B
billcu1
Guest
If I understand correctly sin is a perversion of the free will that God wanted us to have. So what did he want us to do with our free will?
- Status
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
He wanted us to do good with our free will. When He created us, He faced a dilemma. Should He make us mindless robots, only able to do good, whom He could love but who could not love Him, or should He make us free beings, able to choose between evil and good, whom He could love and who could love Him. Based on His infinite Wisdom and Divine Knowledge, which we cannot understand, He chose the latter.
Sadly, Adam and Eve chose to turn away from God, to pervert the intended use of their free will. So yes, sin is a misuse of our free will.
Sadly, Adam and Eve chose to turn away from God, to pervert the intended use of their free will. So yes, sin is a misuse of our free will.
B
billcu1
Guest
Original sin it not a biological thing is it. It is not “inherited” from father or mother is it? Though so Jesus could be free from sin, Mary was immaculate when it came to sin. Is it just something that is common to us?
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
It’s not necessarily just a biological condition. It’s just our inherited nature, as humans. The ancestors of the human race, Adam and Eve, passed down their fallen state to us.
Mary and Jesus are the special exception. God the Father, seeing it fit that the mother of His Son would be kept from all stain and sin, sent the Holy Spirit to intervene at the very moment of her conception so that she would not even for a second be afflicted with original sin. By God’s grace, she was kept from all actual sin in her life. Since Jesus only took His flesh from Mary, He was not affected by original sin as well, because all the flesh He inherited was immaculate.
B
billcu1
Guest
K I just thought that one of the ecumenical councils took up this origin or original sin and the bishops came to the decision that original sin wasn’t biological. I could be wrong.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
I can’t seem to find any Ecumenical Councils that say that. Could you be thinking of a synod or a regional council? Those are not part of the Magisterium. I would suggest reading the Council of Trent on original sin, found here:
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html
A sample:
2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
B
billcu1
Guest
Synods, like the synod of Jerusalem are not part of the magisterium? Does that mean they are not part of the Tradition or deposit of faith?
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
Sorry, I don’t know why I wrote “synod or regional council”. I meant to just say “regional council”. Synod and council are synonymous, so yes, the Synod of Jerusalem was an Ecumenical Council.
Here’s a list of the 21 Councils, excluding Jerusalem, which are considered ecumenical:
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
P
PendingTheist
Guest
How can you assert such a story with no evidence. So your saying the Holy Spirit can remove sin from a mortal (Mary) then why not remove it from ALL without going thru the trouble of killing himself to himself and risking salvation to those who just can’t get themselves to believe? Or is it God just can NOT forgive without a blood sacrifice as was first noted in the OT?
P
PendingTheist
Guest
Even if the Councils discussed Original Sin, what makes you think this is all true? Not a lie, but rather their beliefs are false just like they thought the world was flat.
Doesn’t the need for Ecumenical Councils, like the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to debate the Trinity and the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) to determine the nature of Christ’s divinity indicate the confusion of God’s word and lead to man-made conclusions? Does it not appear man-made and scientifically incorrect when St. Irenaeus asserted the four-gospel canon as being no more or less in number since there are 4 quarters (or corners) to the earth in that they serve as “the ‘pillar and ground’ of the church and spirit of life”. Are we to believe God meant the 27 book New Testament to be debated and agreed by religious authorities for centuries before Bishop Athanasius came up with the 27 book list in 367 AD? Why would an all-perfect and powerful divine being go through the trouble inspiring Biblical authors for hundreds of years only to have originals lost both physically and in translation and then depend on this unreliable book to be preached by fallible men with different interpretations leading to the majority of his creation to damnation? This is not the best or most responsible way of sending the most important message if you truly want to “save” the world.
P
PendingTheist
Guest
I’ve read Christians assert we are given free will, to freely choose or reject God. Except for Calvinists, God doesn’t want robots but He wants you to do everything He says and if you don’t, well you know. Believe or go to Hell, not much of a choice. An easy choice if you can get yourself to believe. Can you get yourself to believe Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny exist? Too bad God “blessed” some infidels with motivation and a thought process that we use in everyday life but led them down a path that makes it very difficult for them to believe. I can understand the not wanting to force people to love Him. I don’t get the not wanting robots part. The whole reason for Jesus as a Savior is because God is a Holy God, and can only tolerate perfection. People are not perfect in any sense, having inherited the Adam nature. Everything we do is tainted with sin, no matter how “good” it is. As a penalty for the sin and disobedience, Jesus took on humanity’s punishment, thus satisfying the wrath of God. If God can only tolerate perfection, and sin is essentially going against God or some form of disobeying God, and thus God can only tolerate sinless creatures (for those are the perfect creatures) and the only way to be sinless is to do exactly what God wants … isn’t the thing that God wants the same as a robot? Someone who does exactly what He wants? Were Jesus and Job robots? Because that’s exactly what a robot is: it’s something that does exactly what the creator commands. And then if the robot does not behave as the creator commands, it is declared defective, and is either fixed, or trashed. Perhaps melted down in a burning fire, and thrown into the scrap heap.
Aren’t memorizing verses and teaching little kids all the meek and mild passages and stories “programming” them to Love God with all their heart and soul without them reading and thinking for themselves, so in a way they are being created into a “robot”. By reading and singing nice stories and powerful musical tunes at a critical time in their lives before their cognitive faculties have matured will influence their values and limit their beliefs. We need to teach them how to think and introduce what to think so they can be content with their own conclusions. I don’t think they are being taught the other 4700 religions and 40,000 plus Christian denominations or at least some of the other major beliefs to give them alternative choices. Fortunately, the values most were taught in Sunday school and CCD meet “objective” moral standards that we have determined as a group society, unlike the Westboro Baptist church.
When contemplating the problem of evil and suffering in this world, I often hear “free will” as a justification. I understand that one of the most wonderful gifts God gave humankind (apart from the gift of his son) is the gift of free will. Without the ability to choose between good and evil or to choose whether or not we wish to love him, we would be nothing but robots. With the exception of the Calvinist, all Christians seem to agree that God does not want robots because robots are not capable of genuine love. God wants people to love him because they choose to love him not because they are programmed to do so.
The problem I have with this view is that it begs the question as to whether or not there will be free will in heaven as I mentioned this before to some extent. Will the theist know all their friends and family who were not believers are suffering an infinite torture because the Holy Spirit didn’t convert them before they died? Will they have the free will to lament over this? Many Christians are divided on this view of Heavenly Free Will.
On the yes side of those saying there will be free will in heaven, most say there will not be any sin. I don’t see how this is possible. If free will means the ability to choose between good and evil and/or the ability to choose whether or not to love God, how is it that no one can sin? It seems to be that it will be impossible to sin because there will no longer be any evil since Satan will, at long last, be out of the picture. This solution does not add up. If Satan’s presence is needed for there to be sin, then who made Satan sin in heaven before his fall from grace? Furthermore, if it is only the presence of Satan that causes people to sin, then why didn’t God, who is allegedly all-knowing and all-powerful, simply destroy Satan before creating Adam and Eve and placing generational sin on us?
P
PendingTheist
Guest
Another reason there will be no sin in heaven is because sin is limited to the flesh. We can’t sin unless we are in the flesh. This response is incorrect since it is believed Satan (or Old Testament adversary) was not in the flesh but rather in the spiritual world, and yet, he sinned and out of pride chose to rebel against God. It seems to me that if one admits to a belief that there will be free will in heaven, one must also believe that there is no such thing as “once saved, always saved” or “eternal security” since free will would imply that even in heaven, people would have the choice whether to “sin” or “not sin” or whether to continue to love God and to wish to be in His presence or to decide that they do not find God lovable or worthy or good and wish to depart from His presence especially if He is anything like He is described in the Old Testament. Without the ability to choose whether or not one loves God, there really isn’t free will. On the other side some say they do not believe there will be free will in heaven, since there will no longer be “a need” for free will. Since most Christians argue that without free will, we’d only be robots, then such a stance would cause one to wonder why God does not want robots in this life but He does want robots for all eternity.
Some say that the reason there will not be sin in heaven is because God will have perfected them, i.e. they will no longer have a sin nature. Was Adam created with a sin nature? I’ll assume you say no, Adam was not created with a sin nature, but that he was created perfect. If Adam was not created with a sin nature, and yet he sinned, then we know that people who do not have sin natures CAN sin, and therefore, not having a sin nature in heaven will not be insurance against sinning and “losing one’s salvation”. If, on the other hand, one posits that Adam WAS created with a sin nature, then one would have to question the wisdom, worthiness, and goodness of a God who creates people with sin natures and then gets mad at them for having what He gave them. He created us sick and demands us to be well. To me, this would be like punching someone in the face and then being irate and punching them again when you saw that you had given them a black eye.
If God is capable of creating people who have free will but who do not have the ability to sin then why wouldn’t He have simply done this to begin with? If, on the other hand, one believes that this IS what God did when He created the Garden of Eden (i.e. if God set out to make a “heaven” for His creation but that this “heaven” got botched up when Eve ate the fruit) then how can one be sure that God’s second attempt at Paradise won’t become as botched as His first one did? If God couldn’t get it right the first time, why should we believe, have faith, or trust that He will get it right the next time around? In fact, Noah’s flood was a good example of not getting it right the first time.
Some say that the reason there will not be sin in heaven is because God will have perfected them, i.e. they will no longer have a sin nature. Was Adam created with a sin nature? I’ll assume you say no, Adam was not created with a sin nature, but that he was created perfect. If Adam was not created with a sin nature, and yet he sinned, then we know that people who do not have sin natures CAN sin, and therefore, not having a sin nature in heaven will not be insurance against sinning and “losing one’s salvation”. If, on the other hand, one posits that Adam WAS created with a sin nature, then one would have to question the wisdom, worthiness, and goodness of a God who creates people with sin natures and then gets mad at them for having what He gave them. He created us sick and demands us to be well. To me, this would be like punching someone in the face and then being irate and punching them again when you saw that you had given them a black eye.
If God is capable of creating people who have free will but who do not have the ability to sin then why wouldn’t He have simply done this to begin with? If, on the other hand, one believes that this IS what God did when He created the Garden of Eden (i.e. if God set out to make a “heaven” for His creation but that this “heaven” got botched up when Eve ate the fruit) then how can one be sure that God’s second attempt at Paradise won’t become as botched as His first one did? If God couldn’t get it right the first time, why should we believe, have faith, or trust that He will get it right the next time around? In fact, Noah’s flood was a good example of not getting it right the first time.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
The Holy Spirit sanctified Mary at conception by mysteriously applying the effects of Christ’s blood to her before His sacrifice actually happened. We receive the effects of His sacrifice in Baptism. Why did God choose to save us this way, you ask? What other way would demonstrate His infinite love for us than to literally give His life for us? On the Cross, He gave us an example of how what He expects from us: mercy, kindness, love, servitude, charity, and faith.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
The Church never infallibly taught that the world was flat. If you can prove she did, I’ll need some sources.
If the Bible contained every single bit of information on every sing doctrine… Well, that book would take up an entire building at least. This is why God blessed His Church with infallibility, so that she could develop doctrine over time. Also, the Biblical book were not “lost”. There were monastic orders whose monks literally spent their entire lives copying down the books of the Bible- and if they made a single mistake, they started the whole manuscript. This is why our manuscripts from 2000+ years ago are virtually identical to the manuscripts we have now.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
- We would be robots if He forced us to obey Him. But He doesn’t. We obey Him out of free will. You need to take Christian Theology 101, dude. This is Day 1 stuff.
- By your logic, shouldn’t we keep kids out of school until they’re old enough to decide whether they want to learn truth or not? We’re not “programming” children to believe. There are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who have fallen away from faith even after having taken CCD. If we’re programmers, we must be pretty bad at it, huh? Also, objective moral values can only be determined by a higher power. Even Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens (may he RIP) have conceded this.
- Agreed.
- We will have free will in Heaven, and we will know that some are burning in Hell, but the Beatific Vision of God gives us infinite joy and faith so that, no matter what, we will never transgress against God not be troubled by the punishment some are suffering.
P
PendingTheist
Guest
I still don’t know what evidence you have to show how Mary was sanctified? Beside the Bible or church told you. That type of evidence can be said for the other 4699 religions and 40,000 Christian denominations.
How exactly is having God himself come down in human form to have Himself suffer ( which is debatible as in Luke the bloody sweat was an interpolation and in John, Jesus does not apperar to suffer) one afternoon showing His love when He has absolute knowledge that this was less than a minor inconvenience for Him when All eternity it ahead for Christ by His right side. Sacrifice is too lose something precious. What was lost for 3 days?
God could have shown His love without a bloody sacrifice. How about giving all our troops who lost there limbs defending our country their limbs back, having manna pour from the sky to starving children in the world, giving 9/11 terrorists engine trouble on the way to the airport or have the gun lock up in the Sandy Hook shooting, or have the Typhoon in the Phillipines miss land. I know I would do that, would you?
P
PendingTheist
Guest
Maybe God should have left out all the killing and other horrific stories in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua… and made Himself more clear on original sin and left some more room of the trinity so we aren’t all left with confusion unless, or course, we all take theology 101.
P
PendingTheist
Guest
As far as our manuscripts, in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) the disciples are instructed to go to all nations and Mark 16:20 says to proclaim everywhere but the ending of Mark 16:9-20 is not present in two 4th-century manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the earliest complete manuscripts of Mark. In fairness, there are spaces left at the end of each of these manuscripts which may indicate the copyist purposely left a blank space for whatever reason. However, since evidence shows Matthew borrowed Mark then the Great Commission may also be an interpolation.
Other biblical passages missing from the earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11 which includes the popular passage of Jesus excusing the woman who was caught in adultery. Many Christians are unaware of this despite being footnoted in their bibles and still assert the infallibility of God’s word. There is also evidence scribes changed parts of scripture as noted in Mark 1:41 which describes the story of Jesus’ healing a man with a skin disease. The surviving manuscripts preserve verse 41 in two different forms: 41 "And [feeling compassion (Greek))/becoming angry (Latin)], reaching out his hand, he touched him and said, “I wish, be cleansed.” Most English translations render the beginning of verse 41 so as to emphasize Jesus’ compassion for this poor outcast leper, “moved with compassion/filled with pity.” In doing so, they are following the Greek text found in most of our manuscripts. The wording of one of our oldest witnesses, Codex Bezae, which is supported by three Old Latin manuscripts, is puzzling. Here, rather than saying that Jesus felt compassion for the man, the text indicates that he became angry. Christian scribes would have preferred the text to be simple to understand and non-problematic. Which is more likely, that a scribe copying this text would change it to say that Jesus became wrathful instead of compassionate, or to say that Jesus became compassionate instead wrathful? When seen from this perspective, the latter is obviously more likely. Became angry, is the more difficult reading and therefore more likely to be “original.”
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
- Arguing that a religion is false just because there are many other religions is a perfect example of what’s called, in logic circles, the genetic fallacy.
2b. The precious thing He lost was His omnipotence. He allowed Himself, in infinite humility, to be beaten and tortured by creatures infinitely lower than Him. If that’s not sacrifice, I don’t know what is.
- I said that He was setting an example, not simply demonstrating His love. Please actually read my post. As for the infamous “problem of evil”, see this video:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=cv85tvudi7Y
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
- See link above. It’s important to note that the Bible mentioning something does not mean God condones it.
2b. He established His Church to clearly define what isn’t clearly defined in the Bible. Saying that this argument is irrelevant due to the number of untrue Christian denominations is another textbook example of the genetic fallacy.
- Status