(January 14, 2018 at 1:51 pm)Banned Wrote: Original sin is a Catholic doctrine, which the church imbibed from pagan sources, but the Bible does not teach it.

So Mormonism is nuttier than Catholicism and Catholicism is nuttier than Protestantism.

Who cares. All forms of Christianity are nutty.

It still remains to be the case that the whole concept of sin in general is absurd.

Evil exists, but sin is more comprehensive than evil. It means missing the mark of God's Name and Image and light, even Prophets sinned in that sense. Prophets never had evil intentions but they often missed the mark of God's Name, but they quickly make their way back to the path through turning back with resolve.

So over all they were God's Path and name with minor slips here and there and sinned but never did evil, even their sins were good deeds that are more explained by love of God than anything else, albeit it was expected they recognize and walk the best path in that moment, they did slip, and it's called sin.

This is what I mean by redefining things. Now sin is taken to mean "evil in religious context", but that's not what it meant back than.

And we are losing the meanings of words.

---

And I take original sin by the Ancient Christians to mean, we are but one soul and we in this together, we pay consequences together of our actions as a race, and so we pay the price of an imperfect world because of Adam and must die, while it was written once "you will not hunger in it nor die".

And Seal of Prophets and his successors, when they pray for someone, they don't say "forgive him", they say "forgive me", and they say, for he is from me, and my light exists in him, so help me overcome the darkness, for I am that light with him and we are connected.

You guys don't understand the disease of separating ourselves from the unity we are in, the fact, we all influence each other is one thing, but it's more than that, we are all created and originate from a sacred clay that is to be molded into God's image or as close as possible, and there is no individuality really when you love, there is oneness, there is unity, there is togetherness.

(January 14, 2018 at 1:54 pm)Hammy Wrote: ...
It still remains to be the case that the whole concept of sin in general is absurd.

It is.

(January 14, 2018 at 2:51 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Evil exists, but sin is more comprehensive than evil. It means missing the mark of God's Name and Image and light, even Prophets sinned in that sense. Prophets never had evil intentions but they often missed the mark of God's Name, but they quickly make their way back to the path through turning back with resolve.

So over all they were God's Path and name with minor slips here and there and sinned but never did evil, even their sins were good deeds that are more explained by love of God than anything else, albeit it was expected they recognize and walk the best path in that moment, they did slip, and it's called sin.

This is what I mean by redefining things. Now sin is taken to mean "evil in religious context", but that's not what it meant back than.

And we are losing the meanings of words.

This is why no one cares about sin anymore.  If we can be doing a good thing..but somehow sinning, we rightly lose any respect for the notion of sin.  It's only compelling when sin is taken to be wrong.  If the big genie upstairs has the gall to say "Well, you fed that orphan, which is a good thing..but you didn;t do it while you hopped on one foot, like I said to..so it;s sin!" then no one is going to give the notion or the genie any credence.  It's just a crank saying crank shit.

It's also the reason that religious nutballs like yourself attempt to pile shame atop of sin (as you did in the remainder of your post). To reclaim the authority that religion squandered by reconflating the two notions in the public mind. If people can be made to believe that sin is bad again, then they can be made to hop on one foot, again. Nobody wants to be the sole nutter hopping on one foot because genies said so. Religious idiocy loves company.

I interpret Original Sin as the fact that none of us are perfectly good. Basically we all have the tendency to sin, and we all will if given the chance. It started with the first humans and will continue throughout all of humanity. That's how it was explained to me in school anyway.

The more literal approach of "inheritance" and "being responsible for Adam and Eve eating a forbiden apple" is quite old school these days.

-and yet still a matter of official catholic doctrine. Not that catholics can be bothered to believe what they're supposed to believe, anymore, ofc.

(January 9, 2018 at 10:44 am)SteveII Wrote: There is nothing we can do about the underlying effect of sin--or, in your metaphor, we can't go on a diet. Sin creates a barrier (because of God's essential holiness) and an obligation to satisfy (because of God's essential justice). The choice is to leave the barrier in place and pay for the consequences defined by God's justice OR accept that he has provided a method to remove each person's individual barrier and satisfy the justice. To be clear, absent outside help, there is nothing we are capable of doing that can remove the barrier and the only satisfaction of divine justice is our death. The only way both the barrier could removed and the satisfaction of justice could be accomplished is if God himself removed the barrier and satisfied the justice by paying for our sins prior to our death and imparting holiness on us in the process. 

Hey Steve,

I came across a passage from the Theologia Germanica that seems pertinent to our discussion.

Quote:Where men are enlightened with the true light, they renounce all desire and choice, and commit and commend themselves and all things to the eternal Goodness, so that every enlightened man could say: ‘I would fain be to the Eternal Goodness what his own hand is to a man.’ Such men are in a state of freedom, because they have lost the fear of pain or hell, and the hope of reward or heaven, and are living in pure submission to the eternal Goodness, in the perfect freedom of fervent love. When a man truly perceiveth and considereth himself, who and what he is, and findeth himself utterly vile and wicked and unworthy, he falleth into such a deep abasement that it seemeth to him reasonable that all creatures in heaven and earth should rise up against him. And therefore he will not and dare not desire any consolation and release; but he is willing to be unconsoled and unreleased; and he doth not grieve over his sufferings, for they are right in his eyes, and he hath nothing to say against them. This is what is meant by true repentance for sin; and he who in this present time entereth into this hell, none may console him. Now God hath not forsaken a man in this hell, but He is laying his hand upon him, that the man may not desire nor regard anything but the eternal Good only. And then, when the man neither careth for nor desireth anything but the eternal Good alone, and seeketh not himself nor his own things, but the honour of God only, he is made a partaker of all manner of joy, bliss, peace, rest, and consolation, and so the man is henceforth in the kingdom of heaven. This hell and this heaven are two good safe ways for a man, and happy is he who truly findeth them.

Any thoughts?

(January 16, 2018 at 1:07 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(January 9, 2018 at 10:44 am)SteveII Wrote: There is nothing we can do about the underlying effect of sin--or, in your metaphor, we can't go on a diet. Sin creates a barrier (because of God's essential holiness) and an obligation to satisfy (because of God's essential justice). The choice is to leave the barrier in place and pay for the consequences defined by God's justice OR accept that he has provided a method to remove each person's individual barrier and satisfy the justice. To be clear, absent outside help, there is nothing we are capable of doing that can remove the barrier and the only satisfaction of divine justice is our death. The only way both the barrier could removed and the satisfaction of justice could be accomplished is if God himself removed the barrier and satisfied the justice by paying for our sins prior to our death and imparting holiness on us in the process. 

Hey Steve,

I came across a passage from the Theologia Germanica that seems pertinent to our discussion.

Quote:Where men are enlightened with the true light, they renounce all desire and choice, and commit and commend themselves and all things to the eternal Goodness, so that every enlightened man could say: ‘I would fain be to the Eternal Goodness what his own hand is to a man.’ Such men are in a state of freedom, because they have lost the fear of pain or hell, and the hope of reward or heaven, and are living in pure submission to the eternal Goodness, in the perfect freedom of fervent love. When a man truly perceiveth and considereth himself, who and what he is, and findeth himself utterly vile and wicked and unworthy, he falleth into such a deep abasement that it seemeth to him reasonable that all creatures in heaven and earth should rise up against him. And therefore he will not and dare not desire any consolation and release; but he is willing to be unconsoled and unreleased; and he doth not grieve over his sufferings, for they are right in his eyes, and he hath nothing to say against them. This is what is meant by true repentance for sin; and he who in this present time entereth into this hell, none may console him. Now God hath not forsaken a man in this hell, but He is laying his hand upon him, that the man may not desire nor regard anything but the eternal Good only. And then, when the man neither careth for nor desireth anything but the eternal Good alone, and seeketh not himself nor his own things, but the honour of God only, he is made a partaker of all manner of joy, bliss, peace, rest, and consolation, and so the man is henceforth in the kingdom of heaven. This hell and this heaven are two good safe ways for a man, and happy is he who truly findeth them.

Any thoughts?

It is a description of someone who is well down the path of Sanctification. Since I am doctrinely Wesleyan-Arminian, I believe that salvation (or justification, the first work of grace) should be followed up with a process (called sanctification) toward the goal of entire sanctification (a second work of grace). There is some minor debate in the protestant world whether entire sanctification can be attained in this life. Anyhow, 

Quote:This process of sanctification that begins at the new birth (first work of grace) has its goal as Christian perfection, also known as entire sanctification (second work of grace),[14][19] which John Wesley, the progenitor of the Methodist faith, described as a heart "habitually filled with the love of God and neighbor" and as "having the mind of Christ and walking as he walked".[20] This is the doctrine that by the power of God's sanctifying grace and attention upon the means of grace may cleanse a Christian of the corrupting influence of original sin in this life. It is expounded upon in the Methodist Articles of Religion:[21]

Sanctification is that renewal of our fallen nature by the Holy Ghost, received through faith in Jesus Christ, whose blood of atonement cleanseth from all sin; whereby we are not only delivered from the guilt of sin, but are washed from its pollution, saved from its power, and are enabled, through grace, to love God with all our hearts and to walk in his holy commandments blameless.[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctification#Methodism

In my experience, I have known only a handful of people in my life that I would think had been far enough down this continuum as to be considered entirely sanctified. Of course I cannot know their hearts...only God knows. Most people I know are somewhere toward the beginning to about the middle of the spectrum. 

Some verses: https://www.gotquestions.org/sanctification.html

Good link and explanation Steve; did not know about this doctrine. Sounds a little like Catholic Grace or nearing beatification of an individual?

I know you aren't Catholic though.

CL calling you

So you know a handful of level ten mages, but mostly level ones...and this in the larger context of the majority of christians who are still level zero.