|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are we prisoners of sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Yes wrong behavior does exist within a society or group. Some religions use the term "sin" to describe an act that violates a moral rule or code of conduct decreed by a divine entity. Sin is not something that exists in its own right or initiates action. Violating a moral rule or code is not necessarily evil. IMO evil is very extreme badness. The average person has the capacity to do right or wrong. People make choices on a daily basis whether to do right or wrong.
quote:People don't get a "dose" of sin and doing wrong isn't any worse for a believer than for anyone else. Actually, it should be easier. The believer is supposedly given moral rules and codes of behavior. Cut and dried. The believer is (or should be) constantly taught that they should repent and be forgiven if they transgress. IMO, some Christians have difficulty because they don't really know God's moral rules or codes of behavior for them and aren't taught how to repent. Repenting means one actually changes their way of thinking. If a person still wants to do what is wrong, but only refrains from doing wrong due to a law or code; that person hasn't changed their thinking.
quote:Doomed how? Wrong behavior does make life more difficult. quote:The published Ten Commandments and the rest of the laws in the Bible are from an ancient civilization. Laws and codes of behavior adjust with each civilization. Morals and ethics are sometimes at odds in the workplace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Since God did not require sacrifices to atone for sin, the death of Jesus doesn't atone for anyone's sins. A mistake or wrong action cannot be undone and can't be "taken on" by another. The person still suffers the consequences of their actions. If they repent they can be forgiven for the mistake or wrong action. Jesus taught and preached repentance not that his death would be an atonement. If you read Leviticus 16, you will see that the actual scapegoat that supposedly "took on" the sins of the people was not sacrificed. It was set loose in the desert. The sacrifices in Leviticus are similar to us paying a parking ticket. It is the penalty for wrong behavior.
quote:Eve was talking to a snake, not taking part in a debate or quoting God. The difference is irrelevant. The snake is not Satan. You're adding to the story. The Adam and Eve story is one story that tells how mankind supposedly came to know good and bad, as opposed to the animal kingdom. Right and wrong are concepts that change as mankind changes. Sin still does not exist as a thing that acts on its own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I said God (you know the powerful God) did not require sacrifice to forgive sins. Mankind decided sacrifices were necessary. There's a difference. Isaiah 1 (JPS Torah) 1 THE VISION of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. ... 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. 12 When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample My courts? 13 Bring no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations-- I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly. 14 Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. quote:We aren't talking about salvation. We are discussing sin and that sin is not a thing that acts on its own. In the course of this the misconception that the sacrificial system atoned for sins was brought up. I understand the doctrine that is usually presented and it is incorrect. There are no sacrifices for intentional sin and as I pointed out earlier the scapegoat that supposedly "took on" the sins of the people was not sacrificed. The scapegoat was set loose in the desert. (Leviticus 16) So people who are struggling against portions of their belief system's moral code or code of behavior, haven't changed their thoughts. IOW, they haven't repented. The way to stop "sinning" is to stop wanting to do what is considered wrong by the belief system or God; depending on which one we consider more important. Mankind has the capacity to do wrong and mankind has the capacity to not do wrong. No big mystery. BTW, Revelations has nothing to do with Genesis. The snake is just a snake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Just because something brings one pleasure does not make it wrong. If a woman is constantly told she is ugly she will eventually believe it, the same goes for a person being constantly told they are sinful when the characterization is not based on the persons actual actions. It is a way to keep people feeling bad about themselves. To keep them down. Constant wrong behavior or wrong thinking can take its toll on a person's physical and mental health. Extreme wrong behavior can cause physical death. As far as hell goes, pretty much everyone goes to hell. Hell is nothing more than the grave. Maybe you could list some specific behaviors that are considered to be a sin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:He is exactly right. The concept of sin is a religious one. I would add that even within religion it seems to have lost its meaning. Other than rituals, the religious make wrong decision just like the nonreligious. The Pharisees were the clergy of the time and Jesus considered their actions hypocritical just as many clergy are today and have been through history. Nothing new. But I prefer to read full paragraphs as opposed to one liners. The paragraph containing the verse you shared concerns discerning fruit. IOW, you shall know them by their fruit.
Matthew 12:35 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.... Jesus is saying the same thing I've been saying, all mankind is not inherently bad. Just like animals there are humans who are more aggressive than others. Morals and codes of conduct are determined by civilizations and it changes through the ages. That is the same thing that Paul is saying in Romans 2. Even those who don't have the written Jewish law in front of them are capable of good behavior.
quote:Make sure your Bible quoting is accurate. Jesus was just calling them hypocrites as some clergy tend to be. The verse accused them of greed and self indulgence, not violent behavior and uncontrolled desire. That's why I feel that Christians are confused about what actually constitutes sin and the concept of sin has lost its meaning even among the religious. One does not need religion to abhor "evil" and cleave to good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Animals have codes of behavior. Humans live in groups and interact on individual levels, community levels, and national levels. Humans make codes of behavior to facilitate harmonious relations. In the "Wild West" days of the United States, area out west were lawless. People did as they pleased. Some lived peacefully together and others were more agressive. At some point people created laws to keep themselves safe from the more agressive individuals/groups. These laws fit the needs of the time. When we join clubs there are rules that go with membership. So if you want to be part of the family, club, religion, community, state, or country; you make a choice of following the codes of behavior set down by the group. If you choose not to follow the rules you will suffer the consequences deemed necessary by the group. Some codes may overlap or conflict. The individual has to decide how to deal with the issue. The Bible contains the laws of an ancient theocratic civilization. Some of those laws are still applicable today and are part of our secular legal system. Most are not. Due to the change in civilization, the legal system has expanded greatly. So the answer to "why should I be good" depends on what you want out of life and whether the actions you take to get what you want is contrary to the laws of the land. Human authority is what determines a civiliation's code of behavior or the laws of the land. Mankind does decide what is good. The majority or those in power decide the laws of the land.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You asked why you should do good, not why others should allow you to do what you want. There is a difference and I explained how groups function and that your choice to behave good or bad depends on what you want from life. In our society today (United States) you can choose to kill a person, but you will suffer the consequences. The community has decided that killing is wrong. As long as you are a part of that community, they will expect you to abide by those laws.
quote:If you are a part of a club, community, state, country, etc. there is a list of what is acceptable behavior and what is not. It is the legal system. The animal kingdom even has rules of conduct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Hey Nosey,
quote:Isn't that essentially what our legal system is? The Ten Commandments and the rest of the rules in the OT were the legal system for the nation of Israel. There were real time consequences for breaking them. Modern Christianity doesn't function as a legal system, no real time consequences for unacceptable actions. The secular legal system still takes care of that. In some cases clergy who have committed adultery or theft are left in their positions. So is a Christian really deterred by the future wrath of God or the secular legal system? Since Christians are supposedly saved from the Godly consequences of "sin", what's the deterrant? IMO, that's the conflicting idea within Christianity. They don't have a clear set of rules and real time consequences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Humans. Both versions of it. The grave and the underworld. What you're questioning is also created by people and not the people that wrote the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Sin is not something to believe in. It is a word used by many religious today to describe moral wrongdoing or an offense against God not just any mistake or wrongdoing. Elective abortion is considered immoral, but it's legal. Is speeding considered immoral or an offense against God?Is one considered immoral if they don't pay their taxes? Is it an offense against God? Someone who doesn't believe in God or isn't religious would just say the action is immoral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Out of curiosity, what do you think absolute means?
In the responses to you it has been made clear that laws, rules, etc. adjust with the needs of the civilization. They don't all remain unchanged. Even the rules in the Bible didn't remain unchanged. That's the purpose of the Oral Law to adjust for the change in their civilization. Slavery was the accepted way of life, but not owning slaves didn't make the person immoral. God made no rules for or against slavery. Rules were provided in Exodus 21 concerning Hebrew slaves. Some parents sold their children into servitude to get money, but they were also supposed to be released in the seventh year except for women. As someone has already said, you're using your own morality to judge other culutres and past cultures. Each group has their own standard of living. Why is that difficult to accept?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:But that isn't the definition of absolute. From the link I provided the closest meaning to what you're thinking is: 4: having no restriction, exception, or qualification But the laws in the Bible do have restrictions and exceptions. Paul presents the idea that we are prisoners of sin. Not God or Jesus.
Galatians 3:22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Where does scripture actually declare this? This would be the OT not the NT. From what we’ve discussed so far we know that a wrong action can’t imprison anyone, but a person can be imprisoned for a wrong action. So Paul is speaking figuratively and not literally. Paul is making a case for his gospel. Paul is personifying his battle with wrong and right decisions. Remember, Paul is a man who has killed. He killed Christians, so he had violent inclinations. Paul using his own experience doesn’t make it universal or from God. Paul said the wages of sin is death, not God and just as Paul is not God; the scripture is not God. Scripture simply means writing, so we don’t know if Paul was inspired by the OT or another writing. Another problem is the way the Jews wrote at the time. They would take snippets from various places to make one idea. Today we wouldn’t consider that to actually support a position.
D’Rash: This is a teaching or exposition or application of the P'shat and/or Remez. (In some cases this could be considered comparable to a "sermon.") For instance, Biblical writers may take two or more unrelated verses and combine them to create a verse(s) with a third meaning. Paul brings out the same concept that no one is righteous in Romans 3:10-18
10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. 13 Their throats are open graves; their tonges practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. 14 Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17 and the way of peace they do not know. 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. Verses 10-12 is pulled from Psalm 14:1-3 (Psalm 53:1-3 Same words). The song is talking about fools, not everyone. verse 13 is pulled from Psalm 5:9 and Psalm 140:3.The song is talking about wicked men. Verse 14 is pulled from Psalm 10:7.The song talks about their enemies and men of violence. Verses 15-17 is pulled from Isaiah 59:7-8 and/or Proverbs 1:16.Isaiah is talking about the wicked, not all humans. Verse 18 is pulled from Psalm 36:1.This verse is also talking about the wicked. So the concept that no one can do good, no one is righteous is pulled out of context from centuries old songs which are written about the people's feelings in a specific time frame concerning the wicked not everyone. The songs are also not God speaking. Jesus did not present this concept. He came for the lost not the righteous. So he felt that some people were capable of good behavior. But then Paul wasn’t debating he was creating a need and then teaching a concept to satisfy that need. Paul was teaching that legalistic keeping of Torah does not save. IOW he is teaching against your meaning of absolute. Just as Jesus did. Edited by purpledawn, : Add signature Edited by purpledawn, : Correct spelling Edited by purpledawn, : Correction Edited by purpledawn, : Fixed link "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The connection was concocted by Paul. Jesus never claimed not to have sinned. If he hadn't sinned he would not have needed to be baptized by John (Mark 1). And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. ...At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. ... If no sins were committed, Jesus would not have needed a baptism of repentance.
quote:You're adding to the story. The Adam and Eve story really doesn't have anything to do with what Jesus taught about repentance. Paul taught the idea of a sinful nature and created the connection with Adam. Mankind received the knowledge of good and evil, not the nature of good and evil. The snake is just a snake. The story was a device to explain why mankind is the way it is. It was appropriate for the time. The sinful nature, original sin, conceived in sin etc., are not concepts that God or Jesus presented to mankind. They are concepts developed after the death of Jesus by Paul or later religious leaders. Giving life to Paul's personification of sin, doesn't help believers understand what Jesus taught and doesn't mean that all people have difficulty behaving correctly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You're quoting a different author. The Book of Mark does not have that statement and it's irrelevant anyway since the outcome is the same. Jesus needed the baptism of repentance. Which means he needed to repent of any sins to that point. So again, if no sins were committed or could have been accidentally committed Jesus would not have been persistent. Why do you think God was pleased with Jesus? Just because be got wet? No, because he repented. quote:I didn't say that Paul invented it, I said he taught it. Odds are Paul was teaching about one half of man's nature: the selfish half. Human nature according to Judaism is a dual nature. The selfish nature is necessary for survival. The yetzer ra is more difficult to define, because there are many different ideas about it. It is not a desire to do evil in the way we normally think of it in Western society: a desire to cause senseless harm. Rather, it is usually conceived as the selfish nature, the desire to satisfy personal needs (food, shelter, sex, etc.) without regard for the moral consequences of fulfilling those desires. Within civilization the selfish nature has to be curbed so people can live in harmony. God did not require sacrifices, only repentance. All sacrifices weren't about sin, plus the sin offering was only for unintentional sins.
Types of Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings A chatat could only be offered for unintentional sins committed through carelessness, not for intentional, malicious sins. Death was only for malicious and intentional sins. If God or Jesus felt that mankind was incapable of not intentionally harming others, then no one would have been considered righteous and yet there were many righteous people in the Bible. Jesus said he came for the lost, not the righteous. Unfortunately when people talk about sinful nature or being a prisoner of sin, they aren't really talking about survival. The need to survive is an instinct. That's why I asked cedre earlier to list what is considered a sin today. Given that idea behind the "sinful nature", in the first century the extremely poor would be more apt to "sin" than those whose survival needs are met. So in that sense, yes mankind would be guided by the need to survive. This is where the idea of mercy comes into play. The spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. In the first century a poor person might need to steal food to survive. Which is worse, stealing food to survive or stealing food when it isn't necessary to one's survival? In today's world where the laws of the land are not made by religion, what constitutes "sin"? Christianity has no laws to break.
quote: Personificationtreating an abstraction as if it were a person, endowing it with human-like qualities Romans 5:21...so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Sin and grace have been personified in this verse. They are presented as royalty. People reign. Actions can't reign.
Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Here sin is presented as a paymaster.
Romans 7:8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. ...
Again giving sin human qualities the capability to produce, seize and put to death. Which Paul obviously didn't mean literal death since he was writing.
11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
Sin portrayed as a jailer. Personification is a literary device. That's why I keep saying that sin is not a thing, it is just a name for a particular action. So sin cannot literally hold us prisoner. Edited by purpledawn, : Added text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:But does the conscience come preprogrammed. I would say no. If it did we wouldn't have to train our children in what is right and wrong. Adam and Eve didn't know what was right and wrong supposedly. Only after they had eaten from the tree with the knowledge of good and evil did they know that it was wrong to go against what God said.
Genesis 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some t her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened... We tell our children not to touch something, but they don't know that it is wrong to go against what we say until the first time they do and suffer the consequences. That is why if no consequences are suffered the child continues to disobey. A conscience doesn't come preprogrammed with the current laws.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024