being ... once the savour of good and not-so-good was lodged in the human psyche, it is very difficult to dislodge (try suppressing an appetite). This tragic state is not what God did to them, it's what they did to themselves, and as such it is the heritage they pass on to us all.

    This act did not just effect man, it effected the world, the Kosmos, its ramification has shot through all creation ... we are not so much born in sin, as born into a world blighted by sin ... when we withdrew from God, God withdrew from us ... and yet remains Immanently close ... and yet remains invisible, just beyond our ken ...

    +++

    SPECULATION:
    I am open to the evolutionary idea that maybe there was not an Adam and Eve, and that maybe there was never a primordial perfect being, from whom we have descended because of some calamitous event ... that maybe the being that is uniquely called 'human' is the attainment of life struggling up through the mud of ages, trying ever and ever to arrive at the right combination to house the Spirit of God — I am open to this speculation, as long as we allow that God is not the God of the Deists (a God which set the ball in motion, as it were, and then walked away) — and that the Spirit of God is leading all life towards that Union.

    But I will also state thereby that God never intended man to be ignorant of His presence, nor of His will, and that He intended man to fall, or that He created man in a fallen state ...

    ... Philosophy holds that it is in the nature of the good to communicate itself bonum diffusivum sui and therefore if man cannot perceive the good, it is not the fault of the good as such, but man ... always the point comes back to man as the source of his troubles, if not then God ceases to mean anything in the sense of Absolute, God becomes relative, contingent, subject to accident, chance and change.

    ... in my wildest speculations I will allow that the 'first' being that we can call human was, if even for just a nonosecond, perfect ... and fell ... (in this sense even an ape can commit a sin, if it performs an act of pure selfishness, but I think the argument is that primates do not make moral and ethical decisions, but rather follow the will to survive, even if that involves killing the children of its neighbours to advantage its own offspring in the mating game...)

    ... but we must not forget one thing: sin is not an accident of ignorance, it is and always has been understood as a freely-chosen and informed moral decision to do other than the good (sentimental and volitive humanity has defined sin way beyond its philosophical remit, in that regard) and so this opens if not alters the debate somewhat.

    Thomas
     
  17. BlaznFattyz

    BlaznFattyz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    i doesnt have to come from sunday school, we have been taught by our parents, and if we are parents we also teach our children to be sorry for things they have done wrong, to take responsibility for our actions, to make amends, and to not wrong again and obey and listen--because this is right. to let god work in our lives we allow ourselves to be an open book to him, to ask him to forgive us and to give us strength (his spirit) so we could avoid sinning against him again. in doing so, nothing is hidden from him, and you let god work in your life in that area that is weak. but to do it, one must humble themselves and admit they are wrong and need gods help--and repentance is part of this process.
     
  18. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    49
    Hi Blazn

    Thank you for your response. So do you see repentence as a form of saying sorry to G-d for your sins? Just trying to relate it to Islamic submission to see if I think it similar.

    Salaam
    MW
     
  19. BlaznFattyz

    BlaznFattyz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes, it is saying sorry to god, but it means much more than just that. you cant just say sorry without it being personal. there is no blanket repentance, because each individuals sin is different. it needs to be personal between you and god. it needs to be that which is hidden deep in our soul and no one person knows it but you, that you reveal to god as your sin, and you ask for forgiveness. he already knows what you did wrong, but it is up to the individual to break the barrier that sin puts up between them and god and humbly ask for forgiveness and let god work in their life. but in asking for forgiveness, it means nothing if there is not an effort to stop sinning and letting god change you, but that is where people fail. of course we are not perfect, but there must be an effort, otherwise it becomes meaningless words. asking god for a personal relationship and forgiveness invites jesus christ into your life, and asking for help in the effort not to sin and to be changed, invites the holy spirit of god into your life.
     
  20. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    10
    Hi Sally,

    I'm thinking in a whole bunch of different directions and having trouble focusing my thoughts. Thomas said:
    It seems to me that repentance is a turning away from something that one regrets or no longer considers wise or in one's best interest. In terms of what we're discussing here, it seems to me that repentance would be a turning away from one's own will to align with God's will. That would, it seems to me, be a necessary step in submitting. Further, since we're all (theoretically) flawed by virtue of being human, I was thinking that one would have to adopt a permanent mindset of repentance in order to live in submission to God's will. Connecting that to John the Baptist's call to repent because "the Kingdom of God is at hand", I'm wondering if a mindset, or state of repentance, or submission if you want, isn't a key catalyst to the social justice and all around egalitarian, utopian reality of the manifested Kingdom of God. Perhaps this is what all that love your enemies- golden rule stuff aims at?

    Chris
     

Share This Page