A clearer perspective IMO. Jesus was insisting the Jews keep their oath. Israel came up with many of the laws, like sin sacrifice, and divorce. A golden rule is if we make an oath to anyone, it becomes a law unto ourselves. Everyone, including our Father, expects us to keep it.
God used, and Jesus fulfilled a law that Israel created. God told them He desires mercy, not sacrifice, but he still held them to the oath they made. Fulfill your oaths. Break one, you have broken them all.
I think this begins to get at it, and it goes much deeper. The prophets begin to drop hints (and then Jesus really brings this home in his teachings) that it never ever was really about “the oaths” at all. It’s about being truthful with your neighbor just as you would want them to be with you. Turning it into some “letter of the law” as if you aren’t normally expected to be truthful, but now suddenly with an oath … you are; that was to miss the entire Spirit motivating the law in the first place. Such love does not exist because of the law; but the law definitely exists only because of Love which precedes it and is greater than it. Without Love, you’ve got nothing, nor any prospects of anything good. Without the law … you will quickly find some “rule of law” or even become a rule of law unto yourself by your own conscience (Romans 2:14) if you’ve at least got love in place. Love without law will quickly find such “law” as it needs. Law without love is … nothing - worse than nothing even. Faith, hope, and love are the top three - and not only is law (or legalism) not there - it didn’t even make the list at all in 1st Corinthians 13. If all you’ve got is law, with no love - you’re an intelligent devil (much like a corrupt lawyer in the worst senses of that profession).
Genesis 3: 14 fw
So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
All that follows is from God no Adam. Iti God apparently over reacting to one act from Adam and Eve. One mistake. One disopbedience, one sin and God says Gen 14-19
but nowhere does God claim that Man is now eternally sinful, or anything of the sort.
All this nonsese about sin is related to the earlier claim
Ge 3:3
but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
And becasue they did not actually fall dead people have been trying to justify the result to make this statement true.
But God didn’t say it! The writer did!
The whole thing is putting words into God’s mouth! Something that Job shows is not what God wants or agrees with.
And you appear to be doing it also if you think that God made man innately sinful.
He did not!
Jer 31 & Ezek 18 repeat that we are responsible for our own sins. There is no such thing as Original Sin, nor is there any curse on humanity to sin.
(or to have unholy habbits)
Mark 2: 17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
which implies that there are/were people who can be called righteous! (and that was before His death)
Richard
The man who jumps off a building has a cell phone and on it I say, “Because you have done this,…you will die.” It does not follow that the consequences of jumping off the building come from me because of this. You die because of what you did and my saying this doesn’t mean you are dying because I say so. That is absurd.
nowhere do I claim anything of the sort either.
And so you judge nearly all the Bible which speaks of sin over 400 times to be nonsense. To be sure there are other religions, if that tickles your bell.
Yes and in John chapter 6 Jesus spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. And so they abandoned Him. All they cared about was the promise of a king who could keep people fed and Jesus wanted them to understand that “man shall not live bread alone” but that there is also a spiritual life and a spiritual death.
So with the story it is usually a choice between believing God or believing the serpent but you simply throw out the story. There are other religions if that tickles your bell. But I will stick with Christianity and Bible and believe God who said they would die and so they did die, not physically but spiritually. And when I take communion in church I am not a cannibal eating human flesh and blood, because it is a spiritual thing Jesus was speaking about. For I do understand that we do not live by bread alone and we have a spiritual body which is dead and must be resurrected.
God did not make man innately sinful. And yet man is sinful because this is our own doing not His.
You seem to have gone on some sort of rant having nothing to do with anything I have said. “Original sin” are just words, and to be sure, I do not believe in what some think these words mean. But other people use these words to mean something different – not about anything making people sin. Regardless, I certainly said NOTHING about either “original sin” or about anything making people sin.
This does not follow! No such thing is implied.
If I say that, I have not come to speak about unicorns and dragons but about people. It most certainly doesn’t follow that unicorns and dragons exist or that I am implying any such thing.
I am beginning to think we have no common ground in either Christianity or rationality to even have a discussion. These things seem to mean something entirely different to you than they do to me.
Okay so let’s see if I have got this straight. Spiritual death is a consequence of sin like blood is a consequence of cutting yourself. It is just part of our make up? And this is nothing to do with God, even though He created us?
And, it just takes 1 mistake for this Spiritual death to occur after which we are doomed to bad habbits? And,unlike Adam we get no warning that we are walking this tightrope? And, once we have fallen we are not even fully aware of the change, but rather have an uneasy need of something. (Unless we buy into Christianity)
Sorry, but even if I believed this I could not preach it. It’s evil.
Richard
But isn’t that what both Jesus and Paul said?
Oh, wait…
Is that a quote from the book, “Famous Single Guys of the Bible?” Of course, you are joking. Proof texting I;m sure could support both the position of getting married and staying single. In the overall context of the Bible it seems to me that it comes down to the individual and their situation. Relationships are difficult at best, and perhaps the restricted and constrained nature of the marriage relationship reflects the dangers of what happens when those constrained are not in place, and to some extent is God’s way of protecting us against those dangers.
Yes. Self-destructive habits refusing the challenge of life to learn from our mistakes makes life into a living hell no matter where we go.
We are not machines designed by a divine watchmaker. We are not simply what God has made us. We are participants in our own creation.
One mistake can certainly start the ball rolling in the wrong direction. It is the nature of bad habits – much easier to start than to stop. As a preacher have ever taken the time to help people with real problems???
??? What are you talking about? LOL You expect of voice from the sky warning you of the fact of life that mistakes have consequences for your life? ???
??? LOL I think most people are aware of the realities of life that their choices have consequences.
You have as bizarre an understanding of what is evil as you do of Christianity and rationality. And the way you keep jumping to conclusions and putting people in your theological boxes makes discussion with you impossible. I agree that there is much in traditional Christian teaching which is outrageous and unacceptable but goodness doesn’t require believing exactly as you do and discarding all the same portions of Christianity that you do. I certainly reject the common Christian ideas of God that make him megalomaniac, purist, hard hearted, controlling, wrathful, and sadistic. I reject the idea which make Christianity into a mafia-like protection racket to pay for protection from God, or makes Christianity into some kind black blood magic necromancy. But you go too far in rejecting the things of Christianity which describe the basic realities of life itself leaving you with nothing but a pure fantasy.
I think it is evil to preach lies just because you don’t like the truth. And the truth is that actions have consequences affecting not only you but future generations. This is irrefutable. It is the nature of life. Like I said before there is only one thing which makes the creation of life moral and that is when you intend to love the beings which you have brought to life. How you react in such an extreme way to such a basic fact about life explains a lot about your attitude towards evolution also – refusing to accept realities you simply don’t like. Well… I think the objective of preaching is not to push some fantasy dream world which makes people feel good but about helping them to deal with the real world.
The reason I see some form of ‘original sin’ as helpful is that it acknowledges that sin isn’t just personal. It’s not just about how we fail and if only we tried harder we would be better. There’s something structural about us as creatures and people that predisposes us to often choose the wrong thing and hurt others. It’s in the culture we grow up in, and it’s also in the biological baggage within us that’s accumulated from the first organisms.
So none of us run through life from a pristine starting line where any stumble could only be blamed on our bad choices. Without removing that blame, we can also see the external and internal pressures that shape our choices without themselves being chosen. In this case, salvation needs to do more than cancel the charges against us. We need rescue from what, on our own, is hopeless. We need to be changed, not just a clean slate, otherwise we’ll mess up the clean slate as much as the last one.
In the Eden story, I don’t see an explanation of how evil started or sin started. I see humans facing temptation and weakness and ignorance and inevitably failing. It’s our story rather than the story of the couple who doomed us. But hopefully it’s just our first chapters.
That much is clear.
I have one question for now. Do you believe in OSAS?
It might explain a few things.
Richard
We had a couple of good conversations about that while you were on your hiatus. @Edgar, @mitchellmckain, some others and I were involved here and here. That first one is longish, so you might want to skip down to where @Edgar and I were in conversation with each other, and don’t forget Mitch. 
I Couldn’t get a real grip of where everybody stood other than @Edgar seemed to be against it.
Certainly the original Jewish sacrificial system worked on a one sin to one sacrifice principle and Christ kept telling people not to sin again, all of which seems to belie any notion of people having to sin or being unable not to.
For the record I do not accept OSAS.
Richard
Take your time. Although you could start with this, which was cited at least once: The Christian’s Confidence.
Whether you want to call it Original Sin or just some unavoidable predilection, any notion that we are forced to sin or be sinful goes against the idea of why Christ had to die for us. If His salvation was necessary then it becomes a direct consequence of God’s flawed creation. And if that flaw is human-generated then humans have much too much power to be able to overturn a perfect creation.
And the only way that Christ could overturn a system that declares spiritual death would be for His act to give spiritual life. And once that life has been given it would have to continue otherwise it is pointless=OSAS. WHich is why I cannot accept the ideal of spritual death and the consequence that would mean perpetual sinning because of it. If Christ restores spiritual life than afterwards we would not sin… = OSAS. And clearly that is not the case because Christians do sin, SO either the restoration is not automatic, or it is very temporary and needs perpetual renewal.
As far as I understand it, the offer of forgiveness is based on the condition at the time, and any sins afterward will need new forgiveness. It is not a done deal. Nor is it some sort of protection against future transgressions.
Any notion that involves humans being unable not to sin makes Salvation a gun to the head deal, not one of free will and choice. And it is unfair in relation to anyone who lived prior to Christ or who either has never heard of, or rejects the teachings of Christians. (for whatever reason, including it being done badly!)
Perhaps some people ought to read the whole Bible instead of never getting past Genesis 3.
Richard
Please read the two cited discussions carefully, at least paying attention to the contributions and replies of the involved parties mentioned. (Did you look at the list?)
Nope. Very strong opponent. I consider the question about whether you can lose your salvation to be very improper and incompatible with faith, reeking of entitlement. Salvation is something God does and is never something which you can own.
Not disagreeing, What are your thoughts on Ro 8:20 saying he is the author of frustration? From personal study, I believe the frustration is naivete, the separation of knowledge making us all prone to error. Including Lucifer, not knowing the outcome misconceived before Eve.
I believe Eve may have been punished worse because her sin was the same as Lucifers, to be like God.
I would like to hear your thoughts on Ro and Naivete. I’ve personally named the tree Naivete as it has a very good and needed gift as well.
My first thought is, what translation are you using???
Romans 8:18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
Perhaps you would like to rephrase your question in this context.
About frustration and naivete I would say that there are many kinds of frustration. I think God has been frustrated and it is not because of any naivete.
??? How can being like God be a sin ??? Really?
The problem wasn’t actually being like God but assuming the authority of God without the wisdom of God. Now this is a problem you can see plenty of in human history… with people given or assuming divine authority with no wisdom to give it any substance.
You make a heck of a lot more sense when you speak about what YOU believe rather than stuffing a load of nonsense into the mouths of other people.
Yes we have too much power. I would think that is crystal clear. Our power to destroy the world is quite obvious. We were made in the image of God to be His children, for an eternal relationship with no end to what God has to give and no end to what we can receive from Him.
And yet, the rest of the vast universe will not even notice that we exist. So the power God has given us certainly has considerable limits.
Nonsense. Life = freedom to choose. The life Christ brings can only return us somewhat to the state of Adam and Eve, faced once again with the choice between life and death. NOT equal OSAS.
It is not automatic. It is long, painful, and very difficult. Ask anyone with a substance abuse problem.
Indeed! Perhaps you should.
First an intro then, I hold to no doctrines or translations because I have very little to no memory. A useful gift. If I hold any consistency to anything it is because I had to discover and verify it each time, over and over. I developed a strong ability for discernment to compensate. I am able to hold onto meanings and concepts that I’ve beat to death, not the translation. This is also why I am asked you as I see someone analytical, versed and look past tabu’s of doctines. I look at things from all sides, that’s what I do and thought you may have a unique perspective on what I see.
I also seem to remember things many others struggle over as empathy was my second gift. Thank goodness I can’t remember the trauma of others.
Rephrased:
I believe the “futility” is naivete, the separation of knowledge making us all prone to error. Including Lucifer, not knowing the outcome misconceived before Eve.
Ro 8:20 says “the creation was subjected”. Even if on multiple occasions as you commented, I am interested in the initial subjection. The initial futility appears to start with Licifer who receives a similar fate. What allowed his futility, the ability to misconceive was his naivete, not knowing the outcome beforehand, not realizing his mistake. Naivete is also supported with the concept that falsness has no power in the light of the truth. Because Lucifer did not know the outcome, he acted. A natural progression of sin.
Your thoughts on God being the author of naivete, the separation of knowledge in which there is no sin in itself, but naivete provides the foundation to misconceive. I’ll stop short.
Good, I mispoke as this was something I just thought of. I do see Lucifers desire to rule in place of God a sin, but I don’t see wanting to be like God a sin. agree.
I had seen the end of your prior discussion before asking but see you picked up in a new thread. Best if you’re not going back and forth so no rush.
I am also new here and limited on posts. Give me a like if you want, I may get a badge. grin. Thanks for your thoughts.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.