My take on that is that we can all determine for ourselves our version of the truth. However,the moment that different versions of the truth emerge you end up with problems…
A certain Mr Milosevitch has been arrested and is to be tried by an element of International Society that believes he has a case to answer. He has made it clear that he does not believe that he has a case to answer and will not ask for forgiveness. Who’s right?
We need law enforcement and police and the billions of £$ that they consume to protect ourselves from ourselves! What a sad indictment of human attempts to figure out for ourselves what’s right and wrong!
A good point but that is the point. Check it out. Do you know of anyone who you could propose as having lived the sinless life other than Jesus (the claim made by Christians I know). Why is man incapable of living a sinless life (recognising definitions of sin etc)? Because he is sinful by nature and therefore he sins.
True for us all, but a Christian needs God’s forgiveness because in hurting others, I hurt my father too (see response to andros above).
You know, I look on this from the exact opposite view. Given that there isn’t a deity that everyone can agree on (and I think that is a given) isn’t the fact that in our admittedly flawed way we’re even trying as a society/species to “figure out for ourselves what’s right and wrong” something to celebrate?. No other species that I’m aware of give’s a rat’s ass. That we haven’t come up with (and may never arrive at) a perfect solution doesn’t mean that (a) the attempt isn’t worth it or (b) that what we have is worthless. For all our failings, I look upon the little glimpse we have of humanity’s evolution with awe and wonder.
[sub]And for the record, I don’t see any need for a ‘higher’ being to be pulling the strings[/sub]
Well, it doesn’t make it easier as such. Remember that although I am a Christian I am still sinful by nature and so whilst I now make determined efforts to not sin, because I am imperfect, I still do! God isn’t through with me yet.
Now check this out. As a Christian, I am more acutley aware of my need for forgiveness than I would have been a few years ago. So when someone asks me to forgive them, how can I refuse? Especially, if Jesus Christ was prepared to die for my sins and is willing to forgive me, unconditionally. (I appreciate that the last sentence could invoke a whole other debate, but it’s not intended to. It is what I believe though)
This seems to me very applicable to this thread. I might even agree, in a way. Surrendering one’s will, and by extension one’s conscience, one’s common sense at times, is a sort of freedom–from the responsibility of making one’s own moral and ethical choices, and taking responsibility for those choices. It seems clear to me that the world would be a better place if we would reject that freedom, and try to improve ourselves, rather than depending on someone bigger and stronger to make it all okay.
Fair enough, and I believe you. I don’t doubt that if you had hurt your wife, you would seek her forgiveness; your words strike me as coming from a pretty conscientious guy. But what makes you think that it offends God? What makes you accept the truth of this Bible, other than the fact that it contains instructions that we are to accept it as the truth?
We’re all imperfect, but why add the “sinful” interpretation? There is clear evidence that we are all pretty imperfect. What evidence is there that we are imperfect in the eyes of a divine being, who created us that way?
I know that the ‘sinful’ bit seems to irk many non-believers and it would be easy to fall into the trap of arguing the semantics of the word. I really struggled with the idea that I was sinful at first… I thought that I was an okay guy… my transgressions were kinda minor really… the odd lust over someone else’s wife, the occasional ‘little white lie’ to heal a business transaction maybe, the once in a while ‘exaggerated’ expense claim for a ‘small item’. Not that bad really… you know the kind thing… it’s only £1 afterall… I didn’t steal £1 million!
If you accept God as your father and the Bible as his inspired word (breath of God), then how to sin is clearly laid out for you. There are ten basic ways to do it! If you wish, you can also break the Eleventh Commandment given to us by Jesus Christ… to love one another.
I think it’s difficult for any one of us to go down the list without putting a check-mark against one or other of the commandments. Ergo… we have sinned.
I accept that this formula only works if you accept the Bible as your ‘life-manual’. I do…
What’s my evidence of the divine being (whacky sounding or not I’m going to say it)… I’ve met him personally on a regular basis (daily) since accepting him into my life. I know that I can’t convince you or anyone else of that… it doesn’t work like that. (A few years ago I would have been tempted to ridicule a response like that and ‘prove’ scientifically that individual should be locked away.)
I’ve sometimes had difficulty convincing folk that there are six letter 'f’s, so how could I be arrogant enough to believe that I could ‘prove’ God’s existance to anybody?
That was your point, wasn’t it, that infants are born sinners. If you accept that sin is an active principle, then this position is self-contradictory.
Again, this contradicts the idea that sin is an active principle. TO you, sin is a state of being. It matters not whether a person has commited sin, you call him a sinner. Thus – to go back to my hypothetical wquestion: if a human being somehow did manage to live a live of Christ-like pefection, never committing a single sin, you would still call him a sinner.
How, then , do you justify calling Jesus without sin?
on frogiveness
I read your response to andros. It is inconsistent with the question you originally asked:
Since the forgiveness you seek from God free you from the obligation to seek forgiveness of the wronged party, the “problem” you are trying to investigate has nothing to do with belief or unbelief in God. You have simply posited an additional need for forgiveness by God.
How do atheists fill that need? We don’t. We don’t have it.
As to the case where we do not even realize we have caused harm: how does believing in God ameliorate this? Sure, you can ask God for a “blanket dispensation” for all sins, recognized or unrecognized. I find absolutely no ethical value in such a request, but if it comforts you you are certainly welcome to it. It does nothing to resolve the obligation to seek forgiveness from those harmed. As above, it simply adds another “need for forgiveness”, unspecific this time, to ethical equation.
What I believe is that we are sinful by nature. No one teaches us to sin. It’s inherent in our nature. Thus, because we are sinful we eventually commit sins or sinful acts. So, all children are born with the sinful nature as a result of original sin. We don’t become a sinner after committing our first sin.
In the early years, children are limited in their ability to take independent action because they are totally dependent on others. Sinful acts are thus rarely observed. Havin four children of my own I can voutch for it… they gurgle, sleep, eat and … well let’s not get into that!
But watch as they start to move about and become aware of their surroundings and more importantly, themselves and others.
How many parents set out to teach their children to be selfish, greedy, jealous… few I would think? And yet those things do become observable as the youngster develops. Drop into the local playschool, nursery, kindergarten and observe… it isn’t all sweetness and light.
(I know… so are they condemned to hell because they didn’t repent of their sins? I don’t think so. Although they have not repented for themselves, I believe that God allows them the benefit of the doubt and recognises their lack of ability to understand their own sinfulness. The same would be true of any individuals who lack a concious awareness of themselves… either through illness, disability or accident. Another thread perhaps.)
He was not born of man as you and I were… he is not of Adam’s line… His was an immaculate conception so that he was free from original sin (pretty neat). He was pure from the start. He is God, afterall.
Okay, so how many 'f’s did you see first time? Scary huh!
You do not consider Jesus to have been human, therefore he can be without sin. So, the answer to my quesiotn about a person managing to live life without sinning is: You would still call him a sinner. You would also call a three second old infant a sinner. For you, sin is not an active principle.
I’m not calling you wrong, thoguh I find that definition lacks moral utility, I am simply pointing out this difference in our moral evaluations.
BTW, I believe the doctrine of immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary without the “taint” of original sin, not the conception of Jesus.
I saw 8.
8???
Yep. I use a very small font on my display. WHen I first saw your question, I thought the “f” was an “i”. The sentence has 8 i’s.
When I saw your 6/3 answer, I had to go back to see what happened. By that time it was too late to take teh quiz fairly. It doesn’t scare me, though. I have misread things before.
No, Jesus was human… but he did not follow Adam’s line as Mary was ‘with child through the Holy Spirit’ and he was therefore not tainted with ‘original sin’. He was not inherently flawed as we are and was able to live the ‘perfect’ life. If that were not so, then nothing else would stack up. He came to show us how God had intended it to be for us so that we could chose the right path.
The next bit is really hard to swallow for me, possibly for you (from your earlier comments) but especially for the Lord God.
A three seconds old child is as inherently sinful as you or me but will be able to ‘self-cleanse’ by repenting of that sin and accepting Jesus Christ as Saviour.
It is the human condition, but it is not as God originally designed us… just as mortal death was never on his agenda… or pain in childbirth… etc etc
Those things are all part of someone else’s agenda and were the bi-products of the choice of A & E exerting freewill, against their father’s advice, succumbimg to temptation etc etc … and we pay the price… I know all the arguments about how unfair that seems but it was not God’s doing.
Jesus Christ did say that he wanted little children to come to him… you’ve gotta believe that as their father he grieves that they are all lost to him… literally. That’s why there is great celebration in the heavens for every saved soul… the child is back with the father… the grieving father.
I ‘lost’ one of my own sons in the sense that he rebelled during his teenage and early adolescent years. He inflicted substantial pain on people around him… people who cared. Sometimes the pain was inflicted knowingly… at times I don’t believe realised how hurtful some of his actions were. We consider ourselves lucky that he did not physically leave during that time or inflict any significant, physical damage on himself.
Three years ago he ‘returned’. He came ‘home’ to the people who never stopped loving him. You will never imagine the overwhelming feelings of joy when that happened. It was definately an answer to our prayers… for us it was miraculous… the change in him was remarkable.
What it also did was reinforce the intense pain that God must feel… if one lost sheep hurt me and my family that much, what must be the pain in loosing millions of sheep?
As an aside… my son did ask us to forgive him the things that he had done and said… we did not hesitate… he was back… we now pray that he will meet the Lord God for himself so that those wounds may also be healed.
I know the feeling… but don’t worry. I’ve not only misread things before today, but sometimes I’ve totally misunderstood them! The ‘test’ really isn’t that scientific anyway. You would be amazed though at the high percentage of ‘intelligent’ people who genuinely cannot see all 6 without prompting. We see what we want to see but it’s not necessarily what’s there.
The pity is if we fail to respond when we realise that we had misunderstood or just hadn’t seen it before. Our nature works against us accepting the new reality and so we deny, reject, argue, ridicule… that’s the scary bit.
Michael Green puts it like this.
‘Could it be that he (Jesus) was right in saying that Light has come into the world, and men love Darkness rather than Light because their deeds are evil?’
So, let me see if I have this right:
[li]Children of Adam are sinners because of original sin[/li][li]The original sin was A&E choosing “free will” against the wishes of God[/li][li]Jesus was not a child of Adam, therfore he was not tainted by original sin.[/li][li]Mortal death is a consequence of original sin.[/li]
Therefore:
[li]Jesus did not have free will?[/li][li]Jesus could not suffer mortal death?[/li]
I am sure you disagree with the conclusions. Can you find a flaw in the logic?
There you go again, Spiritus. You know full well that religion and logic are rarely compatible. Deus ex machina trumps logic every time. It’s one of the handy things about ineffible and omnipotent supernatural beings.
If you read the Moral Animal by Robert Wright he discusses some of the reasons why our species has done “good” things in the past (as in…long ago past) and has desired to be “happy”… but I think one key is that that happiness feels good. People who start orphanages and whatnot do so because they “feel good” inside when they think about what they’ve done…“happy” is a chemical reaction in the break much like a coke rush (pardon the analogy)…and many of us would agree that being happy feels better than being angry or sad… If I was somehow assured that there would be no penalties whatsoever for my actions, I still don’t think I would go slaughter babies because what would chemically feel better would be to be nice to people. The “negative” emotions may be a greater rush, but the “positive” emotions are lasting
i haven’t slept yet so maybe this is all jibberish but oh well
Difficulties can arise when we try to deal with these issues by applying logic only. Paul said to the Chorinthians that they should not rely upon man’s wisdom but upon God’s power.
Soooooo… here goes.
Jesus did have free will… but he chose to follow his Father’s path and not that of mankind. He showed us how to live according to God’s Holy plan. ‘You are my son, in whom I am well pleased’.
Incidentally, we all get the chance to follow it too… it’s our choice… repent of our sins, accept Jesus as our saviour and follow himback to the Lord. We are then ‘born again’… but this time… spiritually, not physically.
Of course he could suffer mortal death. He did… as per my previous response, he was human. He died on the cross (physically).
Now for the most crucial piece of the jigsaw… he came back to life and defeated death (I can hear the chuckles already).
In doing so he defeated Satan, the initiator of death, to save those who would believe. That’s why he’s the only route back to the Father. Those who follow him have defeated death, those who reject him will be left in the hands of Satan.
This is the most difficult part of my faith for non-believers to accept because it is supernatural… beyond most of our experience… beyond natural.
If his resurrection is not true, then the whole of my faith would be unfounded and worthless. I would be truly deluded.
If the resurrection is accepted, then everything else stands up to scrutiny… everything else makes sense…
( I didn’t add the last bit as a challenge by the way… another thread perhaps?)
A man dies, and sees Adam, and says to him, “Because of you, I sinned.” Adam answered, “I sinned once, and because of that, lost Eden, but you are responsible for the sins you commit.”
So when that happens is a person cleansed of original sin? If so, doesn’t that invalidate the “state of being” argument for born again Christians? If not, doesn’t that make this process irrelevant to the questino at hand (free will == original sin == sinner even if no sin is actively committed)?
Then how can you claim that mortal death was the consequence of original sin? If Jesus was not tainted by original sin, He would not suffer the consequences of original sin. Therefore he could not suffer mortal death.
I’d rather not get into the whole resurrection to free us from Satan, thing. It seems unrelated to the questions of forgiveness and “state of sin”.
I don’t presume to speak for all Christians (as I’m rather a skeptic), but I believe that one flaw is saying that original sin and having free will are the same thing (if that’s not what you’re suggesting is the belief, then I don’t see where the conclusion that Christ had no free will came from, but I could be missing something).
Instead, I would submit the following (not all of which are attempts to find flaws in the logic, of course):
The “original sin” was disobeying God, not choosing to have free will.
Infants are born with original sin, i.e. the state of being separated from the Father. Until they actually do something wrong, I wouldn’t say that they have sinned. To me, sin IS an active principle; it is the act of separating yourself from God. This is why a Christians asks for forgiveness for his or her sins; it helps to reconcile one with God, but it hardly absolves one of the need to reconcile with whoever was hurt by the sin as well. I would go so far as to say that it would be a sin to not attempt to reconcile yourself with one you’ve harmed.
Christians believe that Jesus was both God and man. As man, he was subject to human frailties, including such things as being tempted to sin and being mortal. As also God, Jesus wasn’t originally separated from the Father; he could have chosen to sin (he had free will), but he didn’t. One begins to see where the idea of the Trinity might become useful. (It’s at this point that I start to become more skeptical; there is a logic to it, of a sort, but I’m not sure I buy it.)
The Catholic belief, at least, is that in baptism one is cleansed of original sin; the breach with God is healed. This is not to say that one is incapable of sinning again later. I assume this means that people are not sinful immediately after their spiritual rebirths, but the moment that they DO sin, they once again are sinful, and hence sinners (i.e. people separated from God).
Does this constructively address any of the concerns?
