"Original Sin"....Just Another term for our animal nature?

[The Pandector]

That's not my assertion. I must have misunderstood you in saying that since the word "pornography" isn't in the Bible, then it must be ok. Remember some Christians do take the Bible literally while others do not; and everything in between. A cool T-shirt could read: "Christianity: 10,000 denominations and counting..."

I was afraid of that. Sorry for the confusion, @Magna .

My point is that, usually it seems, the Bible refuses to provide us with neatly worded proof texts. Therefore, it’s sometimes a big task to prove out what is on its face a reasonable assertion. From over here, it looked like that’s the position in which you placed another poster. Technically, it was a proper request, but practically speaking it wasn’t reasonable, given the sweeping subject. Guess I just wanted to support the guy who refused to complete the assignment.

If I wore your t-shirt, anyone who knows me would say, ‘Oh heavens, it’s a trap. Don’t get him started on denominationalism.’
(btw, are those for sale?)

 

[Crossbreed]

Guess I just wanted to support the guy who refused to complete the assignment.

What good is a changed mind if the heart remains unsurrendered?

For God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble... James 4:6

 

[The Pandector]

What good is a changed mind if the heart remains unsurrendered?

For God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble... James 4:6

Point taken.

 

[Cryptid]

When asked whether pornography is approved by the Bible, one might respond that nowhere in the Bible does it say “viewing pornography is forbidden”, nor does it say “pornography is evil”.

a) "You shall not commit adultery." -- G^D, in Exodus 20:14 (NIV)

b) "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." -- Jesus, in Matthew 5:28 (NIV)

: : The Bible contains an admonition against pornography, even though the word 'pornography' is not used.

 

[Cryptid]

Who was speaking to the crowd In Matthew Chapter 5 vs. 27-28?

Jesus, of course.

 

[Fino]

I have serious doubts about the existence of free will. In the absence of a mechanism for free will to exist, I figure it is more likely to be inevitable than not. The only uncertainty I see in the world is at the quantum level. But the quantum world is random. Random may lead into chaos (iterative non-linear systems in which arbitrarily small variations in initial conditions become magnified over time) but not free will.

But what led you to not be Christian and me to be Christian? It sounds like you were raised Christian. I was not. Backwards?

 

[The Pandector]

a) "You shall not commit adultery." -- G^D, in Exodus 20:14 (NIV)

b) "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." -- Jesus, in Matthew 5:28 (NIV)

: : The Bible contains an admonition against pornography, even though the word 'pornography' is not used.

Yes, apologies. I cleared this up earlier today when @Magna mistook me the same way. The example was chosen because, while the intent of Scripture is obvious, one can only make indirect appeals because ‘pornography’ is never condemned in Scripture; and that indirection in turn allows for arguments such as ‘I’m not lusting after a woman, it’s just pixels on a screen.’ But, my point was, um, obviously obscure.

Oh, yeah. My larger point being that, to present a tight case for that type of argument, you’d want to present more than a single proof text, or open yourself up to distracting arguments. So, demanding such a rich response in the context at hand, justified the refusal to supply one.

 

[Knower of nothing]

The only thing I really have to add on this subject is the fact animals tend to live ethically cleaner lives than the average human being. Whatever the original sin entails, it may very well have been our self awareness. The aspect of ourselves that divorced us from nature and made us a stranger in its midst. The aspect that led to invention and to ecological domination. And to the ceaseless anxiety over merely being. Comparing ourselves to animals, it can give the feeling that we did something wrong to deserve to be this way. That it is our punishment to live. And our trial to walk the righteous path. It's a path that only needs to be walked if you start from sin after all.

But I am not religious, so the aspect that I care about is the human arrogance to elevate itself over animal life. Or the human arrogance that the cosmos exists for them and to test them. The religious man always places himself at the very center of a maelstrom of creation, they can't imagine being byproduct or just one short step in an ancient chain.

 

[The Pandector]

The only thing I really have to add on this subject is the fact animals tend to live ethically cleaner lives than the average human being. Whatever the original sin entails, it may very well have been our self awareness. The aspect of ourselves that divorced us from nature and made us a stranger in its midst. The aspect that led to invention and to ecological domination. And to the ceaseless anxiety over merely being. Comparing ourselves to animals, it can give the feeling that we did something wrong to deserve to be this way. That it is our punishment to live. And our trial to walk the righteous path. It's a path that only needs to be walked if you start from sin after all.

But I am not religious, so the aspect that I care about is the human arrogance to elevate itself over animal life. Or the human arrogance that the cosmos exists for them and to test them. The religious man always places himself at the very center of a maelstrom of creation, they can't imagine being byproduct or just one short step in an ancient chain.

As a ‘religious man’, I do not place myself at the very center of a maelstrom of creation. Rather, I place myself at the apex of creation. While you lay that down to arrogance, I lay it down to submission.

There are many facets of life elucidated in Scripture which the natural man in me can reimagine in more positive ways. However, the Bible lays out the facts as God has chosen to reveal them to us, not some fanciful reimagining of reality. Therefore, I submit to the Bible as authoritative on every subject it touches.

The Bible teaches us that God created man to be at the pinnacle of his creation, in fact, to have dominion over his creation. Now, I could go on, but that’s all you need to know about me: if I can ascertain that the Bible does indeed say some particular thing, then that trumps everything to which any human might attest. What you call arrogance, I call submission to the word of God.

Someone might want to make the same claim about what the Bible has to say about the differing responsibilities of the two sexes. While one may say I believe Biblical teachings on the issue because I reeealy like having authority over my wife, the fact remains that this is what I am taught in the Bible.

Which brings up the larger issue. It does not fall out to my advantage to have authority over my wife. In fact, it was a responsibility that I consistently tried very hard but always failed to fulfill. This was complicated by the fact that my wife was a woman. Talk about stacking the deck against the guy in authority! And, as sincerely as my wife tried to fulfill her obligations, she had characteristics that made both our lives more difficult. It would have been much easier for both of us to just abrogate our responsibilities to the Lord, but we were bound by godly matrimony.

This is because, when God grants authority, he also assigns responsibility. Just as a man has a responsibility to be a godly husband, so does mankind have a responsibility to God’s other creatures, having been given dominion over them.

So then… do all Christian men take seriously their responsibilities to exercise their authority in loving service? Of course not; many abuse their God-given authority, just like most kings and industrialists do, many ignore Biblical mandates like a president who ignores the legal constitution which grants him authority.

But this is all about your very broad brush. I don’t believe the Bible because it serves my perceived personal interests; I believe it because I believe it is the word of God. God tells us he is more concerned about us than about a bird in the sky. Therefore, if I have to choose between a bird and a man, I’m going with the man every time.

That’s not arrogance, that’s submission. Just as the Bible tells us that, by God’s design, we are tested and purified by life on this planet. I didn’t design the world, just try to fulfill my own design functions.

 

[Kalinychta]

"Original Sin": The theological belief that humans are born with sin; a sinner from the very first breath at birth.

Does this actually make sense to anyone? Rationally, I mean. A newborn baby, who has absolutely no concept of existence or what’s happening around him, squalling and crapping his diapers, is somehow “sinful” and should be raised to believe this, and is punished and made to feel guilty and deeply ashamed for the rest of his life because of it? …Really?

 

[The Pandector]

Does this actually make sense to anyone? Rationally, I mean. A newborn baby, who has absolutely no concept of existence or what’s happening around him, squalling and crapping his diapers, is somehow “sinful” and should be raised to believe this, and is punished and made to feel guilty and deeply ashamed for the rest of his life because of it? …Really?

Yes, it makes perfectly sound sense to me. Really. But then, the victimhood defense never held any water for me anyway. Facts making you sad doesn’t disqualify them as facts.

 

[Kalinychta]

Yes, it makes perfectly sound sense to me. Really. But then, the victimhood defense never held any water for me anyway. Facts making you sad doesn’t disqualify them as facts.

A baby is a victim? A fact is defined as “something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information” (per the Cambridge dictionary). In no circumstance should the word “fact” be used—anywhere, period—where religion is involved. Never. Facts and religion are diametrically opposed.

 

[Knower of nothing]

As a ‘religious man’, I do not place myself at the very center of a maelstrom of creation. Rather, I place myself at the apex of creation. While you lay that down to arrogance, I lay it down to submission.

There are many facets of life elucidated in Scripture which the natural man in me can reimagine in more positive ways. However, the Bible lays out the facts as God has chosen to reveal them to us, not some fanciful reimagining of reality. Therefore, I submit to the Bible as authoritative on every subject it touches.

The Bible teaches us that God created man to be at the pinnacle of his creation, in fact, to have dominion over his creation. Now, I could go on, but that’s all you need to know about me: if I can ascertain that the Bible does indeed say some particular thing, then that trumps everything to which any human might attest. What you call arrogance, I call submission to the word of God.

Someone might want to make the same claim about what the Bible has to say about the differing responsibilities of the two sexes. While one may say I believe Biblical teachings on the issue because I reeealy like having authority over my wife, the fact remains that this is what I am taught in the Bible.

Which brings up the larger issue. It does not fall out to my advantage to have authority over my wife. In fact, it was a responsibility that I consistently tried very hard but always failed to fulfill. This was complicated by the fact that my wife was a woman. Talk about stacking the deck against the guy in authority! And, as sincerely as my wife tried to fulfill her obligations, she had characteristics that made both our lives more difficult. It would have been much easier for both of us to just abrogate our responsibilities to the Lord, but we were bound by godly matrimony.

This is because, when God grants authority, he also assigns responsibility. Just as a man has a responsibility to be a godly husband, so does mankind have a responsibility to God’s other creatures, having been given dominion over them.

So then… do all Christian men take seriously their responsibilities to exercise their authority in loving service? Of course not; many abuse their God-given authority, just like most kings and industrialists do, many ignore Biblical mandates like a president who ignores the legal constitution which grants him authority.

But this is all about your very broad brush. I don’t believe the Bible because it serves my perceived personal interests; I believe it because I believe it is the word of God. God tells us he is more concerned about us than about a bird in the sky. Therefore, if I have to choose between a bird and a man, I’m going with the man every time.

That’s not arrogance, that’s submission. Just as the Bible tells us that, by God’s design, we are tested and purified by life on this planet. I didn’t design the world, just try to fulfill my own design functions.

"As a ‘religious man’, I do not place myself at the very center of a maelstrom of creation. Rather, I place myself at the apex of creation. While you lay that down to arrogance, I lay it down to submission."
The point comes down to this, the idea that the world quite literally revolves around you. The whole universe is watching everything you and other humans do with intent to judge you in the end and you have a mission to prostrate yourself before the cosmos. That is arrogance, you probably can't see it that way, but that is a very high level of arrogance. It's the same type of arrogance we can find in people with an intense victim complex that believe all incidents are related to themselves even if they experience this as being persecuted rather than thinking highly of themselves. Because you can't actually submit to God for He doesn't ask you to, you are submitting to your own faith in God. To yourself and your own conviction. To close off the complexity of reality in favor of the singular perspective. The singular religion that stands on equal footing with hundreds others.
"We are tested and purified by life on this planet."
No bird sings for you. No difficulty exists to teach you. The sun doesn't shine for you.
Birds sing. Difficulties exist. And the sun shines. This is as far as humility can get you. To step further is arrogance, not submission. You CHOOSE to take in written words over reality. Because reality remains silent.

 

[The Pandector]

"As a ‘religious man’, I do not place myself at the very center of a maelstrom of creation. Rather, I place myself at the apex of creation. While you lay that down to arrogance, I lay it down to submission."
The point comes down to this, the idea that the world quite literally revolves around you. The whole universe is watching everything you and other humans do with intent to judge you in the end and you have a mission to prostrate yourself before the cosmos. That is arrogance, you probably can't see it that way, but that is a very high level of arrogance. It's the same type of arrogance we can find in people with an intense victim complex that believe all incidents are related to themselves even if they experience this as being persecuted rather than thinking highly of themselves. Because you can't actually submit to God for He doesn't ask you to, you are submitting to your own faith in God. To yourself and your own conviction. To close off the complexity of reality in favor of the singular perspective. The singular religion that stands on equal footing with hundreds others.
"We are tested and purified by life on this planet."
No bird sings for you. No difficulty exists to teach you. The sun doesn't shine for you.
Birds sing. Difficulties exist. And the sun shines. This is as far as humility can get you. To step further is arrogance, not submission. You CHOOSE to take in written words over reality. Because reality remains silent.

Goodness. That’s quite a load you’ve been carrying. Hope you feel unburdened.

However, the Fact is that you are not only wrong about me, but your raging accusations against Christians don’t find a foothold in reality. It may be that, were you to begin claiming Christianity, that is the sort of person you would be. But the wretch you describe never exposed themselves to me.

Besides the impact your own venom has on you, you also make several assumptions about Christian belief which are false. You are free to rant, but I’m sure you understand the difference between passion and reason. Anyway, thanks for sharing your views on the cosmos.

 

[The Pandector]

A baby is a victim? A fact is defined as “something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information” (per the Cambridge dictionary). In no circumstance should the word “fact” be used—anywhere, period—where religion is involved. Never. Facts and religion are diametrically opposed.

This is a victimhood argument, based in emotion. The poor little baby is no more or less a victim than the vilest of adult sinners. This is because we’re all inheritors of the same sinful nature.

It’s a distraction to point out that an infant hasn’t had time to sin. It’s not about the individual sins, but about the sin nature, which is what brings about those individual sins.

It’s not a new strategy to try limiting the language of your opponent. I use the word Fact because I can compare my experience with what I read in the Bible and find they agree. (If I find they don’t agree, I believe the Bible and assume the obvious; that I’m confused and shouldn’t be talking about it). The God-resistant scientist tries to claim control over what can be termed factual; we all know the definition of terms is critical in framing a debate. In this way, they claim authority to muzzle their opponents. To this, I say *pwiphphphert*. Some people wouldn’t recognize a spiritual fact if it stepped up and introduced itself. Certainly, I’m not going to let such a person dictate how I speak about spiritual issues.

****************
Just for fun, try carefully parsing that dictionary definition. Note the word ‘especially’; it indicates that what went before established the definition of the word ‘fact’, but Special Use may include what follows. ‘Special’ is the root word of ‘especially’. Your dictionary will inform that this means ‘pertaining to a particular kind’, as in, this is only what the word means in a particular subset of uses.

Can the science crowd now quit telling us they have a lock on ‘facts’? That’d be nice.
*****************

 

[Magna]

Goodness. That’s quite a load you’ve been carrying. Hope you feel unburdened.

However, the Fact is that you are not only wrong about me, but your raging accusations against Christians don’t find a foothold in reality. It may be that, were you to begin claiming Christianity, that is the sort of person you would be. But the wretch you describe never exposed themselves to me.

Besides the impact your own venom has on you, you also make several assumptions about Christian belief which are false. You are free to rant, but I’m sure you understand the difference between passion and reason. Anyway, thanks for sharing your views on the cosmos.

I didn't take anything @Knower of nothing said to be inflammatory or ranting. It illustrates how differently people can interpret something.

 

[Hypnalis]

The God-resistant scientist tries to claim control over what can be termed factual; we all know the definition of terms is critical in framing a debate. In this way, they claim authority to muzzle their opponents.

That will need a lot of defending. Which is ironic given that it's about facts

 

[Jonn]

"Original Sin": The theological belief that humans are born with sin; a sinner from the very first breath at birth. A notion that scientist Sir Richard Dawkins describes as "appalling".

I agree.

I take no prisoners when I come across "collective guilt" advocates.
This stems from my history of psychological abuse when I was around 5 due to my being half-German.

FYI: I wasn't even a glint in my father's eye when the Holocaust happened, dummies.

 

[The Pandector]

I didn't take anything @Knower of nothing said to be inflammatory or ranting. It illustrates how differently people can interpret something.

"The point comes down to this, the idea that the world quite literally revolves around you."
This is not true, a ridiculous assertion, one with which I've never involved myself.
"The whole universe is watching everything you and other humans do with intent to judge you in the end and you have a mission to prostrate yourself before the cosmos."
Fantastical language that has nothing to do with any Christian doctrine I'm aware of.
"That is arrogance, you probably can't see it that way, but that is a very high level of arrogance."
As the premises were fully erroneous, I know she's basing some fairly serious allegations on drivel.

Now, I think that already qualifies as ranting, but your client didn't stop there. Next, she likens me to somebody with an intense victim complex.
"It's the same type of arrogance we can find in people with an intense victim complex that believe all incidents are related to themselves even if they experience this as being persecuted rather than thinking highly of themselves."
I do not share the symptoms or belief that she describes. This is a good spot to point out that people who actually know psychology know you can't practice it in a forum while at a personal stress point.

"Because you can't actually submit to God for He doesn't ask you to, you are submitting to your own faith in God. To yourself and your own conviction."
Now I hear that God doesn't ask me to submit to him. This, too, is patently untrue, though she is welcome to state her own imaginings.
She says that I believe in God... "To close off the complexity of reality in favor of the singular perspective. The singular religion that stands on equal footing with hundreds others."
That's a pretty broad assignation of my motives in being a Christian. Coming from someone who doesn't know me and practices on-the-fly diagnoses on strangers, that sounds like ranting.

I'm derided for believing that... "We are tested and purified by life on this planet." Not surprisingly, we've identified another major tenant of Christianity with which the poster disagrees. Then I'm reminded of this...
"No bird sings for you. No difficulty exists to teach you. The sun doesn't shine for you."
In point of Fact, difficulties do exist to teach me. However, I'm not familiar with any Biblical doctrine that states the birds sing and the sun shines just for me, neither have I made any such statements myself. Again, wild and unfounded accusation all piled together... sounds to me like ranting.

With all the evidence before me, I'm going to say that, in Fact, this was a rant.

 

[The Pandector]

That will need a lot of defending. Which is ironic given that it's about facts

Those who practice it know who they are.