|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Original Sin
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If TD doesn't mean bad through and through, then do we need to create this soteriology in which man is incapable of choosing to follow God, and therefore God must reach inside a man and throw a switch? Or are we just enough tainted with Original Sin that we require God to force us to be saved?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is an analogy between genetics (ancestral inheritance ) and behaviourism (or the idea that we become what we are through our environment) relevant here?
Except that this is not a binary. Genetics are not declared at conception, nor at any one point. Subject a human to stress or various life events, and some genes turn on or turn off because of those events. They call this epigenetics. Thus, original sin cannot be genetically inherited, like, say hair colour. Now you could say that simply having DNA or a particular DNA sequence is a problem, but that gets us down a rabbit hole. Was it the gene sequence for upright posture, the ability to understand grammar in language, or what?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If TD doesn't mean bad through and through, then do we need to create this soteriology in which man is incapable of choosing to follow God, and therefore God must reach inside a man and throw a switch? Or are we just enough tainted with Original Sin that we require God to force us to be saved?
It's called prevenient grace. All people have enough of the light which, if they follow it, will lead them to salvation.
They can of course reject or ignore it.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If TD doesn't mean bad through and through, then do we need to create this soteriology in which man is incapable of choosing to follow God, and therefore God must reach inside a man and throw a switch? Or are we just enough tainted with Original Sin that we require God to force us to be saved?
It's called prevenient grace. All people have enough of the light which, if they follow it, will lead them to salvation.
They can of course reject or ignore it.
That doesn't sound like Calvinism as it's been presented to me before.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
What does all the theological jargon actually mean to the simple creature in the pew who wants to know, like me? I think we need to get the message that sin may come naturally to us, but confession and forgiveness are things that the church genuinely believes and practices. That's why I quoted Ferguson earlier - the reality of the human condition, which might be called original sin, may be ugly at times, but according to the church, it's not hopeless.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The challenge for modern Christianity is not to ignore Eden but to make sense of it to the contemporary world, and to rescue the biblical account from the shackles of arid literalism and to seriously consider its essential truths.
If we're bringing up authorities like Augustine, may I suggest that people like him are no more authoritative than anyone else from an ancient and thinking culture? So let me reinterpret this, outside of the Euro-centric assumptions running through this thread.
The indigenous peoples of Canada, many of them still living hunter-gatherer lifestyles at least in part, would locate Eden as a settlement and as a farm. A walled garden, owned by someone (convenient that Jesus is also later a gardener Easter morning). Eden implies ownership of plants, viz., the tree of knowledge, and it constrains the normal human relationship of many more thousands of years with the environment, where no-one 'owns' the plants, the animals, nor the land itself. We are to take what we need and respectfully not destroy what we don't, nor are we to hoard and profit. We should consider everyone part of the tribe, extended family group or community, such that we should share with all. Thus, the original sin is to seize ownership of special knowledge that would allow the lording over others and over planet. We continue on this path. To our peril. It wasn't God's plan that we did the settled walled off farm thing, we just did it. Probably in part because it meant that conquest of others was possible. The real Eden is the natural world where we are integral partners with all that breathes, grows and is. Which is why also so many seek connection with nature and describe things like thin places where the natural world connects with their perception. Original sin disconnects us from the natural world, and places anxieties in our minds, about things unnatural for us to worry about.
Do we have to stay with Euro and Mid-east cultures to understand?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
No Prophet quote:
Do we have to stay with Euro and Mid-east cultures to understand?
Fair point, but can I remind you that Augustine was an African.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
A technical term doesn't need to have a common sense meaning.
As said above, in this case, 'total' is a quantifier, not a qualifier. It means that all our faculties suffer from the effects of original sin, rather than that all our faculties suffer entirely. In particular, it means that the Platonic model in which we control disordered passions through reason is out. And that means that the political analogue in which an ideologically and morally pure governing class governs a sinful populace for their own good is also out.
Bingo. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
No Prophet quote:
Do we have to stay with Euro and Mid-east cultures to understand?
Fair point, but can I remind you that Augustine was an African.
But very much culturally European.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
mousethief quote:
But [Augustine was] very much culturally European.
But wasn't that European culture shaped by Augustine?
What would European culture be without its North African influences?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If TD doesn't mean bad through and through, then do we need to create this soteriology in which man is incapable of choosing to follow God, and therefore God must reach inside a man and throw a switch? Or are we just enough tainted with Original Sin that we require God to force us to be saved?
It's called prevenient grace. All people have enough of the light which, if they follow it, will lead them to salvation.
They can of course reject or ignore it.
That doesn't sound like Calvinism as it's been presented to me before.
That's because it isn't Calvinism; it's Wesleyanism.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Anyone have any thoughts on how to understand the differences between the sins of the father's being visited on the children vs this being revoked in exilic writings that I posted in the OP?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Anyone have any thoughts on how to understand the differences between the sins of the father's being visited on the children vs this being revoked in exilic writings that I posted in the OP?
Jesus appears to negate the idea that the sins of the fathers are visited on the children.:
quote:
John 9:1-3
9 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth.
2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
[ 04. January 2017, 10:13: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Anyone have any thoughts on how to understand the differences between the sins of the father's being visited on the children vs this being revoked in exilic writings that I posted in the OP?
Jesus appears to negate the idea that the sins of the fathers are visited on the children.:
quote:
John 9:1-3
9 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth.
2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
Should hope so. It's a hideous idea.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
..........However, the sins of the fathers continue to be visited on the Germans; there are those who seek compensation for trans-atlantic slavery on the present generation; and others seeking compensation for various historic "injustices", often of an inter-ethnic nature, committed by forebears. The Sins of the Fathers
syndrome, in other words, is very much alive and kicking.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
..........However, the sins of the fathers continue to be visited on the Germans; there are those who seek compensation for trans-atlantic slavery on the present generation; and others seeking compensation for various historic "injustices", often of an inter-ethnic nature, committed by forebears. The Sins of the Fathers
syndrome, in other words, is very much alive and kicking.
In the eyes of those who want unreasonable repentance.
I'm waiting for the Italians to apologise and make reparations for the Roman invasion of Britain in 55BC AND from the French for invading England in 1066.
And from the Danes for the Viking invasions AND the Germans for the Saxon invasions.
In fact, most of England seems to be occupied territory - I think we Celts and Britons should make representation to the UN to get those occupying forces out. I mean if it's good for the Palestinians, it's good for us too!
We want Britain back!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
A man commits adultery and contracts AIDS. He passes it to his wife. She passes it to their children. That is not just, but it happens.
Neither sin, nor Satan, do justice. It isn't their territory.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus appears to negate the idea that the sins of the fathers are visited on the children.
Yes He does. The question is just what that means.
It clearly does not negate the family characteristics that we inherit from our parents. Nor the consequences of their choices.
Nor does it negate the concept of the Fall, and its effect on humanity.
I think that it just means that God does not hold our parents' faults against us.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Anyone have any thoughts on how to understand the differences between the sins of the father's being visited on the children vs this being revoked in exilic writings that I posted in the OP?
My take on that is that it is about more than where the natural consequences of wrongdoing fall. The exilic prophets are not saying that if the parents are idle and waste all their money the children will no longer suffer. Those direct natural consequences of our actions continue to hold good.
The point of the prophecies is that sin is no longer to be looked as if it operated on a nation basis, the sins of (e.g.) Judah in one generation will not be punished in Judah in the next generation. IMHO the troubling text is Ex 34.7 quote:
keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,
forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
yet by no means clearing the guilty,
but visiting the iniquity of the parents
upon the children
and the children’s children,
to the third and the fourth generation.
The words in Ezekiel and in Jeremiah which seem to undo this are ambivalent about whether the proverb about the parents eating sour grapes and the children's teeth being set on edge was ever true.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Anyone have any thoughts on how to understand the differences between the sins of the father's being visited on the children vs this being revoked in exilic writings that I posted in the OP?
My take on that is that it is about more than where the natural consequences of wrongdoing fall. The exilic prophets are not saying that if the parents are idle and waste all their money the children will no longer suffer. Those direct natural consequences of our actions continue to hold good.
The point of the prophecies is that sin is no longer to be looked as if it operated on a nation basis, the sins of (e.g.) Judah in one generation will not be punished in Judah in the next generation. IMHO the troubling text is Ex 34.7 quote:
keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,
forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
yet by no means clearing the guilty,
but visiting the iniquity of the parents
upon the children
and the children’s children,
to the third and the fourth generation.
The words in Ezekiel and in Jeremiah which seem to undo this are ambivalent about whether the proverb about the parents eating sour grapes and the children's teeth being set on edge was ever true.
Ah, but look again; look closely.
How many generations does his love last?
And compare that to the limited reach of the sins - how many generations does that last?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I know where you're going with this Muddy (and I've taken notice of the contrast here myself elsewhere) but it's still a moral problem if God is beating me for my grandfather's sins, if not my great-great-grandfathers ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Is it God, or is it life? If my grandfather dissipated the family fortune by gambling, I am poor. If my mother had herpes, she may have transmitted it to me when I was born. If my father is a notorious con-man, I have to either labor under the Trump odium all my life, or change my name.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I think the problem of inter-genertional responsibility lies in deciding what is the entity responsible for a particular action. Is it the individual or the group (family, nation or ethnic group)? Present day Germans are held responsible in some measure for Hitler because the present day collective, Germany, is seen as a continuing entity that brought him to power. Are present day Americans, or those born after the Vietnam war, responsible for the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam? The West's highly individualised culture is loathe to accept responsibility for what ancestors have done in the past, but it seems to me not entirely tenable.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Evensong quote:
Anyone have any thoughts on how to understand the differences between the sins of the father's being visited on the children vs this being revoked in exilic writings that I posted in the OP?
An interesting question, but my problem is what has this to do with Original Sin, which is peculiarly Christian insight?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Is it God, or is it life? If my grandfather dissipated the family fortune by gambling, I am poor. If my mother had herpes, she may have transmitted it to me when I was born. If my father is a notorious con-man, I have to either labor under the Trump odium all my life, or change my name.
The problem is that Exodus (quoted above) quite clearly says it's God vindictively squashing children for what their ancestors did.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I think the problem of inter-genertional responsibility lies in deciding what is the entity responsible for a particular action. Is it the individual or the group (family, nation or ethnic group)? Present day Germans are held responsible in some measure for Hitler because the present day collective, Germany, is seen as a continuing entity that brought him to power. Are present day Americans, or those born after the Vietnam war, responsible for the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam? The West's highly individualised culture is loathe to accept responsibility for what ancestors have done in the past, but it seems to me not entirely tenable.
It seems even more untenable to me to suggest that someone deserves to suffer because of what another person did, over which they had no control, and which they could not have prevented.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Karl: Liberal Backslider quote:
It seems even more untenable to me to suggest that someone deserves to suffer because of what another person did, over which they had no control, and which they could not have prevented.
Would you say that the United States and its citizens electorally enrolled after the conclusion of the Vietnam war have no moral responsibility for the continuing consequences of the use of agent orange in Vietnam, and it would be unreasonable for the Vietnamese to claim compensation?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Karl: Liberal Backslider quote:
It seems even more untenable to me to suggest that someone deserves to suffer because of what another person did, over which they had no control, and which they could not have prevented.
Would you say that the United States and its citizens electorally enrolled after the conclusion of the Vietnam war have no moral responsibility for the continuing consequences of the use of agent orange in Vietnam, and it would be unreasonable for the Vietnamese to claim compensation?
I would say the US Government has responsibility, but individual US citizens who didn't themselves support the action - or weren't even born at the time? No.
The logical conclusion of this collective responsibility is where in the book of Samuel God kills David's son to punish David. Does anyone really think that's in any way reasonable?
[ 04. January 2017, 15:08: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Karl: Liberal Backslider quote:
I would say the US Government has responsibility, but individual US citizens who didn't themselves support the action - or weren't even born at the time? No.
My guess is that the Americans who didn't support the action would be among the first to recognise that their taxes should be used to compensate the Vietnamese.
More generally, I think that most people would think that the American people, whether they approved or disapproved, were liable for the continuing consequences of actions taken by their government, especially one democratically appointed. Otherwise, it would be practically impossible for national governments to be held to account for their actions. Clearly that is not your view, and I respect your reasoning, though I think it exposes the limitations of liberal individualism in this context.
Incidentally, I think the most egregious example of misplaced collective responsibility is the slaughter of the Amalekites (I Samuel 30:1-20).
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think there's a distinction to be made between what might be necessary compensation for historical wrongs and holding people guilty and deserving of punishment, which seems to be what the Exodus passage is driving at - God persuing a vendetta through generations because of the sins of an ancestor. A well-off Liverpudlian may recognise that he partly owes his position to gains made by his ancestors from the slave-trade, and that therefore he is the recipient of ill-gotten gains that in a fair world he would never have had, but that does not make him personally guilty of slavery. What I cannot countenance is punishment of a person or people who could not have actually prevented the wrong for which they are being punished because it was done by someone else. It's a bit like the school deciding to put my son in detention because they found out who changed "pens" to "penis" on the pen jar in 1978.
I've also heard this collective responsibility argument used to justify killing Achan's entire household. This story is actually doubly horrific; firstly God punishes the entire Israelite tribe by causing them to lose at Ai, and then the Israelites massacre Achan's entire extended family. I come out of the story feeling (a) sick, and (b) that Achan is guilty of far less wrong than God and whoever ordered the stoning. But that's just me.
[ 04. January 2017, 16:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Re sins of the father and consequences for subsequent generations.
I have sometime wondered about other things that are possibly re-intepretable, like marriage vows "until death us do part", which for some of my divorced friends is not a promise, but perhaps a threat and a statement of fact (not ended with the divorce), and not a crime unless one of the partners wants to do something about the death part.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Karl, perhaps one could consider where in Job, God set the 'attack dog' devil on a righteous man who duly squealed his innocence for 36 odd chapters but then then repented despite having none of the 'why me' questions answered. What satisfied Job so that he could say, 'I have spoken in ignorance'?
I have often wondered what was the point of the speech of God from the whirlwind and without the insight of having suffered as Job did, have concluded that for him, it must have been the increased awareness of who God actually was. His nature and his power.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Just to clarify. I don't think that Original Sin is about the innocent being sanctioned for the sins of the father, rather that all human beings have inherited a tendency to sin. Consequently, an individual is not in the dock for a sin committed by Adam but for sins of her/her own. Punishment for the sins of one's ancestors, therefore, is a separate topic.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Just to clarify. I don't think that Original Sin is about the innocent being sanctioned for the sins of the father, rather that all human beings have inherited a tendency to sin. Consequently, an individual is not in the dock for a sin committed by Adam but for sins of her/her own. Punishment for the sins of one's ancestors, therefore, is a separate topic.
I believe you may think of those as separate, but I can assure that for many people, the latter is what Original Sin is. We get punished for Adam's sin, because in him we, somehow, sinned.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have often wondered what was the point of the speech of God from the whirlwind and without the insight of having suffered as Job did, have concluded that for him, it must have been the increased awareness of who God actually was. His nature and his power.
Yes, I think this must be it; I don't see how one can read Job's final statement any other way: "I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee."
As Eleonore Stump explains it: quote:
If you could see the loving face of a truly good God, you would have an answer to the question why God had afflicted you. When you see the deep love in the face of a person you suppose has betrayed you, you know you were wrong. Whatever happened was done out of love for you by a heart that would never betray you and a mind bent on your good. To answer a mistaken charge of betrayal, someone who loves you can explain the misunderstanding or he can show his face. Sometimes showing his face heals the hurt much faster.
[ 05. January 2017, 00:22: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I believe you may think of those as separate, but I can assure that for many people, the latter is what Original Sin is. We get punished for Adam's sin, because in him we, somehow, sinned.
A terrible thing that. We'd all have eaten the forbidden fruit one day, if we'd had eternity. Imagine an eternity of days, and seeing the fruit. If there's an eternity, eventually everything will happen. Which makes the god of that story a bad bad god, because he would know that eternity would eventuate the disobedience. So in this thinking, isn't it God's plan that Adam would do the naughty and here we are today, still doing it, though just a little nastier naughty. Though freewill and perhaps randomness made it be Eve who'd instigate, which is nice for men because then women get extra punishment and domination and pain. And lets the men identify God as a man who shares male attributes.
It might be interesting to see a speculative rewrite with Adam drawing Eve into fruit eating, and what this god might have cursed him for in Genesis 3:16.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Just to clarify. I don't think that Original Sin is about the innocent being sanctioned for the sins of the father, rather that all human beings have inherited a tendency to sin. Consequently, an individual is not in the dock for a sin committed by Adam but for sins of her/her own. Punishment for the sins of one's ancestors, therefore, is a separate topic.
I believe you may think of those as separate, but I can assure that for many people, the latter is what Original Sin is. We get punished for Adam's sin, because in him we, somehow, sinned.
Well I think this is putting it a bit crudely. Everyone gets held to account, certainly, but for their own sins unless forgiven in Christ. The 'original' sin concept is essentially Catholic and deceptive. They expunge it with Baptism do they not? ISTM that the Biblical concept of what we receive from Adam is a tendency towards evil that ensures we will sin but I doubt that this is the basis of judgement. In Adam, one's will is corrupted so that immoral choices follow but until they have then there is no accountability. Otherwise, a small child who dies cannot be saved.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
This thread is converging nicely with the one on "What puts you off from setting foot inside a church?" Being subjected to a mixture of obscure jargon and obsolete doctrine will do it for some of us.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The traces of this debate can be seen in the "innocent until....." - human sexuality is assumed to be unclean, need controlling etc.. We need to start from the assumption that sexuality is a gift of God's creative love, and re-imagine everything from there on. We can't go on assuming that it was a mistake - that way madness and paranoia lie.
YES a thousand times. I follow something of a more Iranean line of thought, that, as Alex Garcia-Rivera writes, innocence is a virtue to be gained. Ireneaus' idea that God foresaw human sin and worked it into God's plan fits pretty well with evolution, too.
BTW, I'm really digging what Kwesi's saying throughout this thread, especially his first post.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
(as for being a moral agent--I can say of my own experience that I certainly was one (and knew I was one) during primary school, and probably long before. And I caught my son lying to me, deliberately and knowingly, when he was preverbal, at eight months. (That was awkward--you don't want to encourage it, but I couldn't help laughing)
That's a funny story! I'm sure your son knew he was lying, in the sense that he knew he was "telling" you something that wasn't true or something like that, but the question is, did he understand the morality of it? Knowing what you're doing is necessary, but not sufficient, for a moral agent to have moral culpability. But I'm not a moral philosopher (though I've had classes in it).
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Anyone have any thoughts on how to understand the differences between the sins of the father's being visited on the children vs this being revoked in exilic writings that I posted in the OP?
What if the later writing - the "evocation" of the earlier passage - is actually a reinterpretation? What if it's correcting the original assumption, that God is punishing subsequent generations for their forebears' sins, and is saying, "No, God's not doing that; you're just suffering because of what people did"?
Maybe that can't be supported by the texts...and it would also depend on how one reads Scripture. If you think of Scripture as infallible, then later portions of it can't really correct or argue with earlier portions. But I don't read the Bible that way, personally.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Anglican_Brat, I thoroughly agree. I allowed myself to get pulled down a Calvinistic path that I didn't wish to follow.
You couldn't have done otherwise. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Karl, perhaps one could consider where in Job, God set the 'attack dog' devil on a righteous man who duly squealed his innocence for 36 odd chapters but then then repented despite having none of the 'why me' questions answered. What satisfied Job so that he could say, 'I have spoken in ignorance'?
I have often wondered what was the point of the speech of God from the whirlwind and without the insight of having suffered as Job did, have concluded that for him, it must have been the increased awareness of who God actually was. His nature and his power.
I'm not sure what question you're addressing here, Jamat, but I'm pretty sure it's not one I'm asking.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Karl, perhaps one could consider where in Job, God set the 'attack dog' devil on a righteous man who duly squealed his innocence for 36 odd chapters but then then repented despite having none of the 'why me' questions answered. What satisfied Job so that he could say, 'I have spoken in ignorance'?
I have often wondered what was the point of the speech of God from the whirlwind and without the insight of having suffered as Job did, have concluded that for him, it must have been the increased awareness of who God actually was. His nature and his power.
I'm not sure what question you're addressing here, Jamat, but I'm pretty sure it's not one I'm asking.
It is a question you pose in almost every post. How can a just God perpetrate injustice or seem to do so?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
My understanding of original sin is that it is something we all inherit. And that our individual sins (later) come out of that well. There is no such thing as individual sin without original sin.
So for example: an infant baptised is not responsible for any individual sin, as they have yet to have any. But they are still broken somehow - so require the Holy Spirit to redeem them.
So individual sin is not separate from original sin.
Re original sin being a Christian thing Kwesi and the relation of the Old Testament text to it.
The exile is considered a punishment for Israel's collective sin (as BroJames has helpfully pointed out).
This is the sins of the fathers.
But the tide changes after the exile. The punishment of the sins of the fathers is spent. I think it's somewhere in Isaiah that God says the punishment is done through the exile.
So that's how I see the change of heart with the exilic writers.
The exile was The Big Punishment. Now they will start again - no longer punished for the sins of the fathers (This is Grace). Only individual sins will count now.
So let's look at that image and look to the New Testament.
1) The "sins of the fathers" strikes me as an OT corollary or analogy to original ( or inherited ) sin. Does the fact that this changed in the OT have any bearing on the NT and us today?
2) The second thing about the sins of the fathers and punishment no longer applied in the OT after the exile is that it makes a mockery of the idea of Jesus being punished for our sins - or more specifically our original sin (as opposed to our individual sins). This of course affects scriptural understandings in atonement because the idea of Jesus being punished for our collective sins comes from Isaiah in the form of the suffering servant (an exilic text).
But according to the OT, no punishment is required, for the sentence is spent.
Now that doesn't mean to say I think original sin isn't real. I do. I'm just comparing some interesting ideas in the OT and NT
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Karl, perhaps one could consider where in Job, God set the 'attack dog' devil on a righteous man who duly squealed his innocence for 36 odd chapters but then then repented despite having none of the 'why me' questions answered. What satisfied Job so that he could say, 'I have spoken in ignorance'?
I have often wondered what was the point of the speech of God from the whirlwind and without the insight of having suffered as Job did, have concluded that for him, it must have been the increased awareness of who God actually was. His nature and his power.
I'm not sure what question you're addressing here, Jamat, but I'm pretty sure it's not one I'm asking.
It is a question you pose in almost every post. How can a just God perpetrate injustice or seem to do so?
Well, it's a bloody good question and figures very very highly in my issues with much of Christianity. And no, Job doesn't answer it. Not one bit.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I can't believe that I used to believe that Job was literal in to middle age. It's still my co-favourite (MUST we have an American spellchecker?) book of the OT. As it says that we can't understand, there are no answers that can possibly work, that existence cannot possibly be explained to us but all will be well. That God is great and good. Just wait. That He is trustworthy.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
<snip> In Adam, one's will is corrupted so that immoral choices follow but until they have then there is no accountability. Otherwise, a small child who dies cannot be saved.
This is why in the Catholic system unbaptised babies go to Limbo and not to either Heaven or Hell. Inherited sin keeps them out of the pearly gates.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
<snip> In Adam, one's will is corrupted so that immoral choices follow but until they have then there is no accountability. Otherwise, a small child who dies cannot be saved.
This is why in the Catholic system unbaptised babies go to Limbo and not to either Heaven or Hell. Inherited sin keeps them out of the pearly gates.
Which is why they need a doctrine of blamelessnes.
A most wonderful verse - which forms part of The salvation Army's article of faith on holiness is 1Thessalonians 5 v 23:
We believe that it is the privilege of all believers to be wholly sanctified, and that their whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Doctine 10, Salvation Army Doctrines)
What this means is that sanctification with justification leads to the state where there is nothing in my life for which God might lay blame upon me.
Sins are the wilful breaking of a known law - a transgression which comes from sin in my heart - and these can be forgiven.
But a child - born even with original sin - cannot choose to trespass against God's will and laws. Surely then, there is a blamelessness here ascribed. Yes, there is a heart with a potential to sin, but as that child can't choose to trespass, neither can s/he choose to repent.
God, therefore, who is not unjust, will treat the child as blameless.
I do not believe that baptism removes original sin. Only grace through faith can do that. If a child cannot exercise faith in the grace of God then mercy covers that child until choice can be made.
[ 05. January 2017, 14:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Karl, perhaps one could consider where in Job, God set the 'attack dog' devil on a righteous man who duly squealed his innocence for 36 odd chapters but then then repented despite having none of the 'why me' questions answered. What satisfied Job so that he could say, 'I have spoken in ignorance'?
I have often wondered what was the point of the speech of God from the whirlwind and without the insight of having suffered as Job did, have concluded that for him, it must have been the increased awareness of who God actually was. His nature and his power.
I'm not sure what question you're addressing here, Jamat, but I'm pretty sure it's not one I'm asking.
It is a question you pose in almost every post. How can a just God perpetrate injustice or seem to do so?
Well, it's a bloody good question and figures very very highly in my issues with much of Christianity. And no, Job doesn't answer it. Not one bit.
Precisely the point. NO ONE gets that question answered, in the Bible or anywhere else, not Job, not Habbukuk. Both however, go away satisfied.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
<snip> In Adam, one's will is corrupted so that immoral choices follow but until they have then there is no accountability. Otherwise, a small child who dies cannot be saved.
This is why in the Catholic system unbaptised babies go to Limbo and not to either Heaven or Hell. Inherited sin keeps them out of the pearly gates.
I thought the last pope abolished limbo.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I thought the last pope abolished limbo.
So the souls in there just vapourized or deapparated or whatever totally annihilated souls do?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I can't believe that I used to believe that Job was literal in to middle age. It's still my co-favourite (MUST we have an American spellchecker?) book of the OT. As it says that we can't understand, there are no answers that can possibly work, that existence cannot possibly be explained to us but all will be well. That God is great and good. Just wait. That He is trustworthy.
I think that Job makes more sense if you think of it as shifting between genres. The bet between Satan and God is satire, the immediate aftermath is black comedy, the debate between Job and his counsellors is philosophy and the voice of God at the end is apocalyptic. And the moral is that we can hope and trust and love but not know, at least not to our satisfaction in this world. Or, to anticipate the conclusion of Back To Methuselah, it is enough that there is a beyond...
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
