The Messiness of History

elaine · 05-30-09 12:14 am

I'd probably trust the explanations offered by a Marxist over those offered by those who were not followers of Marx. Any good debater must know both sides of an argument if he wishes to be persuasive. Limiting one's knowledge to one opinion only is to place one's mind in a strait jacket. I have known, studied, and been indoctrinate in the Bible since I was born; sat at the feet of a preacher-evangelist, attended SDA schools through 12 years. So, it is not possible that I have not heard all the arguments; at least I have heard no new ones here. The fallback position for most Christians is to rely on faith and their own belief. That is perfectly O.K.; but if they want to be convincing to those who have a different perspective, they should have some answers better than have been given here.

don · 05-30-09 12:23 am

it is not possible that I have not heard all the arguments; at least I have heard no new ones here. You have revealed much by saying this, Elaine. In doing so, it seems wise not to continue offering you "old" arguments. .

pilgrim99 · 05-30-09 1:03 am

Any good debater must know both sides of an argument if he wishes to be persuasive. Limiting one's knowledge to one opinion only is to place one's mind in a strait jacket. I have lived most of my life as an unbeliever, and so I'm very familiar with the various arguments of unbelievers, especially those that are shared on this site. None of the arguments or positions held by unbelievers address the core sin issue. Orthodox Christian doctrines are relatively new to me, having only embraced them in the last 20 years. I have lived in the straight jacket of unbelief for most of my life. I'm glad to be rid of that article of clothing. Freedom is a good thing. I'm a Political Scientist by education and a technologist by over thirty years of work experience, including a good stint at the world's largest technology company. Faith in technology and politics didn't satisfy or resolve the real issues of life. The validity of faith is dependent on the object of ones faith. Do you agree? Faith in self, education, intellect, ego, knowledge, etc. always fails in my experience. Where do you stand on the doctrine of Hamartiology? Do you believe that you are a sinner? (Message edited by pilgrim99 on May 30, 2009)

elaine · 05-30-09 12:01 pm

As for the doctrine of sin, if one uses the Bible to define sin, are there degrees of sin? Are abominations the same as sin? Better, or worse? Do you avoid all the abominations described in the OT? I seriously doubt that anyone living today does so. Which indicates that you, along with every other individual has his own definition of sin. Do you agree with Christ's statement that to love one's neighbor fulfills the Law? Is love ever mentioned in the Ten Commandments? Doesn't Christ's commands supercede the OT rules? Micah defines the righteous person: To do justly and walk humbly with God. All the rest is superfluous. Even following the Golden Rule is the simplest of all.

pilgrim99 · 05-30-09 12:26 pm

I have already acknowledged that I am a sinner. Do you believe that you are a sinner?

john8verse32 · 05-30-09 1:10 pm

straight jacket of unbelief ...Devon isn't the opposite more likely? belief is what constrains one to stay within boundaries... while "unbelief" offers the possibility of openness, and the search for alternates...which itself is liberating from the "straight jacket" of specific beliefs. as a straight jacket believer in years past, I was told (and believed) that it was a sin to wade into the water on a sabbath afternoon walk deeper than my knees...as that would be way too pleasureable, and actually bordered on swimming ...which was not allowed within the parameters of the belief. that's but one example of the straight jacket of belief from which I have been liberated by setting aside blind, straight jacket belief and exploring alternative explanations for things.

elaine · 05-30-09 3:16 pm

A sinner by whose accounting? There are enough "sins" defined by various churches to put us all in a straitjacket. No, I'm not at all concerned about sins, of mine or others unless they are breaking civil or criminal laws. Sin is a religious term, and governments are not concerned with religious definitions of right or wrong. Remember the Puritans and sin? "Somewhere, someone is having fun!"

don · 05-30-09 3:42 pm

No, I'm not at all concerned about sins, of mine or others unless they are breaking civil or criminal laws. Elaine, you have identified the nature of God's Law as Love your Neighbor. Are you sure you have no concern for "legally" treating people in a hateful manner? Are there no sins in your definition for legal hostility and rudeness? Do you not consider "legal" undermining of a person's good name to be a sin? (for example) Or, how about intentionally twisting what a person says in an argument? Is that a sin in your thinking? (I am not saying you do these things. I am just wondering about these "legal" displays of hatred. Are they not sins as you understand the term?) .

pilgrim99 · 05-30-09 3:53 pm

So are you saying that you are a sinner? Just need clarification.

elaine · 05-30-09 5:01 pm

"Sin" is such a common term in many people's vocabulary, but it must be admitted, that is has various connotations, depending on one's upbringing as John mentioned. If a child is trained very early of innocent things as being "sinful" he will be retarded in his normal development. Sin is ordinarily used to indicate an adult's wrongful action toward another. And that is very different in cultures: think of the "sin" in some Middle Eastern countries, punishable by death, of a female speaking to a stranger. So "sin" is conditioned very greatly by our early training. As for "legally" treating other people, yes, it is wrong, and could be against civil or criminal law, depending on the action. However, in the usual terminology,"sin" can be a motivation (coveting) which can never be punished by any civil court, or even religious UNLESS it is acted upon, then it will be the act that is judged. Just as an accidental death by automobile is labeled "involuntary homicide" and has far less punishment than a premeditated killing, which is usually first degree murder. Even then, sin is not a legal term but religious. That is why breaking most of the Ten Commandments could never be prosecuted in a legal court here in the U.S. while only those that are also civil or criminal laws are prosecutable. Displays of hatred may, or may not be sins; if so, have we not all harbored hatred at one time or another? Only holding it in our hearts is a sin. If someone deliberately murders your son, your feelings will not be a sin, will they? Only if you take action against the murderer, is it a sin. The civil courts, thankfully, do not prosecute emotions or feelings.

pilgrim99 · 05-30-09 5:10 pm

Ok...let me ask another way. Have you personally ever sinned? In thought, word, action or inaction? Sin is not defined by humans, but by God.

elaine · 05-30-09 5:59 pm

Do you know anyone has reached perfection? This is what some Adventists teach: only when there is a perfect people will the Lord come. When is that going to happen?

elaine · 05-30-09 6:01 pm

Stupid questions elicit similar answers. What is your motive? What are you trying to prove?

pilgrim99 · 05-30-09 8:58 pm

I'm not trying to prove anything, simply want to understand whether or not you are willing to acknowledge the existence of sin. That's all.

john8verse32 · 05-30-09 10:32 pm

"sin" depends on the definition of the parameters of the belief which one chooses.... by (un)fun=die-mental Moslem belief, Elaine is probably sinning all the time...not wearing her Burqua out in public.... by Jimmy Carter's daffynishion, my mechanic sins every day, while trying to determine what day it is by reference to his Rigid Tool calendar... However, I no longer worry about sinning when wading too deeply in the water on Sabbath its all in ones daffynishion of sin....and everybody interprets their different rules differently....

elaine · 05-30-09 10:44 pm

How can one acknowledge something so ephermal and ambiguous, as John has described? The existence of "sin" in Afghanistan is not at all the same as in Las Vegas. You need to more clearly define sin as you understand it. As far as I understand "sin" no, I am not sinning. But, for some folks, just to fog a mirror makes them a sinner (original sin, anyone?).

pilgrim99 · 05-30-09 11:47 pm

Thank you both for your responses. I understand both of you much better now.

pilgrim99 · 05-31-09 12:01 am

Here is a definition of sin that I agree with:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: * Sin is any deviation from God’s perfect standards of righteousness. It includes actions, words, and thoughts. * Everybody is a sinner as a result of the sin of Adam. Nobody is righteous or good in God’s eyes. * The consequence of sin is eternal separation from God in hell. * There is a solution to the problem.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><a href="http://bible.org/page.php?page_id=3958" target=_top>The Problem of Sin</a> By: Multiple Authors

john8verse32 · 05-31-09 11:19 am

* Sin is any deviation from God’s perfect standards of righteousness. glad we've got that solved...but here's the next problem: determining what exactly is God's standard....for example, can I beat my slaves within an inch of their death as long as they survive at least three days afterward? can I sell my daughter into slavery if I get a good price? can I stone my disruptive son to death at the city gates, and will you help me? Should my women be allowed to drive? and appear in public sans burqua? or should they stay at home arguing with all my other wives? if I want my neighbors land, can I just claim God gave it to me, and kill them all except the virgins which I can "use"??? Everybody is a sinner as a result of the sin of Adam. that is Pauls position...however, Hebrew law stated than nobody should be punished for another's sin.... except those times when they were!!! such as if your great, great, great grandpappy (up to 10 generations ago) had been wounded in the gonads back in the civil war, you should not be allowed into church today!!! Nobody is righteous or good in God’s eyes. and that's why He has the right to kill whom He wants at His discression? like the millions allegedly drowned in the worldwide flood He deliberately caused...no trial, no defense, no mercy, no salvation? just kill them all, including innocent animals? and earlier? why do you spend time at a Christian site mocking Christian beliefs? not trying to be "mocking", but just listing some of them which are so outrageous may make it appear that way. the purpose? hopefully, to encourage change...to suggest that many of the old beliefs need reconsideration, modification, reinterpretation, or even elimination!!! imho, the best, maybe ONLY way to save the best of Christianity, is to divorce it from the worst of Mosesianity and its "messiness of history". (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 31, 2009)

pilgrim99 · 05-31-09 12:40 pm

John, Christianity does not need any of us to save ay of it. Gods standard is absolute perfection in thought word and action. So anything less than this standard of perfection is considered a sin. Adam was created in the image of God, God considered him to be perfect, until he sinned. Adam's offspring was created in Adam's image, after the fall. Since Adam, all have been born with the tendency to think, speak and act wrongly, this does not mean that we think speak or act wrongly 100% of the time, but that this is our natural tendency.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:When Adam had lived years he fathered a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and he named him Seth. Genesis 5:3 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> God has spelled out the penalty for sin, as such He can render judgment at any time to any who are guilty. Anything less than absolute perfection renders us guilty. no need for a trial, or defense attorneys. Remember that there is a solution o the dilemma of sin. Some accept the solution, many don't. If there were not a solution, that would be unfair, don't you think? Most works based religious systems, including those that you were apparently taught, minimize sin to lists of "do not's." Sin is much greater than any list anyone can come up with. It is only when we come to terms of our condemned status that we can begin to appreciate the solution that God provides to our sin dilemma. You might want to spend some time in the study of the doctrine of sin, from an orthodox Christian perspective.

john8verse32 · 05-31-09 6:02 pm

You might want to spend some time in the study of the doctrine of sin ok...help me with this..... I read in Deut 20:18 A father and a mother may have a stubborn and rebellious son who refuses to obey them even after he has been punished. 19 If a son is like that, his parents must drag him to the town gate, where the leaders of the town hold their meetings. 20 The parents will tell the leaders, "This son of ours is stubborn and never obeys. He spends all his time drinking and partying." 21 The men of the town will stone that son to death, because they must get rid of the evil he brought into the community. question.... would it be a sin for me to take my unruly son and have him stoned to death without his mothers permission? she and I could never agree on anything, one of the reasons for the divorce... I don't want to commit a major sin... so if I could convince her to help stone our son to death, would that be ok? I mean, I really want to follow the Lord's command, and this kid keeps backtalking... so wouldn't it be a sin to NOT stone him to death? (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 31, 2009)

don · 05-31-09 6:45 pm

would it be a sin for me to take my unruly son and have him stoned to death Article 6 of the Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession helps, IMO.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:VI. We are agreed as follows concerning the sword: The sword is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ. It punishes and puts to death the wicked, and guards and protects the good. In the Law the sword was ordained for the punishment of the wicked and for their death, and the same (sword) is (now) ordained to be used by the worldly magistrates. In the perfection of Christ, however, only the ban is used for a warning and for the excommunication of the one who has sinned, without putting the flesh to death - simply the warning and the command to sin no more. Now it will be asked by many who do not recognize (this as) the will of Christ for us, whether a Christian may or should employ the sword against the wicked for the defense and protection of the good, or for the sake of love. Our reply is unanimously as follows: Christ teaches and commands us to learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly in heart and so shall we find rest to our souls. Also Christ says to the heathenish woman who was taken in adultery, not that one should stone her according to the Law of His Father (and yet He says, As the Father has commanded me, thus I do), but in mercy and forgiveness and warning, to sin no more. Such (an attitude) we also ought to take completely according to the rule of the ban. <a href="http://www.anabaptists.org/history/schleith.html" target=_top>http://www.anabaptists.org/history/schleith.html</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Anabaptists came to view themselves fully separated from the "Sword"; even the sword of the Old Testament. The only tool used to remove the evil behavior was the ban, or disfellowship. .

john8verse32 · 05-31-09 6:52 pm

I'm really getting into studying sin, Devon...but I need more help with this: the innerrant texts claim in Deut 23:24 that: If you go into a vineyard that belongs to someone else, you are allowed to eat as many grapes as you want while you are there. But don't take any with you when you leave. 25 In the same way, if you are in a grain field that belongs to someone else, you can pick heads of grain and eat the kernels. But don't cut down the stalks of grain and take them with you. question: since grapes don't grow in my area, and I never learned to eat grain, would it be ok..ie, not a "sin", to eat apples in the local orchards at harvest time without paying..as long as Ileave the trees behind? this is of special importance, because one of the local orchards is owned by an SDA elder, and I don't want trouble with him...or to sin, or to be charged with tresspass or theft. but that should not be a problem in this South Lancaster orchard where so many of the Christians believe literally in the Old Test, right? but I guess I wouldn't want the non Christians to see me stealing apples like the Bible reccommends... they might take offense!!! so I guess I should limit my apple liberating expeditions to Christian orchards, huh? its so easy to see how an alluring, enticing Eve could have convinced Adam to join her in unholy apple theft.... <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/14/1358.jpg" alt=""> pic plagairized from the Review

john8verse32 · 05-31-09 7:05 pm

Our reply is unanimously as follows: Christ teaches and commands us to learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly in heart and so shall we find rest to our souls. Also Christ says to the heathenish woman who was taken in adultery, not that one should stone her according to the Law of His Father (and yet He says, As the Father has commanded me, thus I do), but in mercy and forgiveness and warning, to sin no more. but that goes against the Old Test command to stone the guilty to death... wow!!! could this mean that Jesus agrees with me that we should step away, maybe even run from much of the Old Test? can we escape from the straight jacket of the worst of Mosesianity and accept the best of Christianity? without prescription drugs or a massive autodafe? with the (un)fundies calling down <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/14/1361.gif" alt=""> on the reformers?

pilgrim99 · 05-31-09 8:55 pm

John, it took me the better part of a year to study and understand the Doctrine of sin. I'll post a link to a study when I get home. It's good to ask questions, but truth becomes meaningful when one becomes convinced in their own mind. I would encourage you to study the doctrine thoroughly, perhaps you'll find answers, or begin to ask different questions.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#101 05-30-09 12:14 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#102 05-30-09 12:23 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#103 05-30-09 1:03 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#104 05-30-09 12:01 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#105 05-30-09 12:26 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#106 05-30-09 1:10 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#107 05-30-09 3:16 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#108 05-30-09 3:42 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#109 05-30-09 3:53 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#110 05-30-09 5:01 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#111 05-30-09 5:10 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#112 05-30-09 5:59 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#113 05-30-09 6:01 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#114 05-30-09 8:58 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#115 05-30-09 10:32 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#116 05-30-09 10:44 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#117 05-30-09 11:47 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#118 05-31-09 12:01 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#119 05-31-09 11:19 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#120 05-31-09 12:40 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#121 05-31-09 6:02 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#122 05-31-09 6:45 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#123 05-31-09 6:52 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#124 05-31-09 7:05 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#125 05-31-09 8:55 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

Board footer