Author Topic: On the teaching of the sinful nature  (Read 4962 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lotharson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
On the teaching of the sinful nature
« on: January 15, 2014, 09:32:15 AM »
Hello folks.

First of all, I must say I have been deeply touched by your warm welcome on my introduction post, you seem to be quite a loving community  :=)


Here I want to discuss about a theological problem of uttermost importance.


I think that one of the greatest weaknesses of Western Christianity (especially conservative Protestantism) is the doctrine of the sinful nature.


This teaching is a true blasphemy which makes God ultimately responsible for sin since He is the one who cursed our whole kind because two people ate the wrong apple.
It completely undermines any kind of moral responsibility and makes the Almighty look like a moronic monster because he would send countless people to hell due to sins they were bound to commit.

On my blog, I have argued at length that I consider it extremely unlikely that the author(s) of Genesis bought that concept.


What do you think (as Eastern Christians) of my analysis of these passages?

I have never discussed about this with Eastern Orthodoxs previously.


Lovely greetings in Christ.



« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 09:37:10 AM by lotharson »

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,321
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2014, 09:39:25 AM »
Quote
This teaching is a true blasphemy which makes God ultimately responsible for sin since He is the one who cursed our whole kind because two people ate the wrong apple.

God didn't punish anyone at the Fall. Man simply did something wrong, and God warned them about it, and they felt the consequences of that.

Genesis "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." (Genesis 2:17)

God warned man before they ate the fruit of the tree, and they did it anyway. So, God didn't punish them for it, they simply felt the consequence of their actions. Which, according to the passage, is death. Sin isn't inherited from Adam and Eve, death is, the condition of man is.

http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin

Quote
It completely undermines any kind of moral responsibility and makes the Almighty look like a moronic monster because he would send countless people to hell due to sins they were bound to commit.

It seems like some sort of predestination stuff is going on here, am I reading this wrong?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 09:52:54 AM by xOrthodox4Christx »
This profile is defunct as of 11/8/2017. I created it before Orthodoxy, and have used it after Orthodoxy.

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

I will likely lurk on this forum under a different name.

Offline IoanC

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,468
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2014, 09:45:35 AM »
It is complex. I will only say that it's true that God "cursed" the entire humanity because of two people, but that's because we confess that we all sinned in Adam. In other words, we all fall in our own ways even if we are not the ones who ate from the very tree. Yet, God did not literally curse human nature, but removed His Grace from it in such a way that man will experience the negative quality of its absence and naturally want to return to Him from the state that he ended up in. The "curse" is God's blessing and man's friend. In fact, in the Orthodox Church we struggle to re-obtain the Grace of The Holy Spirit, that total communion with God.

Also, human nature did not become evil through the fall; it just became weaker, lower than its true spiritualized state because of losing God's Grace.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 09:48:14 AM by IoanC »

Offline IoanC

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,468
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2014, 11:46:56 AM »
I'll add:The eating from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a favorite of mine also. Man was informed that he should not eat from the tree, unless he dies (spiritually). But man did not really want to eat from the tree by his own initiative and he did not really want to die (or become evil). Man was tempted by someone external to himself and God, by satan who accused God of lying about eating from the tree because He we afraid man will become god. As we know, however, God does want man to become god and this is an important orthodox teaching (theosis), but He wanted man to accomplish it through Himself, not through satan's deviations. In the end, God does actually conclude that man became like Them (The Holy Trinity) and prevents him from eating from the Tree of Life so that man does not remain in that faulty ("cursed") spiritual state forever. So, God does not conclude that man become evil, or even disobedient, but He lovingly allows man the choice to be god (which is a truth). However, God neither says that it was good the way man went about becoming god and eating from the tree that he was told not to; that was a mistake. God does not get upset because of mistakes. He only calls man to take responsibility and fix his mistake, and if man is not accused by God, then man should not accuse others or God because of his mistakes and hardships.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 11:48:41 AM by IoanC »

Offline The least of all

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2014, 11:49:06 AM »
We did not sin in adam

Offline IoanC

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,468
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2014, 11:50:16 AM »
We did not sin in adam

Let me rephrase. We all fall like Adam, even though we do not eat from the tree.

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2014, 01:26:03 PM »
We did not sin in adam

Let me rephrase. We all fall like Adam, even though we do not eat from the tree.

Thats more or less true.

Adam was made in Gods image. However, Adams first son was made of ADAMS image. This means all of us inherit all the inperfection of Adam. We often try to replace God, or, idolterate ourselves before God. Remember the goal was for them to become like God.. It wasnt just to eat the fruit for the fun of it (btw it was likely a fig as apples do not grow in that area). Self idoltry leads to all sin and is amongst the most serious of sins. Being a 'know it all' is actually a very serious sin because its actually self idoltry in disguese of a personality trait. This is why we stress being 'humble'.

Here's the problem. The OP brings up an important issue that everyone should be aware of. The question is: do we have FREE CHOICE to not sin? Think about it, God made Adam a sinner right? So this means we are prone to sin no matter what we do. We have no choice but to sin. Therefore, since we have no choice, why not create a religious theology that says this: Jesus died on the cross for all of our sins, therefore, we can sin now all we want, because after all God made us this way. And since Jesus already died for our sins, we will not get punished in hell as long as we believe Jesus died for our sins. You can murder your whole life, and right before death apologize and go to heaven. This is called 'getting saved'. This is the current Catholic/Protestant theology. Just believe in Jesus and your saved. Sin as much as you want and ask for forgiveness later. In this scenario, you do NOT have free choice. You are a 'born sinner'

Christian Orthodox and Judiasm both believe that you will be judged based on you actions/deeds here on eath. In the Jews case they are judged on eating Kosher, Shabbat, etc. but regardless, whether you do good or bad, God will be there to help you through. If you turn away from God (idolterate), you will be punished and endure suffering - even here on earth. When you are judged, you'll be judged in context and specific to your situation. Suppose you had an abortion, your circumstances will be taken into context. Maybe you didnt know it was 'really bad' or had a neglectful parent. All this will be taken into account. Its important to understand that Orthodox/Judiasm is NOT secular humanism. It is not meant to be fair to everyone. Its anything BUT equality. If you are a priest, you will have higher standards. If you have more money, you will have higher expectations. For instance, a Fr on this forum must be extra careful what he posts in public due to his authority. A young single kid in their 20's can say silly things like we come from monkeys, but wont be held to the same penalty as the Fr. would saying the exact same thing. This is how the Catholic church used to be for over 1000 years and things changed.

So on one hand, we have no free choice - we are all pond scum that sin because God created Adam with sin. If we Accept Jesus died for our sins and repent, we will get into heaven regardless of our actions/deeds through life.

On the other theology, we are indeed like Adam. We have free choice to decide whether or not to eat the fruit (idoltrate). When we do, we will be punished and made to suffer.

Through life, we tend to listen to snakes that trick us away from God's will. Often these are professors, philosophers, and false teachers in secular society. Each are competing to get you away from God. When you turn your back on God, you will face the concequences. Work to please God, and you'll reap the rewards. The big question is knowing what God wants and this is for another post hehe.
The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2014, 01:36:14 PM »
The problem you're talking about is the teaching of "total depravity", which Calvinists hold (I'm not sure how ancestral sin and its consequences are understood in the Lutheran tradition). The Catholics don't teach this, but they have their own problems which I'll come to.

Total depravity implies that our nature became thoroughly evil, but this relies on a misunderstanding of evil. Evil cannot be natural by definition, since nature is fundamentally good. Evil can only be defined with reference to what is natural and good: evil is a deviation and a corruption of nature, but has no substance of itself.

The practical consequences of the doctrine of total depravity is the teaching that humans are incapable of doing any moral good, so that anything which seems like a good deed is not good by virtue of the evilness of the one doing the deed. The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, teaches that we are capable of doing good and are not totally depraved or completely evil. We do, however, believe that our nature was corrupted by ancestral sin, but only in the sense that we were deprived of grace and eternal life and suffer the consequences of this deprivation by being subject to various passions (while at the same time retaining free will and thus the ability to master those passions, something which Calvinists also deny, following their radical interpretation of God's sovereignty). See the Synod Jerusalem in 1672 and its doctrinal statements.

The Catholic teaching is problematic since they hold everyone to be personally responsible for the ancestral transgression: i.e. we all inherit the guilt from Adam's first sin, and the corruption of our nature follows from that. Orthodoxy teaches that we do inherit a "law of sin" (Romans 7), a kind of sinful principle, but this inheritance does not entail a kind of personal responsibility for the ancestral transgression. (see Fr Michael Pomazansky "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" under "The moral consequences of the fall").

It's not correct to say that we only inherit death, and that our sinfulness is somehow a consequence of death, or fear of death. The Biblical and patristic teaching is clear: sin causes death, not vice versa. The latter was the idea of Fr John Romanides, but his ideas are very controversial within Orthodoxy (some consider them heretical). The problem for the Western mind isn't solved by reversing the causal relationship between sin and death, but by a correct understanding of "sin". Sin can be understood as a deliberate transgression of God's law (the juridical metaphor), but it can also be understood as a state of being apart from God and deprived of grace, or as deviation from God's purpose (whether intentional or not); basically, a spiritual sickness (the medical metaphor). The inherited "law of sin" should be understood in the latter sense of sin.

Offline lotharson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2014, 04:56:26 PM »
Thanks for your replies, this helps me better understand Orthodoxy.

As I explained in the linked post, I believe that for the authors of Genesis, Cain resisting the temptation to kill his brother would have be as easy (or as difficult) as for Adam not to eat of the fruit.

By the way, I am far from convinced that all these individuals historically existed.

Cheers.

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,818
  • Tenzin and Desmond
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2014, 05:29:46 PM »
We did not sin in adam

Let me rephrase. We all fall like Adam, even though we do not eat from the tree.

Thats more or less true.

Adam was made in Gods image. However, Adams first son was made of ADAMS image. This means all of us inherit all the inperfection of Adam.
But since Adam was made in God's image, shouldn't Adam have inherited all the *perfection* of God?
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,818
  • Tenzin and Desmond
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2014, 05:30:26 PM »
Thanks for your replies, this helps me better understand Orthodoxy.

As I explained in the linked post, I believe that for the authors of Genesis, Cain resisting the temptation to kill his brother would have be as easy (or as difficult) as for Adam not to eat of the fruit.

By the way, I am far from convinced that all these individuals historically existed.

Cheers.
Did they exist prehistorically?
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,117
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2014, 05:47:18 PM »
For an official statement on the subject, see Decree XIV below from the 1672 Council of Jerusalem, and Orthodox Council which reviewed and responded to the teachings of Calvinism:

http://books.google.com/books?id=m4kXAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Acts+and+Decrees+of+the+Synod+of+Jerusalem

See especially the last paragraph

Quote
Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, 1672
Decree XIV

(pp.132-134)

We believe man in falling by the [original] transgression to have become comparable and like unto the beasts, that is, to have been utterly undone, and to have fallen from his perfection and impassibility, yet not to have lost the nature and power which he had received from the supremely good God.  For otherwise he would not be rational, and consequently not man; but to have the same nature, in which he was created, and the same power of his nature, that is free-will, living and operating.  So as to be by nature able to choose and do what is good, and to avoid and hate what is evil.  For it is absurd to say that the nature which was created good by Him who is supremely good lacketh the power of doing good.  For this would be to make that nature evil – than which what could be more impious? For the power of working dependeth upon nature, and nature upon its author, although in a different manner.  And that a man is able by nature to do what is good, even our Lord Himself intimateth, saying, even the Gentiles love those that love them (Matt. 5:46).  But this is taught most plainly by Paul also, in Romans Chapter 1:19, and elsewhere expressly, saying in so many words, “The Gentiles which have no law do by nature the things of the law.”  From which it is also manifest that the good which a man may do cannot forsooth be sin.  For it is impossible that what is good can be evil.  Albeit, being done by nature only, and tending to form the natural character of the doer, but not the spiritual, it contributeth not to salvation thus alone without faith, nor yet indeed unto condemnation, for it is not possible that good, as such, can be the cause of evil.  But in the regenerated, what is wrought by grace, and with grace, maketh the doer perfect, and rendereth him worthy of salvation.

A man, therefore, before he is regenerated, is able by nature to incline to what is good, and to choose and work moral good.  But for the regenerated to do spiritual good – for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual – it is necessary that he be guided and prevented by grace, as hath been said in treating of predestination; so that he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life, although he hath in his own power to will, or not to will, to co-operate with grace.



Offline wainscottbl

  • Swine of the Sheep
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,943
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2014, 05:55:00 PM »
Yeah, no problem. I come from the West, too, first as a Baptist as a child, where I was never formally Baptist, but went to church when I visited my grandmother. Among my first memories of religion are being told, "If you are not baptised you will go to hell." So I wanted to be baptised but my mom and dad did not go to church. I just went when I visited my grandmother, who was a holy woman, and I think it was her who inclined me to religion. At the age of twelve I ordered a Bible from the Mormons. They came and visited, talking mostly to my mom since I was a kid, and I was "baptised" with her. About 19, I decided I wanted to be Catholic and renounced Mormonism. I was baptised into Catholicism on March 26, 2005, my human birthday and spiritual birthday. I was immediately concerned with the liberalism in the Catholic Church and started going to Latin Masses pretty soon after.

Anyway, I think the Western mentality of original sin and the exaggeration of our sinfulness is a problem. I was very scrupulous during my Catholic years. I had good confessors but I always looks at confession and sin in a legal way. Did I confess all my mortal sins in deed and number? Was I giving up the occasions of sin. I will say that form a Catholic standpoint I was doing it wrong. It is why Catholic confessors tell scrupulous souls to not question their confessor and always go to communion, not redo confessions, etc. They have to look at God's mercy. Besides confession is not so much about remembering the number of times you did this or that bad thing, even form a Catholic view, but confessing it simply and plainly and working to improve. Looking at legalisms like number and all that undermines the sacrament if you are being scrupulous about it. But I would say the legalism is somewhat natural to Catholicism and Western Christianity, particularly Calvinism--Calvin was a lawyer, so he needed a legal setup.

But I know the Calvinists teachings of my young Baptist years set me up for a constant fear of hell and God's judgement and my later scrupulosity as a Catholic. Catholicism has its problems I think, but scrupulosity and all that is more of an accidental effect of its principles and my own neurosis personally. But looking at the Eastern view of sin and death makes more sense.

Take infants who die without baptism. In Catholicism they go to limbo because they have original sin--limbo is perfect natural happiness. We are born with the guilt of Adam's sin the Catholic Church teaches. Most Protestants, except the silly liberals, teach this to. Baptists obviously had problems with babies going to burn in hell, as did Catholics. Catholic proposed the theory of limbo, a place within the underworld, but free of pain and with perfect natural happiness. Various Protestant sects said we were born with sin, but waited until the child was around seven or eight to baptise. Some Protestants, like Lutherans and Anglicans, did infant baptism. Orthodox baptise infants, but it makes sense. If children have been free of guilt until the age of reason why baptise them when they have hardly any sins? Might as well baptise them as infants if it is that simple. And if they do have this "original sin" or guilt of Adam that deprives them of grace, then baptise them as infants for sure! But it makes no sense that God would have infants born, nay conceived with sin! Aborted children would go to limbo then. I was very adamant on this as a Catholic because it only made sense if the Catholics were right. People called the aborted children innocents. "They are innocent from personal guilt and die at the hands of murderers, but the are a heap of sin They go to limbo and never attain the vision of God." Augustine said something like that about infants out of the womb. But looking at that view now the Orthodox make much more sense. We obviously inherit a sinful inclination from Adam but the guilt? A child enters the womb with guilt upon him. It makes God out to be pretty cruel and silly I think.

So I understand what you are saying about Western Christianity and it's idea of "sinful nature", particularly Calvinists teaching. Calvin was a big fan of Augustine and as great as Augustine was, I think he went too far sometimes on sin. He actually said infants who are not baptized burn in hell if I recall but most later theologians, including Aquinas, advocated limbo because though they inherited the original guilt of Adam, they had not personal guilt. Hell fire would seem just only for those who willfully sinned.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
                                                             -Aristotle



Mor Ephrem, section moderator[/b][/color]

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2014, 08:25:05 PM »
But since Adam was made in God's image, shouldn't Adam have inherited all the *perfection* of God?

Adam wasn't made in God's 'image'. He was made 'to his likeness'. Essentially God was happy with his creation. I just said 'image' so people would 'remember the verse'. Remember God is beyond time and matter so it's impossible for him to make an image of himself as he wouldn't have nostrils to breath air etc. Although, you never know. Anything's possible in heaven.

Let me pass on some secret wisdom:

God created Adam. He was a human and didn't make friends with the animals. God saw this and new he had to create a companion that he could get along with. He created Eve as a helper and companion for Adam. Eve was created through Adams 'rib'. God used Adam's 'DNA' essentially to create Eve. An interesting note: the bottom rib is the only bone in the body that grows back if you remove it. Also, the rib was used as pens to write with.

Now ponder this:

God was essential to create both Adam and Eve, however, they were not created equal:
-Adam was essential to create Eve (a woman has no life without a man).
-But Adam was not essential on Eve (a man has no life without God).

Wow! Do you see the sheer genius of the Bible?

Anyhow, Adam and Eve were hanging out naked in the garden and getting acquainted and speaking to God here and there in the garden throughout the day. God was with his angles looking over the garden watching Adam and Even walk about the garden. God told them that he really liked his creation, but he felt like Adam and Eve were like the animals he created. After all, they just walked around and ate and lay about. So God asked his angles Gabriel and Michael for their input.

God said: "I want Adam and Eve to have free will (make choices) like I do. I want them to create like I do. I don't want them to be like the animals I have created".
Angel Michael said: "That is a terrible idea! You have free will because you are God Almighty. If man does not recognize that you are the Almighty Creator, they will attempt to be all-mighty like you. This will cause them to do evil things to each other."
Angel Gabriel said: "It's a very good idea! We can watch them be happy with each other like us in heaven. They will have free will to make choices and create."

God thought about it and decided that he would give Adam and Eve free will and choice. He wanted to see them have choice and create. He wanted to see their laughter, their lovingness for one another. He wanted them to be fruitful, multiply, and live 'godly' lives that would make God happy... So, God sent down the the serpent... And the rest, is History.

WOW!

You see, to make God happy when he looks down on you, you must be free to chose which path to take. You can obey Gods rules and have ever lasting life (tree of life), or you can disobey Him. If there wasn't this choice, then Adam and Eve would still be in the garden until this very day. They would just be 2 more 'animals' in the garden eating and sleeping all day. This is not what God wanted. Eve was easily tricked. She had no life experience and was but an innocent child. Then, after she ate the fruit with Adam, she lost her innocence in the world and realized she was naked! They then had the right to chose from their life then on.

God wanted Adam and Eve to pass down their 'lessons learned' through the generations so all of humanity could understand Gods authority and what happens if you disobey. But things didn't go as planned as we all know...

The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,078
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2014, 08:54:31 PM »
Anyhow, Adam and Eve were hanging out naked in the garden and getting acquainted and speaking to God here and there in the garden throughout the day. God was with his angles looking over the garden watching Adam and Even walk about the garden. God told them that he really liked his creation, but he felt like Adam and Eve were like the animals he created. After all, they just walked around and ate and lay about. So God asked his angles Gabriel and Michael for their input.

God said: "I want Adam and Eve to have free will (make choices) like I do. I want them to create like I do. I don't want them to be like the animals I have created".
Angel Michael said: "That is a terrible idea! You have free will because you are God Almighty. If man does not recognize that you are the Almighty Creator, they will attempt to be all-mighty like you. This will cause them to do evil things to each other."
Angel Gabriel said: "It's a very good idea! We can watch them be happy with each other like us in heaven. They will have free will to make choices and create."

God thought about it and decided that he would give Adam and Eve free will and choice. He wanted to see them have choice and create. He wanted to see their laughter, their lovingness for one another. He wanted them to be fruitful, multiply, and live 'godly' lives that would make God happy... So, God sent down the the serpent... And the rest, is History.

What?  Where on earth did you get this?
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2014, 09:51:06 PM »
What?  Where on earth did you get this?

Old Jewish wisdom my friend.

Genesis was taught thousands of years ago through verbal parable, very much like the way I described it above. Same story and all.

The point is, for us to have free will, we needed to be cast from the garden. For us to appreciate life, life must come to an end. For us to make God happy, we must have a way to make God upset. Otherwise, we are just animals.

And, this is the very reason is why we cut our foreskin! We do it to always be a constant reminder that we are separate from the animals (all animals have foreskin!). We have the free will to chose if we shall remain human by God's commandment, or be like animals due to social, 'worldly pressures').

Who are you going to let shape your morals of what is right or wrong? God or lying snakes?

Yes... you see there is huge significance in circumcision for many reasons and it goes back to Adam and Eve. Everything starts there Things you may not have thought of. Don't bypass some of the most important teachings that God blessed us with.
The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,078
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2014, 11:06:18 PM »
What?  Where on earth did you get this?

Old Jewish wisdom my friend.

The OP asked for Eastern Christian (Orthodox) perspectives, not for "old Jewish wisdom".  And since this "wisdom" conflicts with basic Orthodox teachings, it is better not to discuss it here.     
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline wainscottbl

  • Swine of the Sheep
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,943
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2014, 11:37:59 PM »
What?  Where on earth did you get this?

Old Jewish wisdom my friend.

Genesis was taught thousands of years ago through verbal parable, very much like the way I described it above. Same story and all.

The point is, for us to have free will, we needed to be cast from the garden. For us to appreciate life, life must come to an end. For us to make God happy, we must have a way to make God upset. Otherwise, we are just animals.

And, this is the very reason is why we cut our foreskin! We do it to always be a constant reminder that we are separate from the animals (all animals have foreskin!). We have the free will to chose if we shall remain human by God's commandment, or be like animals due to social, 'worldly pressures').

Who are you going to let shape your morals of what is right or wrong? God or lying snakes?

Yes... you see there is huge significance in circumcision for many reasons and it goes back to Adam and Eve. Everything starts there Things you may not have thought of. Don't bypass some of the most important teachings that God blessed us with.

I hate if this sounds like the Jews talking to Our Lord but I think in this case I am right. What you speak is blasphemy and impious. It is one thing to not take ever part of Genesis literally, such as six literal days, etc. It is dangerous, I personally think, to even say there was not a literal Adam and Eve since I think that's actually important, unlike literal 24 hour days--for theological reasons. But the silly way you describe it is not only impious and offensive to God, as if God is some silly tyrant or madman. So God is talking to Gabriel and decides to give man free will, which Gabriel objects to because it will make them like to God. God always wanted man to be more godlike by attaining theosis. He created man with free will from the start. And he gave man the fruit to eat later, when he matured, to aid in that. But I am casting pearls before swine. Perhaps I should not even open up more trouble by saying all this but what you said is so offensive to pious eyes that it might be more scandalous for me not to. Because given your username I think you are just trying to be a troll. If your joke was not so irreverent I might actually think it a good way to lighten things up. Sorry to everyone and the OP for this sanctimonious little rant.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
                                                             -Aristotle



Mor Ephrem, section moderator[/b][/color]

Offline IoanC

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,468
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2014, 06:12:30 AM »
Thanks for your replies, this helps me better understand Orthodoxy.

As I explained in the linked post, I believe that for the authors of Genesis, Cain resisting the temptation to kill his brother would have be as easy (or as difficult) as for Adam not to eat of the fruit.

By the way, I am far from convinced that all these individuals historically existed.

Cheers.

I know what it's like to wonder about certain historical aspects recorded in the scriptures. Personally, I have got a chance to make up my mind a great deal, but I will not try to replace your own process of figuring things out. I'll say this, though: questioning the historicity of the Bible is something of a religion itself (not really a science), much like the various currents that split from orthodoxy over time. To me this is important to notice, before I try too hard to see if they make sense; it's the initial impulse/intention that matters.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2014, 06:13:25 AM by IoanC »

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2014, 07:40:43 AM »
What?  Where on earth did you get this?

Old Jewish wisdom my friend.

The OP asked for Eastern Christian (Orthodox) perspectives, not for "old Jewish wisdom".  And since this "wisdom" conflicts with basic Orthodox teachings, it is better not to discuss it here.     

Its unfortunate your closed off to the most historical teachings humanity has from God. To each their own I guess  :-\
The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2014, 08:21:41 AM »
He created man with free will from the start. And he gave man the fruit to eat later, when he matured, to aid in that.

Well actually, that's not what happened but thats neither here nor there.

The point is, for there to be freedom of choice to do good, there must be an alternative choice which God does not like. If everyone is doing exactly what God wants, then its no longer good in His eyes. You are simply 'doing what you do'. Essentially you are an animal. God didnt create us in animals image.

Job said directly to God 'why dont you send someone down to fix this situation?'.

God said: "i already sent you".

God wants us to chose the right path via free will. For this to have happened, Adam and Eve had to turn away from God. God knew this and thats why he sent the serpant. Then Adams sons Cain and Abel were cursed. Thats another story though.. Really deep stuff in that one. It can change you're whole perspective on life.

And if you dont believe in 7 litteral days, then you throw Adam and Eve out the window, origional sin out the window, and Christian theology out the window.

For anyone who doesnt think the Garden of Eden was real, an agnostic took satellite photos and dicovered the joining rivers a couple years back. They found Eden. These ancient scribes transcend religion in those days. They really were trying to keep records and tell us something. They gave dates and places to the best of their ability. If these were fables or myths, they wouldnt have given actual geographic locations, times, and dates.

Of you want to see if the bible is true, just search and you will find answers that amazed you. Youll be shocked its actually 'true'. Your faith will be unshakable.

The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,078
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2014, 11:19:12 AM »
What?  Where on earth did you get this?

Old Jewish wisdom my friend.

The OP asked for Eastern Christian (Orthodox) perspectives, not for "old Jewish wisdom".  And since this "wisdom" conflicts with basic Orthodox teachings, it is better not to discuss it here.     

Its unfortunate your closed off to the most historical teachings humanity has from God. To each their own I guess  :-\

It's not a matter of being closed off to anything.  Official forum rules designate this section as a place free from non-Orthodox teachings.  "Old Jewish wisdom", therefore, is not appropriately discussed here.  That the "old Jewish wisdom", as you have presented it, is also in direct and obvious conflict with basic Orthodox Christian teachings is an additional problem.   

If you would like to pursue that angle, I recommend starting a thread(s) in the Religious Topics section of Free-For-All, but it will not be allowed here.

Mor Ephrem, moderator   
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline lotharson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2014, 01:09:24 PM »
Mor Ephrem: thanks for this information, henceforth I shall certainly also abide by this rule.

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,249
  • Je suis Janusz Korwin-Mikke
  • Faith: I'm a Vegan
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to ROCOR
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2014, 01:18:40 PM »
There are other sections for non-Orthodox discussion. See our Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion and Religious Topics.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2014, 01:19:27 PM by Alpo »
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,586
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2014, 01:22:33 PM »
As I explained in the linked post, I believe that for the authors of Genesis, Cain resisting the temptation to kill his brother would have be as easy (or as difficult) as for Adam not to eat of the fruit.
Lotharson,

I don't think that has to follow. It doesn't have to be black or white; that either God punished all men for Adam's sin and gave him an evil nature, or fallen man has no impairment whatsoever.

Rather, I think we can say this: God offered Cain the ability to overcome sin by letting go of his jealousy. However, while Cain was free to do this, Cain had predispositions which Adam did not; that is, Cain had an encroaching tendency toward sin, a predisposition toward choosing sin. Overcoming these predispositions is difficult, but with God's help, not impossible. Cain chose the easier path and gave in to jealousy, which, we might say, introduced even further corruption in humanity.
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2014, 01:40:34 PM »
Yeah, no problem. I come from the West, too, first as a Baptist as a child, where I was never formally Baptist, but went to church when I visited my grandmother. Among my first memories of religion are being told, "If you are not baptised you will go to hell." So I wanted to be baptised but my mom and dad did not go to church. I just went when I visited my grandmother, who was a holy woman, and I think it was her who inclined me to religion. At the age of twelve I ordered a Bible from the Mormons. They came and visited, talking mostly to my mom since I was a kid, and I was "baptised" with her. About 19, I decided I wanted to be Catholic and renounced Mormonism. I was baptised into Catholicism on March 26, 2005, my human birthday and spiritual birthday. I was immediately concerned with the liberalism in the Catholic Church and started going to Latin Masses pretty soon after.

Anyway, I think the Western mentality of original sin and the exaggeration of our sinfulness is a problem. I was very scrupulous during my Catholic years. I had good confessors but I always looks at confession and sin in a legal way. Did I confess all my mortal sins in deed and number? Was I giving up the occasions of sin. I will say that form a Catholic standpoint I was doing it wrong. It is why Catholic confessors tell scrupulous souls to not question their confessor and always go to communion, not redo confessions, etc. They have to look at God's mercy. Besides confession is not so much about remembering the number of times you did this or that bad thing, even form a Catholic view, but confessing it simply and plainly and working to improve. Looking at legalisms like number and all that undermines the sacrament if you are being scrupulous about it. But I would say the legalism is somewhat natural to Catholicism and Western Christianity, particularly Calvinism--Calvin was a lawyer, so he needed a legal setup.

But I know the Calvinists teachings of my young Baptist years set me up for a constant fear of hell and God's judgement and my later scrupulosity as a Catholic. Catholicism has its problems I think, but scrupulosity and all that is more of an accidental effect of its principles and my own neurosis personally. But looking at the Eastern view of sin and death makes more sense.

Take infants who die without baptism. In Catholicism they go to limbo because they have original sin--limbo is perfect natural happiness. We are born with the guilt of Adam's sin the Catholic Church teaches. Most Protestants, except the silly liberals, teach this to. Baptists obviously had problems with babies going to burn in hell, as did Catholics. Catholic proposed the theory of limbo, a place within the underworld, but free of pain and with perfect natural happiness. Various Protestant sects said we were born with sin, but waited until the child was around seven or eight to baptise. Some Protestants, like Lutherans and Anglicans, did infant baptism. Orthodox baptise infants, but it makes sense. If children have been free of guilt until the age of reason why baptise them when they have hardly any sins? Might as well baptise them as infants if it is that simple. And if they do have this "original sin" or guilt of Adam that deprives them of grace, then baptise them as infants for sure! But it makes no sense that God would have infants born, nay conceived with sin! Aborted children would go to limbo then. I was very adamant on this as a Catholic because it only made sense if the Catholics were right. People called the aborted children innocents. "They are innocent from personal guilt and die at the hands of murderers, but the are a heap of sin They go to limbo and never attain the vision of God." Augustine said something like that about infants out of the womb. But looking at that view now the Orthodox make much more sense. We obviously inherit a sinful inclination from Adam but the guilt? A child enters the womb with guilt upon him. It makes God out to be pretty cruel and silly I think.

So I understand what you are saying about Western Christianity and it's idea of "sinful nature", particularly Calvinists teaching. Calvin was a big fan of Augustine and as great as Augustine was, I think he went too far sometimes on sin. He actually said infants who are not baptized burn in hell if I recall but most later theologians, including Aquinas, advocated limbo because though they inherited the original guilt of Adam, they had not personal guilt. Hell fire would seem just only for those who willfully sinned.

In my experience in Orthodoxy, scrupulosity and legalism continue to be problems. Orthodoxy is different from Western denominations not in a complete absence of legalism or scrupulosity, but in having preserved a more balanced understanding of sin and salvation that makes it harder to fall into a legalistic mindset. So I would say that, on average, Orthodox believers are less legalistic.

What you want is a balance, so that you are not too scrupulous on the one hand, and not too indifferent or complacent on the other. If you think you are too scrupulous, that is something you should discuss with your spiritual father.

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2014, 05:44:37 PM »
As I explained in the linked post, I believe that for the authors of Genesis, Cain resisting the temptation to kill his brother would have be as easy (or as difficult) as for Adam not to eat of the fruit.
Lotharson,

I don't think that has to follow. It doesn't have to be black or white; that either God punished all men for Adam's sin and gave him an evil nature, or fallen man has no impairment whatsoever.

Rather, I think we can say this: God offered Cain the ability to overcome sin by letting go of his jealousy. However, while Cain was free to do this, Cain had predispositions which Adam did not; that is, Cain had an encroaching tendency toward sin, a predisposition toward choosing sin. Overcoming these predispositions is difficult, but with God's help, not impossible. Cain chose the easier path and gave in to jealousy, which, we might say, introduced even further corruption in humanity.

Thats not what happened. He actually killed his brother by accident and made a stronger effort than anyone to please God. But I certainly cant go into that teaching as I've been warned and many dont like them (its not like I made them up).

Did you know: the first question humanity asks God is in Cain and Abel. A question so great, till this day we dont have an answer.
The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2014, 05:54:59 PM »
As I explained in the linked post, I believe that for the authors of Genesis, Cain resisting the temptation to kill his brother would have be as easy (or as difficult) as for Adam not to eat of the fruit.
Lotharson,

I don't think that has to follow. It doesn't have to be black or white; that either God punished all men for Adam's sin and gave him an evil nature, or fallen man has no impairment whatsoever.

Rather, I think we can say this: God offered Cain the ability to overcome sin by letting go of his jealousy. However, while Cain was free to do this, Cain had predispositions which Adam did not; that is, Cain had an encroaching tendency toward sin, a predisposition toward choosing sin. Overcoming these predispositions is difficult, but with God's help, not impossible. Cain chose the easier path and gave in to jealousy, which, we might say, introduced even further corruption in humanity.

Thats not what happened. He actually killed his brother by accident and made a stronger effort than anyone to please God. But I certainly cant go into that teaching as I've been warned and many dont like them (its not like I made them up).

Did you know: the first question humanity asks God is in Cain and Abel. A question so great, till this day we dont have an answer.

Actually you are making this up entirely. I trust lotharson has enough discernment not to trust you on matters pertaining to the faith.

Offline lotharson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2014, 02:07:26 PM »
Nicholas: I see no indication in the text that it was harder for Cain to resist to the temptation.

It seems to me that for the author, he fell away from grace for the same reason that his parents fell, namely human weakness apart from God.

To my mind God created us weak so that we can only be strong in Him.

I am not sure, however, that there could be such a thing as Apotheosis, although I am open to this concept.


Cheers.

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #29 on: January 17, 2014, 03:20:36 PM »
As I explained in the linked post, I believe that for the authors of Genesis, Cain resisting the temptation to kill his brother would have be as easy (or as difficult) as for Adam not to eat of the fruit.
Lotharson,

I don't think that has to follow. It doesn't have to be black or white; that either God punished all men for Adam's sin and gave him an evil nature, or fallen man has no impairment whatsoever.

Rather, I think we can say this: God offered Cain the ability to overcome sin by letting go of his jealousy. However, while Cain was free to do this, Cain had predispositions which Adam did not; that is, Cain had an encroaching tendency toward sin, a predisposition toward choosing sin. Overcoming these predispositions is difficult, but with God's help, not impossible. Cain chose the easier path and gave in to jealousy, which, we might say, introduced even further corruption in humanity.

Thats not what happened. He actually killed his brother by accident and made a stronger effort than anyone to please God. But I certainly cant go into that teaching as I've been warned and many dont like them (its not like I made them up).

Did you know: the first question humanity asks God is in Cain and Abel. A question so great, till this day we dont have an answer.

Actually you are making this up entirely. I trust lotharson has enough discernment not to trust you on matters pertaining to the faith.

Accuracy aside, I can only hope that Cackles doesn't stop posting.

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #30 on: January 17, 2014, 03:24:37 PM »
As I explained in the linked post, I believe that for the authors of Genesis, Cain resisting the temptation to kill his brother would have be as easy (or as difficult) as for Adam not to eat of the fruit.
Lotharson,

I don't think that has to follow. It doesn't have to be black or white; that either God punished all men for Adam's sin and gave him an evil nature, or fallen man has no impairment whatsoever.

Rather, I think we can say this: God offered Cain the ability to overcome sin by letting go of his jealousy. However, while Cain was free to do this, Cain had predispositions which Adam did not; that is, Cain had an encroaching tendency toward sin, a predisposition toward choosing sin. Overcoming these predispositions is difficult, but with God's help, not impossible. Cain chose the easier path and gave in to jealousy, which, we might say, introduced even further corruption in humanity.

Thats not what happened. He actually killed his brother by accident and made a stronger effort than anyone to please God. But I certainly cant go into that teaching as I've been warned and many dont like them (its not like I made them up).

Did you know: the first question humanity asks God is in Cain and Abel. A question so great, till this day we dont have an answer.

Actually you are making this up entirely. I trust lotharson has enough discernment not to trust you on matters pertaining to the faith.

Accuracy aside, I can only hope that Cackles doesn't stop posting.

But think of the children!

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #31 on: January 17, 2014, 07:03:18 PM »
Nicholas: I see no indication in the text that it was harder for Cain to resist to the temptation.

It seems to me that for the author, he fell away from grace for the same reason that his parents fell, namely human weakness apart from God.

To my mind God created us weak so that we can only be strong in Him.

I am not sure, however, that there could be such a thing as Apotheosis, although I am open to this concept.


Cheers.

Nope.

One of the fundemental things in all versions of Cain nd Abel is that God tells man 100% that he has free choice to chose to commit sin.

Remember the story of Adam and Eve and the dabate God had with Gabriel and Michael.

Cain and Abel is important because God EXPLICITLY tells man that we have free choice to not commit sin. This is in all versions.

It also demonstrates that actions are more important than thoughts. Many religions like Islam and eastern philosophies are intersted in thought control and thought policing. This is NOT a fundemental pillar of Christianity/Judiasm as the story clearly demonstrates. Although the temptation of man is very strong to to control other mens thoughts.. So much they will do it in the name of religion. But God clearly shows us that actions are most important.

This whole modern theology of 'born sinner / garunteed saved' is something that IN MY OPINION has no validity what so ever.

HOWEVER, that being said, we must acknowledge that since the 1600's it has become succesful and stood the test of time. We are in Canada and United States right now because of this. The world as we know it today would not be the same if it wasnt for the reformation.

The reformation stood the test of time. This means God clearly wanted this theology. God wanted the Bible to be open to everyone and fort here to be more scholarly works towards theology.

Seeing as God allowed their theologies to stand the test of time, we must acknowlege them as our brothers and sisters. They are of the same religion as us.

God allowed Islam, but as Christians we connot consider them our brothers and sisters because they dont beleive Jesus died on the cross or was son of God. It gets into a grey area. However, they believe in one Jahova and are amongst the only monotheisms in the world. Muslims are our cousins. The Orthodox theology regarding sin is much closer to Islam than most Evangelical.

An Orthodox layperson may sit with a Muslim layperson and find more in common than an Evangelical. However Muslims are not our brother and sisters.

The Jews are like our older brothers. We are subservant to them as they are God's chosen people. When we are baptised, we technically become Jewish under the line of Abraham. This includes Evangelicals. But born Jews who follow the law are still our older brothers. Christians exist to save the Jewish people and we have done so through time. Christians ensure that Jews remain on their soil. Jews were persacuted after Darwinism and Secular Humanism was born. The bloodshed of the last 100 years is on their hands - not Christian values.

DID YOU KNOW: Jewish people have the highest household income in the US. Not surprised Im sure. But guess who's in second place? You guessed it! Orthodox!
Despite my earlier admonitions to refrain, in this section, from promoting non-Orthodox religious teachings which also conflict with basic Orthodox teachings (and the recommendation that you pursue such conversation in other sections where this is allowed, if you wish), you continue to do so here.  

Therefore, you are receiving a warning to last for the next fourteen (14) days.  If you wish to appeal this decision, please do so by PMing me.  

Mor Ephrem, moderator      
« Last Edit: January 18, 2014, 09:42:36 AM by Mor Ephrem »
The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.

Offline wainscottbl

  • Swine of the Sheep
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,943
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #32 on: January 17, 2014, 09:49:23 PM »
God wanted the Protestant Reformation? Maybe in the same way he "wanted" Judas to betray him or the Jews to go astray. He permitted it certainly, and it is all part of His Providence where evil may produce good, but I do not think God wanted it in the same sense a father may allow a son to act on his own stupidly to learn form his mistakes. Like to get drunk and then suffer the hangover. A good father does not enjoy that but at a certain point he has to let his son act on his own. And if his son worse becomes an alcoholic that saddens him, but is he a bad father for allowing him that first drink of alcohol or did he actually want his son to end up an alcoholic? No. But every father knows its possible. But he can't keep him locked up so he never goes out and drinks or never drives, though may well end up dying in a car wreck. None of those examples is the perfect example, but it is a decent way to understand how God allows evil from a human perspective.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
                                                             -Aristotle



Mor Ephrem, section moderator[/b][/color]

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2014, 09:07:29 AM »
God wanted the Protestant Reformation? Maybe in the same way he "wanted" Judas to betray him or the Jews to go astray. He permitted it certainly, and it is all part of His Providence where evil may produce good, but I do not think God wanted it in the same sense a father may allow a son to act on his own stupidly to learn form his mistakes. Like to get drunk and then suffer the hangover. A good father does not enjoy that but at a certain point he has to let his son act on his own. And if his son worse becomes an alcoholic that saddens him, but is he a bad father for allowing him that first drink of alcohol or did he actually want his son to end up an alcoholic? No. But every father knows its possible. But he can't keep him locked up so he never goes out and drinks or never drives, though may well end up dying in a car wreck. None of those examples is the perfect example, but it is a decent way to understand how God allows evil from a human perspective.

Well I'm actually basing my opinions on Biblical evidence. God has played a role in scattering people accross the earth and encouraging 'factions' (tower of Babel).  We also see in 1 Corinthians that Paul himself says that religious divisions are nesessary.

Throught the Bible there is an ANTI secular humanist theme.

Look at the map geographically. Good allowed the idol worshoping philosophies of the east. Then he factioned off Islam to Arabia, and then Catholicism/Orthodoxy in the mediteranian and Europe. And then Protistants all over North America which became the worlds super power proving strong armed peace, and bringing Jews back to Israel.

There is always good mixed in with bad, but God litterally filled up a continent of a new faction. They believe Jesus is the saviour like us and have funded and suppoerted Isreal to an extreme. This must have been in Gods plan because it stood the test.

But God is not a regular Father. Hes beyond what we can comprehend. Who knows there could be DNA/genetic markers that he understood would draw people to Protestantism and cause them to move to the new world and start up labor unions demanding entitlements. Entitlement to heaven, entitlement to 50 days off a year. Lifetime salary pension and benefits. Damn those protestants sure love their unions. The 'entitlement' is in their blood.

It could be God wanted these people out the Catholic church and moved out of Europe. The Kabbalists think that God made certain 'types' of us. So basically if he wants 20% of people to react, he knows how to target them and get them to react. im still amazed how 300 million people filled up such a large portion of eath in such a quick time. And trust me backt hen, people were SUPER religious, the women all coered their heads and dressed modest. There was no divorce. They wrote Bible scripture right into the legal code. The trials were roght out of Jewish law. It was unreal.

So if God wanted this, then us speaking against it or trying to fight it is like fighting against god. (That is also from Talmudic writngs regarding their stance on Jesus). We take the same position.

Revelations clearly state there will be a one world governmentt (there already is IMO if you consider finance to be what governs). The thing is, we cant allow ourselves to fight it. We cant change it if it's in Gods plan. I think it might even say in the verse not to bother with looking for it because it will cause anxiety or something along those lines.

And one last thing.. You might be wondering how the Jews stayed so small at 13 million and never joined Christianity in the early days when all indications is they wanted to merge the two schools together. Very simple answer as to how God kept them small all this time. God ensured that their religion could never be exploited or changed from the outside. do you know how? Circumcision  ;)

And this is one of the main reasons they have it and if you are Orthodox, I beleive that we are a special sect of Jew from the line of Abraham and due to our classical free will Jewish theology. circumcision is a must for various reasons for Orthodox in my lowly opinion if someone has a baby boy.



The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2014, 11:30:30 AM »
But God is not a regular Father. Hes beyond what we can comprehend. Who knows there could be DNA/genetic markers that he understood would draw people to Protestantism and cause them to move to the new world and start up labor unions demanding entitlements. Entitlement to heaven, entitlement to 50 days off a year. Lifetime salary pension and benefits. Damn those protestants sure love their unions. The 'entitlement' is in their blood.

 ???  Pardon me?  Have you read any of the history of Labour?  It wasn't any form of "entitlement" that led to the creation of labour unions in North America, unless you consider protesting wage cuts and dangerous, sometimes life threatening, conditions in the work place to be "entitlements".  The Lowell (Mass.) Mill Girls for example is a good starting place.
http://library.uml.edu/clh/mo.htm

Quote
Im still amazed how 300 million people filled up such a large portion of eath in such a quick time. And trust me backt hen, people were SUPER religious, the women all coered their heads and dressed modest. There was no divorce. They wrote Bible scripture right into the legal code. The trials were roght out of Jewish law. It was unreal.

Would you please be a bit more specific about what period of history and what area you are referring to?  Do you mean the entire continent of North America?  Thank you.

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2014, 02:03:27 AM »

Would you please be a bit more specific about what period of history and what area you are referring to?  Do you mean the entire continent of North America?  Thank you.


I'm speaking of US/Canada mainly around the around the 16 century. The legal code all over the New England area had direct bible quotes in it.

Here's some 17th Century Laws of Massachusetts:



Here are how the settler women looked. Noticed the head covering and modest dress.

1639 Portrait:



They fled to the 'New World' with the push of God's hand to change history as we know it today:



Quakers in 1656:



The courts were held by way of Jewish law and even the Book of Psalms was translated for singing (like Jews). The book of Psalm was the first book ever published in the US. The first print sold for $14.2 MILLION in 2013. This book obviously has value unlike some idiotic book that claim we come from monkeys.



Women not covering head, and all the rest of 'life as we know it' is very, very, recent in history. Everyone will tell you it was sometime around the 60's when things took a turn for the worse and we rapidly headed downhill so fast before our eyes. I can only point it to feminism, which lead to equality (religion of secular humanism), and then people took on an anti-biblical religion of believing in mans moral code - not God's. Now we're at a place where 51% of Catholics in America believe that we came from monkeys rather than God explicitly telling us he created us. We're at a day and age where people in the pews of churches all over the world have turned their back on God the *creator*.
The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2014, 02:34:41 PM »

Would you please be a bit more specific about what period of history and what area you are referring to?  Do you mean the entire continent of North America?  Thank you.


I'm speaking of US/Canada mainly around the around the 16 century. The legal code all over the New England area had direct bible quotes in it.

Well, since the 16th century was the 1500s perhaps you have a typo.  The first European settlement in North America was Spanish and was St. Augustine in what is now the state of Florida which was founded in 1565.  It was not done for the purposes of religious freedom
http://www.augustine.com/history/index.php

But even in the 17th century I must disagree with your post which is a sweeping generalization that does not reflect real history.

The first successful English colony was Jamestown in Virginia and that was begun in 1607 not for any religious reason but for economic ones such as land, natural resources and (they hoped) gold.
http://www.historicjamestowne.org/history/
(Yes there was the earlier colony of Roanoke in 1585, but that was not begun due to any religious persecution and it also did not survive but is now referred to as "The Lost Colony".)

The Dutch started settlements and trading forts beginning around 1614 and spread from western Connecticut through southeastern New York to New Jersey and slighting into what is now Delaware and Pennsylvania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas#United_States

There was a Swedish colony along the Delaware River around the same time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden

Plymouth Colony was begun in 1620 by the "Pilgrims" and they did come to North America in for religious reasons. But they received financial backing from a group of merchants who did so because they also looked upon any North American colony as an economic investment.  The Pilgrims were also not the only group that lived there and even among the religious persons they were not all of one mind and over the years there were splits. Roger Williams was banished for example, as was Anne Hutchinson. 

In Canada aka "New France" the French colonists started arriving in the early 1600s and again they came for economic reasons nor due to being persecuted for their religion.

So, I apologize as it is not my intention to give any offense, but I do not "trust" your statement that "people were SUPER religious" because I have read real history and things are much more complicated.  Many were not, there were different ideas and groups both in the European countries and in North America and one cannot describe the entire situation in what would become the United States and Canada from pictures of only three documents and a couple of pictures of people. 

I am cutting the photos to save bandwidth, but that painting is not "how settler women looked" it is what Anne Bradstreet, "the Tenth Muse Lately Sprung up in America" is supposed to have looked like.  Dress is cultural and was different depending on location, social status, belief and other factors such as climate.  One person does not necessarily define the total.

Quote
The courts were held by way of Jewish law

As opposed to the ways of law/ Common Law in the countries from which the colonists came?   Could you please give some support/examples?

Quote
and even the Book of Psalms was translated for singing (like Jews). The book of Psalm was the first book ever published in the US. The first print sold for $14.2 MILLION in 2013. This book obviously has value unlike some idiotic book that claim we come from monkeys.

Ummm There were Psalters for singing before that book. The earliest one in English is from 1549 "The Psalter of David Newly Translated into English metre"  done by Robert Crowley. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrical_psalter

The reason that the recent auction of The Bay Psalter brought such a high bid is that it is one of only 11 existing copies out of a total print run of around 1700. Most of the copies have not survived so it is exceedingly rare and rare books can bring high prices.  It has historic value. 

Quote
Women not covering head, and all the rest of 'life as we know it' is very, very, recent in history. Everyone will tell you it was sometime around the 60's when things took a turn for the worse ...

Again, I must disagree with your claim. The history of clothing and different cultures and times shows otherwise.  Can you support your assertion with some good sources please?  I remember the 60s and it was not the case that things suddenly changed from "Pilgrim" clothing for example.

With respect,

Ebor
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Cackles

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2014, 05:18:51 PM »
Yes i can prove all your assertians wrong, and partially true, except i'll choose to tap out of this one as Im a father and husband and can not spend the time reasearching things i've already researched in the past.

When all the legal code of the most populated states at that time are biblical, and when we have living proof of protestantism in the US moved here (not hindus or zombies or Orthodox), then theres nothing I can say. I mean.. Like its so plain to see the US constitution is based on Potestant ideals which changed the world as we know it today. We are living proof os something so obvious and blatent.



Would you please be a bit more specific about what period of history and what area you are referring to?  Do you mean the entire continent of North America?  Thank you.


I'm speaking of US/Canada mainly around the around the 16 century. The legal code all over the New England area had direct bible quotes in it.

Well, since the 16th century was the 1500s perhaps you have a typo.  The first European settlement in North America was Spanish and was St. Augustine in what is now the state of Florida which was founded in 1565.  It was not done for the purposes of religious freedom
http://www.augustine.com/history/index.php

But even in the 17th century I must disagree with your post which is a sweeping generalization that does not reflect real history.

The first successful English colony was Jamestown in Virginia and that was begun in 1607 not for any religious reason but for economic ones such as land, natural resources and (they hoped) gold.
http://www.historicjamestowne.org/history/
(Yes there was the earlier colony of Roanoke in 1585, but that was not begun due to any religious persecution and it also did not survive but is now referred to as "The Lost Colony".)

The Dutch started settlements and trading forts beginning around 1614 and spread from western Connecticut through southeastern New York to New Jersey and slighting into what is now Delaware and Pennsylvania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas#United_States

There was a Swedish colony along the Delaware River around the same time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden

Plymouth Colony was begun in 1620 by the "Pilgrims" and they did come to North America in for religious reasons. But they received financial backing from a group of merchants who did so because they also looked upon any North American colony as an economic investment.  The Pilgrims were also not the only group that lived there and even among the religious persons they were not all of one mind and over the years there were splits. Roger Williams was banished for example, as was Anne Hutchinson. 

In Canada aka "New France" the French colonists started arriving in the early 1600s and again they came for economic reasons nor due to being persecuted for their religion.

So, I apologize as it is not my intention to give any offense, but I do not "trust" your statement that "people were SUPER religious" because I have read real history and things are much more complicated.  Many were not, there were different ideas and groups both in the European countries and in North America and one cannot describe the entire situation in what would become the United States and Canada from pictures of only three documents and a couple of pictures of people. 

I am cutting the photos to save bandwidth, but that painting is not "how settler women looked" it is what Anne Bradstreet, "the Tenth Muse Lately Sprung up in America" is supposed to have looked like.  Dress is cultural and was different depending on location, social status, belief and other factors such as climate.  One person does not necessarily define the total.

Quote
The courts were held by way of Jewish law

As opposed to the ways of law/ Common Law in the countries from which the colonists came?   Could you please give some support/examples?

Quote
and even the Book of Psalms was translated for singing (like Jews). The book of Psalm was the first book ever published in the US. The first print sold for $14.2 MILLION in 2013. This book obviously has value unlike some idiotic book that claim we come from monkeys.

Ummm There were Psalters for singing before that book. The earliest one in English is from 1549 "The Psalter of David Newly Translated into English metre"  done by Robert Crowley. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrical_psalter

The reason that the recent auction of The Bay Psalter brought such a high bid is that it is one of only 11 existing copies out of a total print run of around 1700. Most of the copies have not survived so it is exceedingly rare and rare books can bring high prices.  It has historic value. 

Quote
Women not covering head, and all the rest of 'life as we know it' is very, very, recent in history. Everyone will tell you it was sometime around the 60's when things took a turn for the worse ...

Again, I must disagree with your claim. The history of clothing and different cultures and times shows otherwise.  Can you support your assertion with some good sources please?  I remember the 60s and it was not the case that things suddenly changed from "Pilgrim" clothing for example.

With respect,

Ebor
The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2014, 07:35:59 PM »
Yes i can prove all your assertians wrong, and partially true, except i'll choose to tap out of this one as Im a father and husband and can not spend the time reasearching things i've already researched in the past.

When all the legal code of the most populated states at that time are biblical, and when we have living proof of protestantism in the US moved here (not hindus or zombies or Orthodox), then theres nothing I can say. I mean.. Like its so plain to see the US constitution is based on Potestant ideals which changed the world as we know it today. We are living proof os something so obvious and blatent.

"wrong and partially true"?  None of the historical points that I provided links for are wrong as to the various early settlements and colonies. 

I am not making any claim that there were not some groups that came to North American to escape religious persecution or that there were not many different Protestant Churches and groups who were instrumental in the growth of the United States and Canada.  But there were also Roman Catholics in many areas (New France, Florida under the Spanish and the colony of Maryland).  There were people who came to this country for economic benefits and some who came unwillingly as indentured servants or transported criminals.

If you can offer proof that something that I have written is wrong, please do so.  Truth, real verifiable truth in history is important.


"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,586
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: On the teaching of the sinful nature
« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2014, 07:50:11 PM »
Nicholas: I see no indication in the text that it was harder for Cain to resist to the temptation.
Yes. In fact, the story of Cain is saying something profound about the two ways of life that Near-Easterners practiced.

But as Christians, viewing Genesis from the hermeneutic of the New Testament, we might infer my reading from a few things: Cain was not born into paradise, but into the fallen world, where chaos, toil and wisdomless knowledge abounded; and because he was made in the likeness of his fallen father Adam.
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.