A theological-biological explanation of “the original sin’s transmission”

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@AntoineSuarez

This would amount to claim that the Holocaust

Christianity has always maintained the probability of forgiving Hitler. It goes against human sensibilities and justice, but

God’s ways are not our ways and god’s thoughts are not our thoughts.

God’s forgiveness is meaningless if we try and grade it like civil law.

The Bible teaches only one unforgivable sin and killing 6,000,000 Jews is not it.

Christ told us to forgive, He did not specify what. He did specify that repetition was irrelevant. 7, 70x7, 6,000,000?

Richard

PS Truth is not governed by popularity or majority rule

[St.Roymond]

@Dale

@St.Roymond

Which BTW is why a number of church Fathers…

Which BTW is a logical fallacy.

An illustration can’t be a fallacy.

@Dale

@St.Roymond

His desire for all men to be saved.

Shall we talk about our timeboundedness and God not so much? There is this little detail about our free will not being thwarted either. And maybe a little extra reading about things destined, willed, to destruction.

Nothing in Romans 9 is contrary to the plain statement that God desires all to be saved.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@St.Roymond

An illustration can’t be a fallacy.

I took it as an argument.

@St.Roymond

the plain statement that God desires all to be saved

I will fall back on my by now probably hackneyed contention that all language is tensed and any application with respect to God needs to have a qualifier, or more than one. (“Plain statement” is a YEC argument. )

(What is the conjugation of ‘desires all to be…’? Whatever, it is timebound and God is not.)

[St.Roymond]

@Dale

@St.Roymond

the plain statement that God desires all to be saved

I will fall back on my by now probably hackneyed contention that all language is tensed and any application with respect to God needs to have a qualifier, or more than one. (“Plain statement” is a YEC argument.

“Plain statement” is an assessment of the grammar.

The Greek θέλει (THEH-lei with a soft th) is present tense. So is βουλόμενός (boo-LA-meh-nos) in “not wishing any to perish”.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

But as you have elucidated, God is also the author of calamity.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

God is also the author of calamity.

God is not the Author of calamity

I think you will find that this is the opinioon of most Christians

God is not responsible for evil
Calamity not from God

And that is just the tip of the iceburg

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

I think you will find that this is the opinioon of most Christians

That may well be true, but that does not make them correct. Look up Argumentum ad populum.

@St.Roymond has done some of your homework for you, but it appears you will fail the quiz, not remembering well:

Search results for 'calamity @St.Roymond order:latest' - The BioLogos Forum

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

That may well be true, but that does not make them correct.

Nor you.

And I doubt that we ill ever be able to prove it either way. It is purely a matter of personal perspective and opinion.(IOW you can’t insist you are right)

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

you can’t insist you are right

Sure I can – you frequently insist you are. And as @St.Roymond points out, ‘we’ have plenty of scriptural support – more than you, I might wager.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Dale

God is also the author of calamity.

Check out verse 23:
Acts 2:14-36 NIV - Peter Addresses the Crowd - Then Peter - Bible Gateway

There never was a greater calamity.

(Thanks for steering me there, @heymike3.)

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

Sure I can – you frequently insist you are.

No I do not. And you keep trying to justify it as if two wrongs make a right.

Your understanding of the bible is not enough.

Biblical morality (ethics)? It is a subject all to itself.

Richard

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

I can read and I know what words mean

So sayeth the vain man. Scripture is not just a matter of words in a series. The meaning is very rarely straightforward or obvious. In fact Scripture itself says so.

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

the vain man.

Then there’s the irony of black iron pots and kettles.

@RichardG

Scripture is not just a matter of words in a series. The meaning is very rarely straightforward or obvious. In fact Scripture itself says so.

@Dale

@Dale

God is also the author of calamity.

Check out verse 23:
Acts 2:14-36 NIV - Peter Addresses the Crowd - Then Peter - Bible Gateway

There never was a greater calamity.

[AntoineSuarez]

@RichardG

Christianity has always maintained the probability of forgiving Hitler. It goes against human sensibilities and justice, but

God’s ways are not our ways and god’s thoughts are not our thoughts.

God’s forgiveness is meaningless if we try and grade it like civil law.

The Bible teaches only one unforgivable sin and killing 6,000,000 Jews is not it.

The problem is that you claim also the following:

@RichardG

It is not a case of not sinning, it is a case of the sins are already forgiven even before they are committed.

So, according to that statement, the Holocaust was already forgiven before Hitler committed it.

And this means that, according to that position,Hitler could be sure, before he committed the Holocaust, that
God would NOT demand an account from him for the life of 6,000,000 Jews.

Once again: you would better open a new thread to defend your claim that:

“according to Christianity and the Bible each human being can be sure that God will NOT demand an account from him for killing another human being”.

Edited by moderator.

[AntoineSuarez]

@AntoineSuarez

Edited by moderator.

I thank the moderator for editing.
The post was not intended to make personal judgements.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@AntoineSuarez

Once again: you would better open a new thread to defend your claim that:

Having consulted the moderators it would have to be a private thread with invites and I am not sure that I can sustain that.

If you wish to do it I will accept an invitation, but I do not like the general attitude here to controversy.

Richard

[AntoineSuarez]

@RichardG

Having consulted the moderators it would have to be a private thread with invites and I am not sure that I can sustain that.

I think meanwhile we all agree that your position rests on the following claim:

“According to Christianity and the Bible each human being can be sure that God will NOT demand an account from him for killing another human being”.

It seems that with such an axiom you cannot find common ground with none in this thread. The “general attitude to controversy” you refer to comes from the fact that you are postulating something that is exactly the negation of the axiom we others share.

Now, from what you report, it looks like the moderators also consider that a public discussion about your claim above would not be productive.

I think the proposal of the moderators that you open a private thread may be quite convenient, in order you can elucidate where you may find common ground with other posters.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@AntoineSuarez

Now, from what you report, it looks like the moderators also consider that a public discussion about your claim above would not be productive.

No. it is because it has nothing to do with science.

It is pure ethics and theology

@AntoineSuarez

I think meanwhile we all agree that your position rests on the following claim:

“According to Christianity and the Bible each human being can be sure that God will NOT demand an account from him for killing another human being”.

So what does forgiveness mean to you?

And why do you want God to punish anyone?

And finally,

Why do you think you can judge on behalf of God? ie sit in His judgement seat and declare that ******will be punished for killing.

Richard

[AntoineSuarez]

@St.Roymond

So the “image of God” has nothing to do with physical form or appearance,

I quote the Father St. Irenaeus:

“For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God. Now the soul and the spirit are certainly a part of the man, but certainly not the man; for the perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father, and the admixture of that fleshly nature which was moulded after the image of God.” (Against heresies, book V, Chapter 6, Point 1)

For “our fleshy nature” to be moulded after the image of God, it is necessary that “God” has a fleshly image.

This fleshly Image is Jesus Christ, “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15).

The Incarnation is God’s invention to make us share divine eternal life: By becoming the body of Christ I become the Second person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, without the Son losing his individuality, and without me losing my individuality.

@St.Roymond

it has to do with the spiritual status of being as God to all other life(forms), i.e. being God’s representatives or (in accord with the New Testament) ambassadors.

This view is reinforced by my preceding interpretation on the basis of St. Irenaeus teaching.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@AntoineSuarez

This fleshly Image is Jesus Christ, “the image of the invisible God”

Is Christ the image of God?

Or God in the human image?

It strikes me that Christ could not have come in any other image.

Richard