Hhhhmmmmm....
Sin cannot be neutral
because God wouldn't care to judge your neutral actions
(like drinking water when you're thirsty).
RightO. Breathing drinking etc...
Thus, Sin has to be BAD or IMMORAL or EVIL...
because God judges disfavorably against the one who sins.
--------->>>>>>Well... the sin is not bad BECAUSE God judges it as bad...or judges the person who sins as bad----------->>>> it is bad because it is bad, not because God has deigned it or created it as such. A is A. Bad is bad. Evil is not evil SUBJECTIVELY or randomly because GOD sat back, picked out random "EVIL" deeds to judge, right? For ex, from the beginning the potentiality for evil existed in that the angels had the OPTION the choice and free will to reject GOd. In rejecting him they choose themselves over him. therein lies the creation of the "evil." It is a state of contradiction to the truth, the truth that God is God, man is man, angel is angel, not angel is God or man is God. its all about simply WHAT IS. The angel we deem Lucifer, not really his name, rejected WHAT IS. this is what evil is at heart.
Thus, choosing to do the bad or the evil,
is committing a sin.
Yeh...makes sense teh me
However, in the case of the doctrine of the "Original Sin",
the belief is that Original Sin exists from the moment a human is born on this earth.
Original sin would exist in the person from the moment in which united soul and body as person comes to be, whenever that moment is, most definetely pre-birth. NOW, it is not a "formal sin." That is, it is not a sin willed or chosen, it is not one which leaves one with no option but be damned as sin was never personally chosen. "Original Sin" (Augustine really needs a better term for this i think, lol) It is a condition of being born into a state, as in a state of disinheritance, as the disinherited son of a king has sons, whose offspring suffer similar pains.
In other words, Humans are inherently stained with sin as a part of their very NATURE.
The idea of a stain is Augustinian and Western... not all theology uses the imagery of the "stain on the soul" so maybe if you study Eastern theology it will help you... Second, human nature is born with a tendency or inclination towards those things we recognize as bad, but is NOT INHERENTLY EVIL. You see the difference.
Sin, as we just understood it, is NOT good, NOR NEUTRAL, but clearly and decidedly BAD. Thus, a baby is BORN with characteristics that are said to be inherent in this new-born infant that are considered decidedly BAD, i.e. of sin.
Well perhaps in one sense. It is somewhat like a tendency towards a personality disorder. theses things run in families, as does tendencies to alcoholism, bi-polar disorder etc. These things are passed on to the next generation who suffers not only the bodily effect of perhaps similar symptoms by genetic tendency, but the wounds of emotional hurt etc. it is not the fault of the one who suffers this effect, but it is also not a sure determined that they will as a result also become an alcoholic or bi-polar. yet the tendency is always there to be fought and dealt with for life. we can't escape our parents or our upbringing. (in this case first parent)
The doctrine allows for no possibility of acting towards being sinful, nor any possibility of beginning with a clean-slate. The doctrine accepts as an axiom that Humans are sinful creatures, unable to escape their depraved nature.
You seem to have a Protestant/calvinist/lutheran-influenced understanding of human nature. What exactly do you mean when yeh say depraved?
Their only salvation is to reduce themselves to dust in their pursuit of worshipping and seeking the mercy of their divine, loving, God.
In a way yes, i a way no.
because God wouldn't care to judge your neutral actions
(like drinking water when you're thirsty).
RightO. Breathing drinking etc...
Thus, Sin has to be BAD or IMMORAL or EVIL...
because God judges disfavorably against the one who sins.
--------->>>>>>Well... the sin is not bad BECAUSE God judges it as bad...or judges the person who sins as bad----------->>>> it is bad because it is bad, not because God has deigned it or created it as such. A is A. Bad is bad. Evil is not evil SUBJECTIVELY or randomly because GOD sat back, picked out random "EVIL" deeds to judge, right? For ex, from the beginning the potentiality for evil existed in that the angels had the OPTION the choice and free will to reject GOd. In rejecting him they choose themselves over him. therein lies the creation of the "evil." It is a state of contradiction to the truth, the truth that God is God, man is man, angel is angel, not angel is God or man is God. its all about simply WHAT IS. The angel we deem Lucifer, not really his name, rejected WHAT IS. this is what evil is at heart.
Thus, choosing to do the bad or the evil,
is committing a sin.
Yeh...makes sense teh me
However, in the case of the doctrine of the "Original Sin",
the belief is that Original Sin exists from the moment a human is born on this earth.
Original sin would exist in the person from the moment in which united soul and body as person comes to be, whenever that moment is, most definetely pre-birth. NOW, it is not a "formal sin." That is, it is not a sin willed or chosen, it is not one which leaves one with no option but be damned as sin was never personally chosen. "Original Sin" (Augustine really needs a better term for this i think, lol) It is a condition of being born into a state, as in a state of disinheritance, as the disinherited son of a king has sons, whose offspring suffer similar pains.
In other words, Humans are inherently stained with sin as a part of their very NATURE.
The idea of a stain is Augustinian and Western... not all theology uses the imagery of the "stain on the soul" so maybe if you study Eastern theology it will help you... Second, human nature is born with a tendency or inclination towards those things we recognize as bad, but is NOT INHERENTLY EVIL. You see the difference.
Sin, as we just understood it, is NOT good, NOR NEUTRAL, but clearly and decidedly BAD. Thus, a baby is BORN with characteristics that are said to be inherent in this new-born infant that are considered decidedly BAD, i.e. of sin.
Well perhaps in one sense. It is somewhat like a tendency towards a personality disorder. theses things run in families, as does tendencies to alcoholism, bi-polar disorder etc. These things are passed on to the next generation who suffers not only the bodily effect of perhaps similar symptoms by genetic tendency, but the wounds of emotional hurt etc. it is not the fault of the one who suffers this effect, but it is also not a sure determined that they will as a result also become an alcoholic or bi-polar. yet the tendency is always there to be fought and dealt with for life. we can't escape our parents or our upbringing. (in this case first parent)
The doctrine allows for no possibility of acting towards being sinful, nor any possibility of beginning with a clean-slate. The doctrine accepts as an axiom that Humans are sinful creatures, unable to escape their depraved nature.
You seem to have a Protestant/calvinist/lutheran-influenced understanding of human nature. What exactly do you mean when yeh say depraved?
Their only salvation is to reduce themselves to dust in their pursuit of worshipping and seeking the mercy of their divine, loving, God.
In a way yes, i a way no.
posted by Velvet at 4:09 AM
3 Comments:
yes drinking water would be good, but not in a not sinful vs. sinful, as in, its not a sin to NOT drink (unless you have another evil intent attached, etc etc)
what i mean is
its neutral in the sense of
you do not deliberate about whether ot not you are offending God by driniking water
this goes back to that ongoing debate about ARE there any neeutral actions....still undecided.. i think there must be some...
Post a Comment
<< Home