sin and forgiveness

decides2dream · November 2008

catefrances wrote:

im speaking hypothetically. its not a personal 'i' i speak of.

well i got THAT from your very first post.

however, even that hypothetical *I*...one would have to care to worry. and if they truly cared, they would go and get baptised. without belief, it's really pointless, no? even hypothetically. sure, can be interesting discussion...but beyond that, talking the 'practicalities' of the faith would require belief and desire for compliance of said beliefs. that was my only 'point'....and beyond that, god forgives all if all are truly repentant, or so it's said....so perhaps even that original sin too.

on that note...time to dream!

iamica · November 2008

Original sin is the sinful human nature that came about from the Fall of mankind after Adam and Eve sinned. It is the separation of humanity from God. As a result, everyone sins.
Jesus' death and resurrection is the only way that God could make final, permanent atonement for anyone who believes in Jesus and makes him their Lord and Savior. It's like the sacrificial lambs that used to be slaughtered...a perfect, innocent being had to die so that everyone else's relationship with God could be restored. God sent his own son to do it.
Baptism does not wash away sin. Baptism, especially in the early Church, was an outward sign of repentance and the decision to accept Christ. Baptism does not guarantee salvation, it is supposed to be merely a symbol of a conscious decision that's already been made by the person being baptized.

Anon · November 2008

iamica wrote:

Baptism does not guarantee salvation, it is supposed to be merely a symbol of a conscious decision that's already been made by the person being baptized.

Babies can't make conscious decisions though...

iamica · November 2008

That's why baptism wasn't really meant to be done to infants. A lot of people think that if their baby is baptized, it means they'll go to heaven no matter what, but that's not what baptism means. It's supposed to be a symbol of a commitment to Christ made by the person being baptized. That's why a lot of churches don't do infant baptism; they do "baby dedications" instead where the parents commit to teaching their kids about God, and then the kid decides whether or not to get baptized when they're older.

OutOfBreath · November 2008

iamica wrote:

It's like the sacrificial lambs that used to be slaughtered...a perfect, innocent being had to die so that everyone else's relationship with God could be restored.

I dont see how that even makes sense. If we sinners kill something perfect and say "here's to you, God", then everything is allright? then we should all go kill innocent children, only remember to dedicate them to God first, and he'll be mightily pleased...

I've been raised baptist, and gone a lot to sunday school and all. But the biblical (OT) god sounds more like a vengeful tyrant than creator of everything to me. I have an image of what God would/could be, and this ain't it at all. The OT god sounds like a regular king only +1 on authority and power.

Peace
Dan

Anon · November 2008

iamica wrote:

That's why baptism wasn't really meant to be done to infants. A lot of people think that if their baby is baptized, it means they'll go to heaven no matter what, but that's not what baptism means. It's supposed to be a symbol of a commitment to Christ made by the person being baptized. That's why a lot of churches don't do infant baptism; they do "baby dedications" instead where the parents commit to teaching their kids about God, and then the kid decides whether or not to get baptized when they're older.

I can't speak for other churches, but catholics believe that Baptism washes away sin. They believe salvation is for babies too and don't think babies have to consciously choose Baptism in order to receive its grace.

...let the little children come to me..

decides2dream · November 2008

Pj_Gurl wrote:

I can't speak for other churches, but catholics believe that Baptism washes away sin. They believe salvation is for babies too and don't think babies have to consciously choose Baptism in order to receive its grace.

...let the little children come to me..

exactly.
and to be clear, baptism washes away 'original sin'...that is it. so that babies are then completely pure, without sin....for now.

baptism does NOT obsolve you from any future sins you may commit, just 'washes away' that orignal sin we are born with due to adam and eve. or so it is believed by those who follow said faith.

hmmmmmmmm.......reminds me of wash. although a bit more impure

Oh please let it rain today. This city's so filthy. Like my mind in ways.
Oh it was the time. Like a clean new taste.
Smiling eyes before me and tears from my face.

Wash my love. Wash my love. Wash my love, yeah.

Sin for sale. Buying just a need. O who planted all the devils seeds?
And what's the truth? And the truth that lies at home.
It's on the inside and I can't get it off. Yeah.

Wash my love. Wash my love. Wash my love, yeah.

What's clean is pure. But hey, I'm white on the outside. Though I stray.
What she don't know today might kill us both tomorrow. Bring it back someway.
Bring it back, back, back... to the clean form. To the pure form.

Wash my love. Wash my love. Wash my love. Wash my love.
Wash my love. Wash my love. Wash my love. Yeah
Wash my ...wash my...wash my love....yeaaaaaaahhhhhhh

saveuplife · November 2008

catefrances wrote:

so...
if we are all born in and of sin because of adams fall, how come we have to seek forgiveness for something that is clearly within our nature?

There's a distinction between original sin and sin. The way I look at it is this...

Original sin gave us the power to choose right or wrong, good or bad, God or evil. It gave us free will. That's how I intrepret the story.

If we do something wrong (regular sin), given our free will, of course we should seek forgiveness for it. It is not good for our well being to sin. Nevertheless, we are prone to doing it. It is good for our well being to seek forgivness and grant foregiveness. That's why we "should" (do not have to) seek forgiveness when we sin.

iamica · November 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

I dont see how that even makes sense. If we sinners kill something perfect and say "here's to you, God", then everything is allright? then we should all go kill innocent children, only remember to dedicate them to God first, and he'll be mightily pleased...

I've been raised baptist, and gone a lot to sunday school and all. But the biblical (OT) god sounds more like a vengeful tyrant than creator of everything to me. I have an image of what God would/could be, and this ain't it at all. The OT god sounds like a regular king only +1 on authority and power.

Peace
Dan

In the Old Testament you see a lot of imagery regarding the serious consequences of sin. Basically, the consequence of sin is death. Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, God killed an animal and clothed them with the animal's skin (this is pretty symbolic, by the way). The animal didn't do anything wrong, of course, Adam and Eve did. Just like Jesus didn't do anything wrong...we did. He willingly took our punishment for sin - death - on himself, opening the way to eternal life and a restored relationship with God. Animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were a precursor to Jesus' sacrifice in the New Testament, for the forgiveness of sins.
Edit: By the way, God never commanded people to sacrifice children to him (with the exception of Abraham and Isaac; God was testing Abraham). God actually, specifically told people NOT to sacrifice their children to him.

llamaranger · November 2008

catefrances wrote:

so...
if we are all born in and of sin because of adams fall, how come we have to seek forgiveness for something that is clearly within our nature?

Well, I'm atheist so maybe I should really have just ignored this thread, but the way I see it, "original sin" is what makes us human.

The Devil (or, our natural inquisitive nature as I prefer to call him), taught Adam to say No. To stand up and make his own damned decisions about what fruit he was gonna eat, regardless of what the authorities (God) thought of it.

And in my opinion, the ability to say, or at least think, No, is what makes us human.

So thank Satan for that at least, if he exists, which is HIGHLY improbable.

Edd

scw156 · November 2008

Commy wrote:

because without religion it would be harder to control us.

this thread ended with post #2 right here ^^^^

OutOfBreath · November 2008

iamica wrote:

In the Old Testament you see a lot of imagery regarding the serious consequences of sin. Basically, the consequence of sin is death. Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, God killed an animal and clothed them with the animal's skin (this is pretty symbolic, by the way). The animal didn't do anything wrong, of course, Adam and Eve did. Just like Jesus didn't do anything wrong...we did. He willingly took our punishment for sin - death - on himself, opening the way to eternal life and a restored relationship with God. Animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were a precursor to Jesus' sacrifice in the New Testament, for the forgiveness of sins.
Edit: By the way, God never commanded people to sacrifice children to him (with the exception of Abraham and Isaac; God was testing Abraham). God actually, specifically told people NOT to sacrifice their children to him.

I'm not saying god demands children sacrifice. I just can't accept or understand the concept of the killing of innocent, to placate a sin. I know the explanation of "died so we dont have to", but it doesnt say why God seems to be so keen on sacrifices, and why the more innocent the sacrifice, the better. Based on this, my killing of children then follows as something that would please the lord immensely, since the sacrifice of something innocent is something he really enjoys. And killing may be sin, but such perfect sacrifice dedicated to the lord must pretty much compensate it, or at least get you some heaven points.

I'm not even arguing God here, only stating that a principle of innocent sacrifice as somehow the best kind there is, sounds pretty warped to me. Sounds suspiciously like something man came up with himself...

Peace
Dan

Jeremy1012 · November 2008

llamaranger wrote:

Well, I'm atheist so maybe I should really have just ignored this thread, but the way I see it, "original sin" is what makes us human.

The Devil (or, our natural inquisitive nature as I prefer to call him), taught Adam to say No. To stand up and make his own damned decisions about what fruit he was gonna eat, regardless of what the authorities (God) thought of it.

And in my opinion, the ability to say, or at least think, No, is what makes us human.

So thank Satan for that at least, if he exists, which is HIGHLY improbable.

Edd

Also, Satan is pretty.

decides2dream · November 2008

iamica wrote:

In the Old Testament you see a lot of imagery regarding the serious consequences of sin. Basically, the consequence of sin is death. Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, God killed an animal and clothed them with the animal's skin (this is pretty symbolic, by the way). The animal didn't do anything wrong, of course, Adam and Eve did. Just like Jesus didn't do anything wrong...we did. He willingly took our punishment for sin - death - on himself, opening the way to eternal life and a restored relationship with God. Animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were a precursor to Jesus' sacrifice in the New Testament, for the forgiveness of sins.
Edit: By the way, God never commanded people to sacrifice children to him (with the exception of Abraham and Isaac; God was testing Abraham). God actually, specifically told people NOT to sacrifice their children to him.

sadly tho...the animals did not 'choose' to die as jesus did. but we humans are always put our lives above other animals.

however, i really enjoyed reading what you wrote. i never quite read or thought about it in that way, granted it's been a really long time since i put any serious thought to it, period.

funny, as a child i always dreaded going to confession...the whole process sorta scared me, and yet i always felt *better* afterwards. i cannot even remember the last time i went to confession, probably in HS.....and imagine that is where it will end.

catefrances · November 2008

Jeremy1012 wrote:

Also, Satan is pretty.

plus he has horns.

catefrances · November 2008

so basically its the sins of the father thing. adam sinned so even though we havent sinned, we all 'pay the price'. the assumption being, we are all born sinners. even though consciously until we reach a certain age we are incapable of making that distinction between right and wrong.

iamica · November 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

I'm not saying god demands children sacrifice. I just can't accept or understand the concept of the killing of innocent, to placate a sin. I know the explanation of "died so we dont have to", but it doesnt say why God seems to be so keen on sacrifices, and why the more innocent the sacrifice, the better. Based on this, my killing of children then follows as something that would please the lord immensely, since the sacrifice of something innocent is something he really enjoys. And killing may be sin, but such perfect sacrifice dedicated to the lord must pretty much compensate it, or at least get you some heaven points.

I'm not even arguing God here, only stating that a principle of innocent sacrifice as somehow the best kind there is, sounds pretty warped to me. Sounds suspiciously like something man came up with himself...

Peace
Dan

It's a difficult concept. Basically, Adam and Eve deserved to die for what they did, but God spared them and promised that one day there would be someone who lived a perfect live and never sinned to take their punishment for them and all of their descendants. God is a just God. There had to be some kind of consequence for sin. Through one man (Adam) came death, and so through one man (Jesus) would come life. That's basically it.
It's sad, too, that animals had to be sacrificed, but again, it was basically symbolism for what God had promised Adam and Eve. Sacrificing an animal showed people's acknowledgement that their sin required death, repentance from that sin, and faith in the future sacrifice from God, who would bear their penalty.
Adam and Eve's sin, bringing death into the world, changed the nature of their descedants to be susceptible to sin. In that respect, we are all born with a sinful nature. Once a child gets to an age where they know right from wrong, they begin using their free will, and eventually, they will sin.

Smellyman2 · November 2008

Trying to rationalize this is irrational.

It's not real....

OutOfBreath · November 2008

iamica wrote:

It's a difficult concept. Basically, Adam and Eve deserved to die for what they did, but God spared them and promised that one day there would be someone who lived a perfect live and never sinned to take their punishment for them and all of their descendants. God is a just God. There had to be some kind of consequence for sin. Through one man (Adam) came death, and so through one man (Jesus) would come life. That's basically it.
It's sad, too, that animals had to be sacrificed, but again, it was basically symbolism for what God had promised Adam and Eve. Sacrificing an animal showed people's acknowledgement that their sin required death, repentance from that sin, and faith in the future sacrifice from God, who would bear their penalty.
Adam and Eve's sin, bringing death into the world, changed the nature of their descedants to be susceptible to sin. In that respect, we are all born with a sinful nature. Once a child gets to an age where they know right from wrong, they begin using their free will, and eventually, they will sin.

It still does not explain why God needs that innocent sacrifice to be placated. Sure, he makes the arrangements, but why MUST he have sacrifice, when murder and killing are bad? He can't be happy uintil he has made the arrangements to send someone perfect down (took him some thousand years to do too) and have him be killed by the people, so that he could be satisifed. To me it sounds like you broke my old tv, which pissed me off, so I have to save up lots of cash, buy a really expensive one to give to you so you could break that too, and THEN I'd be happy and reconciled. Doesn't add up at all.

He sounds like a blood-thirsty and jealous god. (Especially the OT) And we do die. Adam and Eve died. God just didn't kill them at once. I will say that I have no faith whatsoever in the christian/bible depiction of God, particularly the OT version.

As for sin, that is to me one of the most poisonous concepts ever invented, not to mention the concept of original sin which is even worse. The definition of sin seems to be anything we naturally do and wish for. Making for an eternal guilt trip on each of us, which also have a nice side-effect in making us more accepting to authority and punishment. (Since we know we deep down deserve it)

Good and bad exists, but neither in any pure form, and both based on value judgements anyway. I'm not an atheist at all, believe it or not, but my image of God/the divine lies in a very different direction. I dont believe there is a man in the sky watching our every move and deciding who's been good or who's been bad. God, or the god-force to me is best manifested in love and harmony between people, and between people and nature. I believe much more that everything IS God, in the sense that God is everything, and we are just as much part of him as everything else is. And I dont need to have a book-reference to know or feel these things. That part of christians I believe in, that feeling of connecting to God. But it is in my view a mistake to mix that with the dusty old story-book which contains how people thought of these things 4000 years ago. We have evolved our thinking a lot in those years, so we should no longer get caught up in how racist and sexist patriarchs manipulated the sense of God thousands of years ago.

Anyway, I wanted to hear how you can justify God's bloodlust, but I'm not expecting an answer I'll accept. It's defintiely a matter of belief and leap of faith to accept that inconsistency. I prefer not to be shackled with old inconsistencies that have accumulated over the milennia from an inferior starting point, compared to where we find ourselves now. The leap of faith should be about acknowledging the divine, not in brushing glaring old logical inconsistencies under the carpet for fear of evolving from the stagnant old dogmas and ideas. (like 3=1 for instance, or god giving orders in violation of his own commandments)

Peace
Dan

iamica · November 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

It still does not explain why God needs that innocent sacrifice to be placated. Sure, he makes the arrangements, but why MUST he have sacrifice, when murder and killing are bad? He can't be happy uintil he has made the arrangements to send someone perfect down (took him some thousand years to do too) and have him be killed by the people, so that he could be satisifed. To me it sounds like you broke my old tv, which pissed me off, so I have to save up lots of cash, buy a really expensive one to give to you so you could break that too, and THEN I'd be happy and reconciled. Doesn't add up at all.

He sounds like a blood-thirsty and jealous god. (Especially the OT) And we do die. Adam and Eve died. God just didn't kill them at once. I will say that I have no faith whatsoever in the christian/bible depiction of God, particularly the OT version.

As for sin, that is to me one of the most poisonous concepts ever invented, not to mention the concept of original sin which is even worse. The definition of sin seems to be anything we naturally do and wish for. Making for an eternal guilt trip on each of us, which also have a nice side-effect in making us more accepting to authority and punishment. (Since we know we deep down deserve it)

Good and bad exists, but neither in any pure form, and both based on value judgements anyway. I'm not an atheist at all, believe it or not, but my image of God/the divine lies in a very different direction. I dont believe there is a man in the sky watching our every move and deciding who's been good or who's been bad. God, or the god-force to me is best manifested in love and harmony between people, and between people and nature. I believe much more that everything IS God, in the sense that God is everything, and we are just as much part of him as everything else is. And I dont need to have a book-reference to know or feel these things. That part of christians I believe in, that feeling of connecting to God. But it is in my view a mistake to mix that with the dusty old story-book which contains how people thought of these things 4000 years ago. We have evolved our thinking a lot in those years, so we should no longer get caught up in how racist and sexist patriarchs manipulated the sense of God thousands of years ago.

Anyway, I wanted to hear how you can justify God's bloodlust, but I'm not expecting an answer I'll accept. It's defintiely a matter of belief and leap of faith to accept that inconsistency. I prefer not to be shackled with old inconsistencies that have accumulated over the milennia from an inferior starting point, compared to where we find ourselves now. The leap of faith should be about acknowledging the divine, not in brushing glaring old logical inconsistencies under the carpet for fear of evolving from the stagnant old dogmas and ideas. (like 3=1 for instance, or god giving orders in violation of his own commandments)

Peace
Dan

When God told Adam and Eve that the day that they ate of the fruit, they would die; he was laying out the penalty for sin. He told them in no uncertain terms what would happen. God created the universe and humans, and he made the rules. Sin brings death. No, they did not die immediately after eating the fruit, but their actions brought death into the world, not only of themselves but of every human being that would come after them.
It is interesting that within moments of of Adam and Eve tasting the fruit, God already decided that he would have mercy and provide a sinless sacrifice to atone for them. Some call it substitution. It doesn't mean that God is bloodthirsty, wanting to kill people. He is a God of holiness and justice, and so he could not just let the sin go, since he had already determined beforehand that the punishment for sin was death. What is amazing is that he took that punishment - the punishment he himself had created and demanded - on himself, since he is also a God of love who desires to have mercy on those he has created. People die anyway because even though our sins are ultimately atoned for, we don't necessarily escape their consequences. Jesus forgave the criminal crucified next to him who repented, but he didn't take him down off the cross.
Since God created life, only God has the right to take life. That's why he forbade humans from killing each other. They did not have the right to take another human life, because only God has that right.
As for the Bible being a historically reliable text, that's a completely different topic, but I will say this. When one really begins to read and study the Bible, it becomes clear that God is not any different from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Even though the Bible is really 66 individual books, written on two (or possibly three) continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more than 40 authors (who came from many walks of life), it remains one unified book from beginning to end. In it we see how a loving, merciful, and just God deals with sinful people in all kinds of situations. God’s love for His creation, especially for humanity, is evident all through the Bible. Throughout the Bible we see God lovingly and mercifully calling people into a special relationship with Himself, not because they deserve it but because He is a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth. Yet we also see a holy and righteous God Who is the judge of all those who disobey. You can see that in both the Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament describes God punishing people for sin, but also having mercy on people. The New Testament describes God's boundless love, but also his judgment. His characteristics are revealed in both Testaments.

sin and forgiveness

Comments

Categories