Is Man Inherently Good or Inherently Bad?

[Novum]

And Nov, you would.

Since you 'have no religion' other than that you are 'your own God', it is left up to YOU to decide what is 'right' or what is 'wrong'. This being the case, I am sure that it IS difficult for you to understand the concept.

I would like to invite you to demonstrate publicly, for this forum, exactly where and when I stated that:

1. I am "my own God", and
2. It is up to me to decide what is right or what is wrong.

Exact quotes and posts please. We're waiting.

 

[Novum]

Nothing? I thought so, Imagican.

Do me a favor, ok? Stop making up lies about me, and perhaps then we can continue a rational discussion.

 

[gingercat]

And Nov, you would.

Since you 'have no religion' other than that you are 'your own God', it is left up to YOU to decide what is 'right' or what is 'wrong'. This being the case, I am sure that it IS difficult for you to understand the concept.

I would like to invite you to demonstrate publicly, for this forum, exactly where and when I stated that:

1. I am "my own God", and
2. It is up to me to decide what is right or what is wrong.

Exact quotes and posts please. We're waiting.

Nov,

Imagican is talking about the moral laws.

Who do you rely on about what is right and wrong?

 

[Novum]

Imagican is talking about the moral laws.

What moral laws? Yours? Mine? Those that are common in the middle east? The morality commonly embraced in tribal Africa? George Bush's? Tony Blair's? The morality of the christian bible - but which interpretation?

Who do you rely on about what is right and wrong?

In no particular order: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Confucius, Mills, Bentham, Aquinas, Paine, Nietzche, and others. By considering the widest possible array of ethical theorists and ethical theories, moral pluralists like myself can arrive at well-reasoned, valid moral decisions.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Just a little reminder this topic is about: "Is Man Inherently Good or Inherently Bad?"

 

[stovebolts]

Just a little reminder this topic is about: "Is Man Inherently Good or Inherently Bad?"

Hey Noc,
Good question. I don't think we Inherit sin, I think we choose sin.

Georges, I actually agree with most of your posts.

Everyone else, This is probably the only post I'll make on this thread. I just don't have the ability to engage.

http://www.christiancourier.com/archive ... nalSin.htm

The doctrine of original sin – the notion that one is born into this world hereditarily totally depraved – is widely believed in the religious world.

For example, the Augsburg Confession of Faith (1530), Lutheranism’s creed, asserted that


“. . . all men, born according to nature, are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without confidence towards God and with concupiscence, and that this original disease or flaw is truly a sin, bringing condemnation and also eternal death to those who are not reborn through baptism and the Holy Spirit†(Article II).
This, of course, explains the practice of infant baptism as advocated by numerous sects.

Likely, the passage that is commonly appealed to in an attempt to justify the concept of original sin is Psalm 51:5.


“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.â€Â
Does this verse provide a basis for the doctrine of original sin? Assuredly, it does not. But let us carefully study the matter.


Preliminary Principles
First of all, it needs to be initially recognized that this passage is Hebrew poetry. And Hebrew poetry abounds with bold and imaginative figures of speech; it is frequently characterized by a freedom, which departs from customary forms of expression. It is, therefore, a mistake of great magnitude to extract statements from poetical literature and thus employ them as a foundation for doctrinal schemes.

This is precisely the error of the materialists (Watchtower Witnesses, Armstrongites, etc.) who dip into Old Testament poetical books, like Psalms and Job, for their doctrines of “soul-sleeping†and the “annihilation of the wicked.â€Â

Secondly, one of the primary rules of Biblical interpretation suggests that:


“The language of Scripture may be regarded as figurative, if the literal interpretation will cause one passage to contradict another†(D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics, p. 196).
There are numerous Bible verses, in plain, literal language, that affirm the innocency of infants, and Psalm 51:5 must not be arrayed against these. Consider the following:


Scripture plainly teaches that sin is not inherited. “. . . the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father . . .†(Ezek. 18:20); every person is responsible for his own conduct (Rom. 14:12).

Human sinfulness commences in that period of one’s life that is characterized as “youth†(Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:25).

A child must reach a certain level of maturity before be is able to choose between evil and good (Isa. 7:15, 16).

The qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (Matt. 18:3; 19:14), and for those already in the church (1 Cor. 14:2O). Surely the Lord was not suggesting that we emulate little, totally corrupt sinners!

The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; rather, it is given by God (Eccl. 12:7; Heb. 12:9). Hence, at birth it must be as pure as the source from whence it comes.
Clearly, babies are not born in sin.


Psalm 51:5 Analyzed
Having shown what Psalm 51: 5 cannot mean, we now turn to some possible views of the passage that do not violate portions of Scripture found elsewhere.


Since Psalm 51 is one of David’s penitent psalms revealing the anguish resulting from his adulterous conduct with Bathsheba, some have felt that verse 5 contains words that are figuratively put into the mouth of the child conceived by that illicit union (2 Sam. 11:5), thus acknowledging the sinfulness of that relationship. The sinfulness is therefore attributed to the parent and not the child.
T. W. Brents commented:


“Whatever may be the meaning of this passage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. ‘In sin did my mother conceive me:’ that is, she acted wickedly when I was conceived. Were the wife to say, ‘In drunkenness my husband beat me,’or the child that ‘in anger my father whipped me,’ surely no one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child†(The Gospel Plan of Salvation, pp. 133, 134).

Others have suggested that David alludes to an incident in his ancestral lineage, an adulterous affair (Gen. 38), whereby he was considered ceremonially defiled because he was of the 10th generation of that unlawful intercourse (Deut. 23:2). This is probably a rather remote possibility.

Most likely, however, Psalm 51:5 merely refers to the fact that David was born into a sinful environment. We are all conceived in, and brought forth into, a sinful world. But we do not actually sin until we arrive at a stage of spiritual responsibility.
Perhaps David also, by the use of dramatic language, alludes to the fact that sin had characterized his whole life, relatively speaking.

In a similarly poetic section, for example, Job, in denying that he had neglected his benevolent responsibilities, affirmed that he had cared for the orphan and the widow from his mother’s womb! Surely, no one believes that on day one of Job’s existence that he was out ministering to the needy! In fact, the Hebrew parallelism of this verse (Job 31:18), clearly indicates that the word “womb†is used in the sense of “youth.â€Â


A Concluding Problem
Those who employ Psalm 51:5 to buttress the doctrine that sin is inherited from one’s mother are faced with a serious problem. Jesus was both conceived by and brought forth from a human mother (Lk. 1:31). If original sin is inherited from one’s mother, Christ had it. If, however, someone should suggest that depravity is received only from the father, Psalm 51:5 cannot be used to prove it, for it mentions only the mother!

The truth of the matter is, the doctrine of original sin is not Biblical. It had its origin in the writings of the so-called “church athers†in the post-apostolic era. Such men as Tertullian (160-220) and Cyprian (200-258) first formulated the doctrine and it was later popularized by Augustine and John Calvin.

Those who accept the plain testimony of the sacred Scriptures will reject this error.

 

[Imagican]

And Nov, you would.

Since you 'have no religion' other than that you are 'your own God', it is left up to YOU to decide what is 'right' or what is 'wrong'. This being the case, I am sure that it IS difficult for you to understand the concept.

I would like to invite you to demonstrate publicly, for this forum, exactly where and when I stated that:

1. I am "my own God", and
2. It is up to me to decide what is right or what is wrong.

Exact quotes and posts please. We're waiting.

I'm sorry Nov, I ignored you NOT on purpose. Been pre occupied with other threads and personal matters.

By rejecting God you set 'yourself' up to be 'your own God'. Now, I realize that this is foreign 'understanding' to you. I regret that you are unable to grasp the concept.

If there is NO higher authority than 'yourself' to decide 'what is right and what is wrong' what then is able to inform one of their obligations towards their fellow man? All that you have to rely on under these circumstances are yourself and others. Since you reject God as the ultimate authority, there is NOTHING left BUT man.

 

[thessalonian]

Hey Noc,
Good question. I don't think we Inherit sin, I think we choose sin.

'
So we are pure and perfect people up to a point and then we sin and we are no longer pure and perfect? I honestly think that somone who answers this way and then later says children don't sin until they reach the age of reason (something that is nowhere in scripture) they were not paying attention along the way. My four year old hits his sister, he crys when I tell him know and that he can't have his own way. My two year old calls us dumby. It's kind of cute in some sense because she doesn't know all of the ins and outs of what she is doing but she needs discipline before it becomes a natural habbit. Yet there is a natural way in which she does this. Some of it is learned but they show the tendancy toward sin long before the day when they are accountable for it. Sin is inhereted. It cannot be any other way from my observations of children (I have 8).


The explanation for Psalm 51 is weak at best. Let's find a way to remove the clear understanding of the passage. David really doesn't mean it. He's just exaggerating. The explanation is handwaving and personal opinion and the doctrine, has far more evidence for the doctrine than Psalm 51 (i.e. it is not the basis as the author states).

As for the romans and ez passage, Original Sin is not about being responsible for another's sin. It is about the corruption of our human natures. Sin causes disorder. The arguement fails when we see the suffering of a family who's father is an alcoholic. Do the children and wife suffer the effects of the alcoholism? Most definitely so. It is not the same, saying that we are not respoinsible for the sin of the father and yet on the other hand suffering the effects of the sin. The scriptures do tell us that those who do wrong will cause sin in their children for 4 generations, while those who do good will cause good in their children for 10 generations. If you need a quote I will look it up. What we do most definitely does effect our children. Some of this may be learned but there is also evidence for instance that children of alcoholics may have some genetic predisposition toward alcoholism. I see no reason that satan who practices biology in causing sickness also cannot practice genetics.

More later on this topic.

 

[thessalonian]

"

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin,

and so death spread to all men because all men sinned . . .

Children have sinned? They have the sin nature so death reignes in them as well. There actions at a very young age as I said before indicate that they have a sin, corrupted nature, effected by the sin of adam. They experience death.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ" (1 Cor. 15:21-23).

 

[thessalonian]

Just a little reminder this topic is about: "Is Man Inherently Good or Inherently Bad?"

Dichotomous thinking does not work. Man was made good by God. Through sin what was good has been corrupted. Not totally so, but corrupted. Man is still capable of good. He has God's laws written on his heart (romans 2:14-16) such that he knows right from wrong and can avoid sin. Every culture believe the golden rule and has laws that are somewhat in accord with the 10 commandments. Murder is a crime in all nations. Parents are respected in pagan countries, among hindus and Moslems. Marriage is worldwide and people tend to (though not by any means always) have some respect for the marriage between a man and a woman, avoiding relationships. Theft is illegal even in countries where they are not Christian or Jewish. All of this shows that man is governed somewhat by God's laws. Yet the amount of sin in the world does show corruption of our natures.

 

[Imagican]

I agree with Thess. We have inherited a 'sinful' NATURE from our 'natural' parents. We Do have the ability to become 'sons of God', but, we must FIRST accept the ultimate sacrifice that has been offered.

Everything in the entire Bible leads us up to this conclusion: Man has 'inherited a sinful nature' and therefore MUST be cleansed by 're-birth'.

Otherwise the Word becomes null and to NO effect. And I choose to believe: 'Let every man be called a liar........................' For this is my understanding of 'our' nature and as proof, I have my life's experiences as a guide.

Yes, much of our sinful 'lives' is totally a matter of choice. But, that we WILL choose sin is inherent in our nature. Otherwise Christ would NOT have need die for ALL MEN.

 

[Georges]

Just a little reminder this topic is about: "Is Man Inherently Good or Inherently Bad?"

Hey Noc,
Good question. I don't think we Inherit sin, I think we choose sin.

Georges, I actually agree with most of your posts.

Everyone else, This is probably the only post I'll make on this thread. I just don't have the ability to engage.

http://www.christiancourier.com/archive ... nalSin.htm

The doctrine of original sin – the notion that one is born into this world hereditarily totally depraved – is widely believed in the religious world.

For example, the Augsburg Confession of Faith (1530), Lutheranism’s creed, asserted that


“. . . all men, born according to nature, are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without confidence towards God and with concupiscence, and that this original disease or flaw is truly a sin, bringing condemnation and also eternal death to those who are not reborn through baptism and the Holy Spirit†(Article II).
This, of course, explains the practice of infant baptism as advocated by numerous sects.

Likely, the passage that is commonly appealed to in an attempt to justify the concept of original sin is Psalm 51:5.


“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.â€Â
Does this verse provide a basis for the doctrine of original sin? Assuredly, it does not. But let us carefully study the matter.


Preliminary Principles
First of all, it needs to be initially recognized that this passage is Hebrew poetry. And Hebrew poetry abounds with bold and imaginative figures of speech; it is frequently characterized by a freedom, which departs from customary forms of expression. It is, therefore, a mistake of great magnitude to extract statements from poetical literature and thus employ them as a foundation for doctrinal schemes.

This is precisely the error of the materialists (Watchtower Witnesses, Armstrongites, etc.) who dip into Old Testament poetical books, like Psalms and Job, for their doctrines of “soul-sleeping†and the “annihilation of the wicked.â€Â

Secondly, one of the primary rules of Biblical interpretation suggests that:


“The language of Scripture may be regarded as figurative, if the literal interpretation will cause one passage to contradict another†(D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics, p. 196).
There are numerous Bible verses, in plain, literal language, that affirm the innocency of infants, and Psalm 51:5 must not be arrayed against these. Consider the following:


Scripture plainly teaches that sin is not inherited. “. . . the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father . . .†(Ezek. 18:20); every person is responsible for his own conduct (Rom. 14:12).

Human sinfulness commences in that period of one’s life that is characterized as “youth†(Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:25).

A child must reach a certain level of maturity before be is able to choose between evil and good (Isa. 7:15, 16).

The qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (Matt. 18:3; 19:14), and for those already in the church (1 Cor. 14:2O). Surely the Lord was not suggesting that we emulate little, totally corrupt sinners!

The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; rather, it is given by God (Eccl. 12:7; Heb. 12:9). Hence, at birth it must be as pure as the source from whence it comes.
Clearly, babies are not born in sin.


Psalm 51:5 Analyzed
Having shown what Psalm 51: 5 cannot mean, we now turn to some possible views of the passage that do not violate portions of Scripture found elsewhere.


Since Psalm 51 is one of David’s penitent psalms revealing the anguish resulting from his adulterous conduct with Bathsheba, some have felt that verse 5 contains words that are figuratively put into the mouth of the child conceived by that illicit union (2 Sam. 11:5), thus acknowledging the sinfulness of that relationship. The sinfulness is therefore attributed to the parent and not the child.
T. W. Brents commented:


“Whatever may be the meaning of this passage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. ‘In sin did my mother conceive me:’ that is, she acted wickedly when I was conceived. Were the wife to say, ‘In drunkenness my husband beat me,’or the child that ‘in anger my father whipped me,’ surely no one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child†(The Gospel Plan of Salvation, pp. 133, 134).

Others have suggested that David alludes to an incident in his ancestral lineage, an adulterous affair (Gen. 38), whereby he was considered ceremonially defiled because he was of the 10th generation of that unlawful intercourse (Deut. 23:2). This is probably a rather remote possibility.

Most likely, however, Psalm 51:5 merely refers to the fact that David was born into a sinful environment. We are all conceived in, and brought forth into, a sinful world. But we do not actually sin until we arrive at a stage of spiritual responsibility.
Perhaps David also, by the use of dramatic language, alludes to the fact that sin had characterized his whole life, relatively speaking.

In a similarly poetic section, for example, Job, in denying that he had neglected his benevolent responsibilities, affirmed that he had cared for the orphan and the widow from his mother’s womb! Surely, no one believes that on day one of Job’s existence that he was out ministering to the needy! In fact, the Hebrew parallelism of this verse (Job 31:18), clearly indicates that the word “womb†is used in the sense of “youth.â€Â


A Concluding Problem
Those who employ Psalm 51:5 to buttress the doctrine that sin is inherited from one’s mother are faced with a serious problem. Jesus was both conceived by and brought forth from a human mother (Lk. 1:31). If original sin is inherited from one’s mother, Christ had it. If, however, someone should suggest that depravity is received only from the father, Psalm 51:5 cannot be used to prove it, for it mentions only the mother!

The truth of the matter is, the doctrine of original sin is not Biblical. It had its origin in the writings of the so-called “church fathers†in the post-apostolic era. Such men as Tertullian (160-220) and Cyprian (200-258) first formulated the doctrine and it was later popularized by Augustine and John Calvin.

Those who accept the plain testimony of the sacred Scriptures will reject this error.

Great post...thanks for the Ezekiel scripture....

others I'd like to add....

Num 14:18 The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation].

In relation, the sins of the fathers is not transefered (inherent) to the children, but the results of the sins of the "unrepentent" fathers plague the children for generations...This suggests that sins are learned not inherited.

The whole of Eze 18 deals with the sins of the fathers and sons and responsiblity....no mention of children...only those old enough to know right from wrong.....as in "law cogniscience (?)". Therefore, if there is no mention of children in this passage, they must not have considered children as being sinful (or responsible) as an inherent nature.

Actually, getting down to brass tacks...The world as being "inherently evil" is a gnostic belief.

 

[stovebolts]

Otherwise the Word becomes null and to NO effect. And I choose to believe: 'Let every man be called a liar........................' For this is my understanding of 'our' nature and as proof, I have my life's experiences as a guide.

So, your saying that sin is your guide?? :o

Yes, much of our sinful 'lives' is totally a matter of choice. But, that we WILL choose sin is inherent in our nature. Otherwise Christ would NOT have need die for ALL MEN.

Much of?? How about a part of? Inherit means that we didn't have a choice, it was passed down to us by no choice of our own. You walk a slippery slope, be carefull.

Actually, getting down to brass tacks...The world as being "inherently evil" is a gnostic belief.

I Absolutly agree George! Evil flesh, evil world... God couldn't have had anything to do with that ehh?? :wink:

 

[Novum]

I'm sorry Nov, I ignored you NOT on purpose. Been pre occupied with other threads and personal matters.

No worries.

By rejecting God you set 'yourself' up to be 'your own God'. Now, I realize that this is foreign 'understanding' to you. I regret that you are unable to grasp the concept.

You have this odd habit of putting certain words in single quotes. Do 'yourself' and 'understanding', as you write them, mean something different than the common definitions of yourself and understanding, respectively?

If there is NO higher authority than 'yourself' to decide 'what is right and what is wrong' what then is able to inform one of their obligations towards their fellow man?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I myself am my highest authority; you couldn't be more wrong. Mankind as a whole can, should, and does serve as the ultimate authority by whom all our actions will be judged.

All that you have to rely on under these circumstances are yourself and others.

Yup. What's the problem?

Since you reject God as the ultimate authority, there is NOTHING left BUT man.

Yup. Again, what's the problem?

 

[Imagican]

Nov,

Let me first start with an explanation that I believe you already have a firm grasp of. But, just to be clear on where we each stand:

I speak with words of authority for I believe that they are 'truth' You obviously have the 'same' perception of your beliefs. So long as we both unferstand this we can debate without it becoming 'personal'. Agreed? I hope so and believe that you are just such an individual that is able to understand this. I am NOT TELLING you to accept what I offer. I am simply offering WHAT I believe to be 'true'. OK, on with my response......

I'm sorry Nov, I ignored you NOT on purpose. Been pre occupied with other threads and personal matters.

No worries.

By rejecting God you set 'yourself' up to be 'your own God'. Now, I realize that this is foreign 'understanding' to you. I regret that you are unable to grasp the concept.

You have this odd habit of putting certain words in single quotes. Do 'yourself' and 'understanding', as you write them, mean something different than the common definitions of yourself and understanding, respectively?

Yes, odd indeed. I use this method to emphasize certain words in order to 'better' make my points. I know that this is NOT the way that I was 'taught' to do it in my comp classes, but, I believe that it 'usually' serves it's purpose. Not that I have a 'differnt' definition for these words, but, you will note that the words that I so emphasize DO have a commonality to thier perception, (or misconception depending on one's point of view). Please try and 'look over it' if you find it anoying or distracting. Bare with me my friend for there is MUCH wisdom to offered. Not speaking of 'my' wisdom but that contained within the words that are offered. They ARE NOT MINE and I take NO credit for them. My only wish is that one day I too could learn to understand them COMPLETELY.

[quote:096a2]If there is NO higher authority than 'yourself' to decide 'what is right and what is wrong' what then is able to inform one of their obligations towards their fellow man?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I myself am my highest authority; you couldn't be more wrong. Mankind as a whole can, should, and does serve as the ultimate authority by whom all our actions will be judged.

I say this NOT to condemn for that is NOT why I am here. I say this from 'my' understanding and know no other. I can certainly listen to that offered by others, but I can only understand what I am capable of, or inspired to understand.

I believe that there is ONLY one authority on human behavior. There are many diciplines taught to men, by men, but only ONE GOD and the Creator of man. Therefore there is NO understanding of 'true' human behavior without His guidance. We can label and name things, but to understand them can ONLY come from the Father.

I don't dispute that you believe differently; only that your understanding is flawed in that you refuse to open your heart to what I offer. Doesn't make you a 'bad guy' Nov, just one that has bought into the philosophy of the mind instead of the understanding of the heart which can ONLY be offered by God.

All that you have to rely on under these circumstances are yourself and others.

Yup. What's the problem?

Not a problem for me when others choose to rely on the understanding of man rather the inspired offerings of God. That is strictly up the individual and, as you have plainly noted, varies even then from individual to individual when it comes to those that do profess a belief in the Father.

But, let me offer this. Even with all the history that we now have to 'fall back on', we still seem to have an inherent nature to KNOW what is right, but mostly CHOOSE what is wrong. Let me elaborate:

Even after we mentally realize that what is best for US, as individuals, we will still choose to 'go against this' for our own 'instant' gratification, rather than help to build EACH up to the 'same' position so that we can ALL share a common benefit. That is what we KNOW that we should, yet choose to do it differently. (I speak of US or ALL for I TOO an ONE with the flesh as I attempt to allow the Spirit transform me into ONE with God. I am NO better NO worse than Ted Budy. I have simply found something to alter my 'state' that 'he' Never did. For it is NOT I that CHOOSES to do that which Right, it is through the Spirit that I am altered in order to conform to the ULTIMATE right.

So, without this understanding, man will inherently do that which is unseemly, that which is contrary to his benefit and that which will ultimately destroy rather than that which offers honor to both the Creator AND HIMSELF.

Since you reject God as the ultimate authority, there is NOTHING left BUT man.

Yup. Again, what's the problem?[/quote:096a2]

As stated above. Regardless of the wisdom that we 'think' we possess, it is but garbage to 'the true wisdom that exists through the Spirit of God.

Nov,

Our first contact was not so good. I resented it and can't help but feel the way I feel. I perceived that your position was to attempt to subvert those that had chosen 'another' way rather than their own. I was utterly dumbfounded that one might have the audacity to join a 'Christian' forum and then do so ONLY as an attempt to 'subvert' those that were too weak to resist. I hope that I was wrong and that you are here 'looking' for what 'may be the truth'. Either way, always understand my friend that there is NOTHING that goes un-noticed. Let this guide at least 'part' of your behavior and it will ONLY be to your benefit rather than destruction. For hate is the destroyer of EVERYTHING. When we 'bow down' to it, it has a tendency to overcome us completely in time.

God Bless you brother and may the truth of Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God open your heart to the peace and love of our Father. Not a greater gift can one receive than the LOVE OF GOD.

MEC

 

[Novum]

Nov,

Let me first start with an explanation that I believe you already have a firm grasp of. But, just to be clear on where we each stand:

I speak with words of authority for I believe that they are 'truth' You obviously have the 'same' perception of your beliefs. So long as we both unferstand this we can debate without it becoming 'personal'. Agreed? I hope so and believe that you are just such an individual that is able to understand this. I am NOT TELLING you to accept what I offer.

Certainly. Some members of this forum have said some objectively nasty things to me; but I've never taken anything said to me personally. Religion is, by its nature, a touchy, sensitive subject that most people feel fairly strongly about one way or another.

I am simply offering WHAT I believe to be 'true'.

I think you and I (and hopefully everyone else here too) are both doing this.

Yes, odd indeed. I use this method to emphasize certain words in order to 'better' make my points. I know that this is NOT the way that I was 'taught' to do it in my comp classes, but, I believe that it 'usually' serves it's purpose. Not that I have a 'differnt' definition for these words, but, you will note that the words that I so emphasize DO have a commonality to thier perception, (or misconception depending on one's point of view). Please try and 'look over it' if you find it anoying or distracting. Bare with me my friend for there is MUCH wisdom to offered. Not speaking of 'my' wisdom but that contained within the words that are offered. They ARE NOT MINE and I take NO credit for them. My only wish is that one day I too could learn to understand them COMPLETELY.

It's been my experience that placing quotes around words tends to either indicate sarcasm or suggest that the writer is using an alternate definition of the word; this is why I asked you what you mean when you use quotes. Glad to have things cleared up.

[quote:8f4aa]I'm not sure where you got the idea that I myself am my highest authority; you couldn't be more wrong. Mankind as a whole can, should, and does serve as the ultimate authority by whom all our actions will be judged.

I believe that there is ONLY one authority on human behavior. There are many diciplines taught to men, by men, but only ONE GOD and the Creator of man. Therefore there is NO understanding of 'true' human behavior without His guidance. We can label and name things, but to understand them can ONLY come from the Father.[/quote:8f4aa]

Emphasis mine. This is a personal belief that you hold and I do not. I'm sure you'll understand when I say that I cannot accept your belief for myself without adequate evidence.

I don't dispute that you believe differently; only that your understanding is flawed in that you refuse to open your heart to what I offer. Doesn't make you a 'bad guy' Nov, just one that has bought into the philosophy of the mind instead of the understanding of the heart which can ONLY be offered by God.

Let's say I'm a member of the Flat Earth Society (yes, they still exist; and yes, they really do believe what the name suggests). I don't dispute that you believe differently; only that your understanding is flawed in that you refuse to open your heart to what I offer (Flat-Earth theory).

My issue here is that you are projecting your beliefs onto me. I cannot argue with your beliefs because you have the right to believe what you will. However, I can and do take issue with your support - or, from my perspective, the lack thereof - for them.

Let's even take it a step farther - would I be correct when I say that your "heart" is closed to the possibility of no gods existing?

Not a problem for me when others choose to rely on the understanding of man rather the inspired offerings of God. That is strictly up the individual and, as you have plainly noted, varies even then from individual to individual when it comes to those that do profess a belief in the Father.

But, let me offer this. Even with all the history that we now have to 'fall back on', we still seem to have an inherent nature to KNOW what is right, but mostly CHOOSE what is wrong. Let me elaborate:

Even after we mentally realize that what is best for US, as individuals, we will still choose to 'go against this' for our own 'instant' gratification, rather than help to build EACH up to the 'same' position so that we can ALL share a common benefit. That is what we KNOW that we should, yet choose to do it differently. (I speak of US or ALL for I TOO an ONE with the flesh as I attempt to allow the Spirit transform me into ONE with God. I am NO better NO worse than Ted Budy. I have simply found something to alter my 'state' that 'he' Never did. For it is NOT I that CHOOSES to do that which Right, it is through the Spirit that I am altered in order to conform to the ULTIMATE right.

No.

What you're saying - that man always chooses instant gratification over a common benefit - is patently untrue. Does it occur sometimes for most everyone? Yes. But is it the rule? No. Otherwise, charitable organizations, foundations to help the poor, and - heck - empathy would not exist.

That is not to say that we can't do better in terms of achieving common benefits for mankind. But your pessimistic view - that we are so beyond help - is something that a lifetime of experience tells me is wrong.

So, without this understanding, man will inherently do that which is unseemly, that which is contrary to his benefit and that which will ultimately destroy rather than that which offers honor to both the Creator AND HIMSELF.

Heck, we can even ignore all of my subjective experience. Every day, men and women everywhere do both good and evil; some lead, on the whole, incredibly good and evil lives. Most of these people are not Christian. I cannot understand how your argument could possibly be true.

As stated above. Regardless of the wisdom that we 'think' we possess, it is but garbage to 'the true wisdom that exists through the Spirit of God.

And yet it all comes down to this: how do you know that your "true wisdom" is, in fact, true?

Because you feel it is true? Not good enough - Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and others say the exact same thing.
Because it has been your experience that it is true? Not good enough - Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and others say the exact same thing.
Because your bible states that it is true? Not good enough - Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and others say the exact same thing about their respective holy books.

Our first contact was not so good. I resented it and can't help but feel the way I feel. I perceived that your position was to attempt to subvert those that had chosen 'another' way rather than their own. I was utterly dumbfounded that one might have the audacity to join a 'Christian' forum and then do so ONLY as an attempt to 'subvert' those that were too weak to resist. I hope that I was wrong and that you are here 'looking' for what 'may be the truth'.

I believe I was - and am - very clear about my reasons for being on this forum. I have stated them on multiple occasions in multiple threads. They did not involve "subversion" or anything of the sort.

Either way, always understand my friend that there is NOTHING that goes un-noticed. Let this guide at least 'part' of your behavior and it will ONLY be to your benefit rather than destruction. For hate is the destroyer of EVERYTHING. When we 'bow down' to it, it has a tendency to overcome us completely in time.

Are you implying that I "hate" Christians? You are sorely mistaken. I do not hate Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or any other religious, cultural, or racial group. However, I have directly experienced hate, disrespect, and distrust from some of these groups merely because I am an atheist. I do not desire to see religion ended - the world would probably fall into anarchy if it was - but I do desire to be treated with respect. I think most atheists would say the same.

 

[mutzrein]

I believe Christendom is confused over the issue of ‘sin’. And the confusion is between an act which is defined as sin (by a law) and the state of sin into which man is born.

Scripture tells us that man is dead in trespasses & sin. And this is the result of Adam’s sin. We are all born this way. We are born of the flesh, ‘dead’ or in a ‘state of sin’. So our birthright is to perish.

An act of sin of course is defined by the law and although we are all born in the ‘state’ of sin, man is not born stealing and cussing from the womb. He is just born of the flesh with a propensity to fulfil whatever his flesh desires.

Now we know there is only one way that man can escape the state of sin that he is born into. And that is to be born of the Spirit, because by this he passes from death to life.

But even when man is born again he has not escaped the body of flesh that he was born with and he is therefore still subject to the flesh. The spirit and the flesh are at war and until man is able ‘walk in the spirit’ in order that he may 'die to the flesh' he will still ‘sin’.

Of course, the man who is not born of the Spirit can only live by the flesh and he will do whatever his flesh leads him to do.

 

[Novum]

Of course, the man who is not born of the Spirit can only live by the flesh and he will do whatever his flesh leads him to do.

You seem to be implying that nonchristians cannot be moral or cannot contain their desires. If this is what you are implying... you are incorrect.

 

[mutzrein]

Of course, the man who is not born of the Spirit can only live by the flesh and he will do whatever his flesh leads him to do.

You seem to be implying that nonchristians cannot be moral or cannot contain their desires. If this is what you are implying... you are incorrect.

Sorry Novum - that implication was not intended. Of course many in Christendom would see it that way but I don't. I know many 'non-christians' whose character is upright and so are their actions wheras I know many who claim to be Christians but whose actions in my estimation do not measure up.

 

[mutzrein]

Novum - if I may add something. My term 'subject to the flesh' I suppose gives rise to negative connotations. The flesh in christian terms is the enemy of the Spirit so it is always going to be seen in a negative light. But it is only the enemy by virtue of there being an adversary. And if there is no adversary I guess folks just do what comes naturally. So, if your nature is to do good then you are fulfilling whatever your flesh leads you to do.