If you're conservative,

[Crimson Wife]

If people are "tempted" and successfully act according to what is moral, rather than what is immoral, and they do so of their own accord and free-will, that is powerful evidence that men (and women) are not of a "sin nature."

 

Bill

 

But if they did not have a sinful nature, they wouldn't feel temptation to begin with but would easily make the right choice 100% of the time. Even the holiest of saints struggled with the temptation to sin.

[EthiopianFood]

Yeah...but the OP used some loaded terms.

Conservative

Nature (as it pertains to man's core being not trees and grass)

It tends to make the religion come out in religious folk. :001_smile:

 

Not that religion shouldn't form the basis of a person's opinion! I hope it doesn't sound like I'm saying that. Yeah, I'm just going to wait for the clarification. :tongue_smilie:

[nono]

About the op's question. I think we all have a sin nature. We have the potential to do evil but we are made in the image of God and so also have the potential to do good.

 

 

In general I agree with this statement. I read the OP's question as a simple one. I would define someone who does more good things than bad a basically good person. I must live a super-charmed life or something, but even some pretty "sin-inclined" people I know do way more neutral to good things in a day than they do bad.

 

Of course, I was raised RC and totally believe in degrees of sinning (mortal and venial). Just because all are sinners doesn't mean all sins are the same. Premeditation to me is bad. A thoughtless slip-up may have bad consequences, but isn't to my mind BAD.

 

Oh, but wait, I'm RC, with Episcopalian/Buddhist children...can I even be considered conservative 'round these parts? :tongue_smilie:

[susankenny]

Well, it would be nice if the OP would actually define her question - that would help us all out. In general, I like to think people know how to behave and will respond to what our society says is "bad" & "good" appropriately. Otherwise, I wouldn't let my children play outside, I'd lock my door more often, and I'd carry a gun. In general, *most* people behave appropriately & follow societal rules. I also believe most people have the ability to respond with compassion & love and I do believe God sees those efforts as good, despite our fallen human state. He is our Father and loves to see when we do the right thing. In some situations we rise to the occasion & other times, we fail miserably. I watched a fairly good show on netflix last night, "The Science of Evil". It was by National Geographic. It was pretty good, definitely a nice follow-up to this thread.:)

 

Susan

[susankenny]

Another thought. I also think phrasing it as a question to "conservatives" taints the outcome somewhat. In my opinion a more interesting question is, "If aliens are observing our planet, what is their opinion of how we live?" Because for me, comparing how I live horizontally to others around me...well, I'm doing alright actually. However, if I go outside of my own little box and entertain the *idea* of comparing myself vertically to outsiders looking in on "us", I imagine they would think the fighting, poverty, pollution, and emphasis on self would be rather neanderthal compared to what I imagine other civilizations may look like. Although they would see pieces of "good" (of course), I *imagine* their overall report would say we are killing ourselves because we are a society that doesn't care enough about each other and our planet. Of course that's a philosophical question & assumes a certain scenario, but then again, the original question is philosophical as well.

 

Anyway - just an fun thought.

 

Susan

[Aubrey]

Ok, so here's my experience:

 

I believed that people were basically "evil." We're born w/ a sin nature. Yes we can do good, to some extent, esp w/ God's help, but our *nature* is basically evil.

 

One day while talking to my Jewish midwife, this somehow came up, & she mentioned that she believed people were basically good. I'd *never* heard anyone say anything like that. It was shocking. But this lady was So Much Kinder & more patient, etc than most of the people I'd met in my life. I couldn't help but wonder if it was because of her view of people.

 

The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Yes, people fell, but they're made in the image of God: which is more basic to our nature? And so I was converted to believing that people are basically good.

 

My friend from OP believes that makes me a conservative anomaly. I was just wondering. ;)

Edited April 13, 2011 by Aubrey

[Meriwether]

I believe we are made in the image of God... which would be good.

 

But we are also fallen and born into sin... which would be bad.

 

So, I think it can be summed up as both. We are all good and bad. Some people may be more of one than the other.

]

 

This is what I was thinking when I read the question. I can't answer the poll.

[sheryl]

Audrey,

 

This is a good topic. I have this conversation with my dd every now and then.

 

I used to always say "most people are good". Now I do say, "most people are not good". However, that is from a purely Biblical standpoint....as God says "all have sinned and fall short..." and "we are conceived in sin", etc.

 

However, I would take it a step further and say that many people have "good intentions". Most people don't commit horrific crimes. Most people have "honorable" intentions. I'm having a hard time equating good and bad with intentions and whether they are honorable or not.

 

Does this make sense to anyone else or just me?

 

Still though a good topic.

 

So, to answer your question I would vote "most people are good", but for me that would equate into "most people have honorable intentions a good part of the time".

[claire+3]

I think this is a very interesting question and one which I have a lot of trouble answering. I grew up in an extremely conservative, fundamentalist church and school (which has been called a cult by some). This very issue of "original sin" is the one that has screwed me over the most (imo). The idea that I was born a sinner was heavily taught and I internalized it. I was taught that God could not even look at me because of my sinfulness--only when he put his "Jesus glasses" on. Because of this (coupled with highly punitive parents) I grew up very afraid of God and I always felt dirty, sinful and bad.

In theory, I would like to say I agree with Sirius Black--that we are a mixture of both light and dark and have the power to choose. I want to believe this. But it is a lifetime of recovery for me to get over the deeply ingrained message that I was born sinful and bad.

[lionfamily1999]

I said "bad," but it comes from the idea that we're all sinners.

 

IOW, I don't think everyone strives to be bad, I think people (in general) try to be good. We just aren't capable of real goodness.

[sheryl]

I said "bad," but it comes from the idea that we're all sinners.

 

IOW, I don't think everyone strives to be bad, I think people (in general) try to be good. We just aren't capable of real goodness.

 

Yep, Julie, that's it! We are NOT capable of real goodness. There is "good" and "bad" in sinners and believers who are still sinners saved by the grace and blood of Jesus. IOW, I'm a follower of Christ....does that mean I've not sinned since my conversion? No, unfortunately I have sinned...I was angry with my s.n. dd yesterday and the day before for her issues.

 

It is a choice. As we grow closer in our walk with the Lord we are to expose those hidden sins and sin less.

 

When I think of Billy Graham, I think of such a godly man. BUT, he's even had to fail b/c he is human. He CAN BE FORGIVEN AS WE ALL CAN! That's grace. God doesn't expect us to change first to have a relationship with HIM. He "meets" us where we are. So, anyone in the world who thinks they are off the deep end need not feel that way. God will us where we are if WE.ASK.HIM!

 

OK, sorry to long.

[Aubrey]

Audrey,

 

This is a good topic. I have this conversation with my dd every now and then.

 

I used to always say "most people are good". Now I do say, "most people are not good". However, that is from a purely Biblical standpoint....as God says "all have sinned and fall short..." and "we are conceived in sin", etc.

 

But IS that Biblical, or is that just what we've been *taught*? God created man & said that it was "very good."

 

I'm not really arguing w/ you, just pointing out that there is Scripture to support both sides of the argument--the Bible doesn't actually SAY if people are basically good or basically bad.

 

However, I would take it a step further and say that many people have "good intentions". Most people don't commit horrific crimes. Most people have "honorable" intentions. I'm having a hard time equating good and bad with intentions and whether they are honorable or not.

 

Does this make sense to anyone else or just me?

 

Still though a good topic.

 

So, to answer your question I would vote "most people are good", but for me that would equate into "most people have honorable intentions a good part of the time".

 

I didn't really mean "intentions" necessarily. But I did find myself wondering--if people are basically bad, then why is it that when I'm broken down on the side of the road, so many people pull over to see if they can help but NO ONE pulls over to take advantage of the situation?

[Aubrey]

I said "bad," but it comes from the idea that we're all sinners.

 

IOW, I don't think everyone strives to be bad, I think people (in general) try to be good. We just aren't capable of real goodness.

 

Right--I didn't mean what we "strive" to be, but at our core, our essence, what we ARE.

[sheryl]

But IS that Biblical, or is that just what we've been *taught*? God created man & said that it was "very good."

 

I'm not really arguing w/ you, just pointing out that there is Scripture to support both sides of the argument--the Bible doesn't actually SAY if people are basically good or basically bad.

 

 

I hear what you're saying and agree with you, to a point. That was creation. When God created man it was good! As a result of the "fall" that all changed. The fall as we understand was the entrance of practiced sin.

 

I didn't really mean "intentions" necessarily. But I did find myself wondering--if people are basically bad, then why is it that when I'm broken down on the side of the road, so many people pull over to see if they can help but NO ONE pulls over to take advantage of the situation?

 

Well imo that's what I stated....there are good and bad intentions in ALL people. We are conservatives. We have some friends who are as liberal as liberal can get. They are "good" people in as much as have many good intentions. We've shared Thanksgiving in their home over 3 days. ALL people possess good/honorable acts and the opposite. I will say this though. If push came to shove, what is any one of us capable of doing? It is a crime to take someone's life. Would anyone here be willing to do so to protect their family? I know, I know the court would side "probably" with the victim b/c it is self-defense. And it is honorable to protect our family, but it's not so towards to attacker.

 

It's hard to convey via message board, but hope this makes sense. And, probably at this point, so much info is going to be entered into the replies that it will start to turn like most threads do.

 

Suffice to say that all people have good and bad intentions. Most people do help, etc, but that's different than the "core" makeup of a person being "good' or "bad". Oh I'm off this topci, b/c I'm rambling...

[lionfamily1999]

Yep, Julie, that's it! We are NOT capable of real goodness. There is "good" and "bad" in sinners and believers who are still sinners saved by the grace and blood of Jesus. IOW, I'm a follower of Christ....does that mean I've not sinned since my conversion? No, unfortunately I have sinned...I was angry with my s.n. dd yesterday and the day before for her issues.

 

It is a choice. As we grow closer in our walk with the Lord we are to expose those hidden sins and sin less.

 

When I think of Billy Graham, I think of such a godly man. BUT, he's even had to fail b/c he is human. He CAN BE FORGIVEN AS WE ALL CAN! That's grace. God doesn't expect us to change first to have a relationship with HIM. He "meets" us where we are. So, anyone in the world who thinks they are off the deep end need not feel that way. God will us where we are if WE.ASK.HIM!

 

OK, sorry to long.

:iagree:

But IS that Biblical, or is that just what we've been *taught*? God created man & said that it was "very good."

 

I'm not really arguing w/ you, just pointing out that there is Scripture to support both sides of the argument--the Bible doesn't actually SAY if people are basically good or basically bad.

 

All have sinned and fallen short.

 

They did a 'thing' at church this past Sunday... I want to pass part of it on, food for thought. Cold does not exist. It's a descriptive term for a lack of heat (which does exist, can be measured). Darkness does not exist. It's a descriptive term for a lack of light (again, does exist, can be measured). Evil (as the theory continues) does not exist. It is a descriptive term for the lack of the presence of God (which is 'good'). Change the terms. Are people bad (ie evil)? IOW, do people lack God? Yes, they do (until they fix that, right). If badness is the lack of God's presence, then it's not saying that people are carrying around a big dark/cold burden of badness, it's saying they're going around with the light/heat of the presence of God.

 

Anyway, that was my convoluted way of reasoning out this question. People alone are bad, because there isn't goodness without the presence of God.

 

 

I didn't really mean "intentions" necessarily. But I did find myself wondering--if people are basically bad, then why is it that when I'm broken down on the side of the road, so many people pull over to see if they can help but NO ONE pulls over to take advantage of the situation?

Because we always long for God (goodness), even when we don't know it.

[vonfirmath]

It's bad, but it's different from approaching everyone as if they are bad. I approach people as if they are good. So that's why 'other'. I approach people on their good sides, not really suspiciously--and 'suspiciously' is the description I would expect for a conservative who thinks that people are basically bad.

 

You might be surprised.

[lionfamily1999]

It's bad, but it's different from approaching everyone as if they are bad. I approach people as if they are good. So that's why 'other'. I approach people on their good sides, not really suspiciously--and 'suspiciously' is the description I would expect for a conservative who thinks that people are basically bad.

I assume the best of people, while still knowing we're all sinners. I don't have a high spot to stand in regard to sin, so I assume we're pretty much equal and continue to assume that most people really mean well (I know I do).

 

Knowing that everyone has sinned (even me!) doesn't make me suspicious. After all, I'd have to spend most of my time doubting myself if that was the case.

[Gooblink]

If people are "tempted" and successfully act according to what is moral, rather than what is immoral, and they do so of their own accord and free-will, that is powerful evidence that men (and women) are not of a "sin nature."

 

Bill

 

Actually, the "sin nature" doesn't refer to our behavior, at all. Yes, it's true that many people choose to do the right thing, with or without a religious motivation. Good and bad behavior as we measure it is relative.

 

So, if we are measuring good vs bad relative to each other then, yes, I wholeheartedly believe people are basically good. I love people.

 

If "sin nature" were simply a reflection of our continual temptation to choose sin, then Jesus would have been born in the same bondage, as he was tempted over and over again - probably more powerfully then any of us will ever experience.

 

We are born "in sin" because all of mankind is born separated from God.

 

Jesus didn't simply always "choose the right thing," he was not conceived of man, he was God incarnate, which was why He alone possessed the righteousness to break the bonds of death (spiritual death) and restore rightness with God on our behalf.

 

So, if we're speaking of good or bad relative to God, then we are all bad.

 

Jesus illustrated this by saying, "you've heard it said you shall not commit murder, but I'm here to tell you if you've ever had a bad thought about a person, you've murdered them in your heart."

Edited April 13, 2011 by Gooblink

[dangermom]

Right--I didn't mean what we "strive" to be, but at our core, our essence, what we ARE.

 

I think what we ARE is capable of choosing. As an LDS person, my theology on this is quite different from mainstream Christianity, though. What we are is children of God--which gives us the ability to make choices. We have desires towards light and goodness, and we also have desires towards selfishness and sin. All of us sin, and all of us want good too. To be capable of great good is also to be capable of great sin, and vice versa. As we make choices, we develop our characters further.

 

 

As far as politics goes, I think it's conventional wisdom that liberals generally feel that people are basically good, and it's circumstances that cause bad choices, so if we improved the world we would also improve humankind. Very Rousseau. Whereas conservatives are assumed to feel that people are basically sinful and a certain number will always make bad choices just because that's how people are. Thus conservatives are always concerned with putting limits on how much power government has (because it can never be all that great to give anyone power), and liberals are more concerned with developing a benevolent government that can change people's circumstances for the better. (Myself, I'm a moderate--I dislike everyone equally.) Is that something like what you were thinking Aubrey, or did I just make that up?

[Rosy]

The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Yes, people fell, but they're made in the image of God: which is more basic to our nature? And so I was converted to believing that people are basically good.

 

I would say both truths are basic to our nature. I don't think one is more true than the other, or one is more powerful than the other. It just is what it is.

[Gooblink]

 

As far as politics goes, I think it's conventional wisdom that liberals generally feel that people are basically good, and it's circumstances that cause bad choices, so if we improved the world we would also improve humankind. Very Rousseau. Whereas conservatives are assumed to feel that people are basically sinful and a certain number will always make bad choices just because that's how people are. Thus conservatives are always concerned with putting limits on how much power government has (because it can never be all that great to give anyone power), and liberals are more concerned with developing a benevolent government that can change people's circumstances for the better. (Myself, I'm a moderate--I dislike everyone equally.) Is that something like what you were thinking Aubrey, or did I just make that up?

 

I see the opposite. I see those who seek to increase government control as saying they don't believe people are capable of making good choices or thinking on their own.

 

Those who seek to limit government control are saying that people will mostly do the right thing, without over-regulation.

[ScoutTN]

Yes. Other. Both.

 

I believe that all people are created in the image of God and therefore reflect his glory in manifold ways

 

AND at the same time are fallen. Every aspect of our humanity is warped and corrupted by sin. Mind, will , emotions, body and soul. We cannot choose to not be sinful, to change our nature. That is why we need God's saving grace!

[8circles]

:iagree:

All have sinned and fallen short.

 

They did a 'thing' at church this past Sunday... I want to pass part of it on, food for thought. Cold does not exist. It's a descriptive term for a lack of heat (which does exist, can be measured). Darkness does not exist. It's a descriptive term for a lack of light (again, does exist, can be measured). Evil (as the theory continues) does not exist. It is a descriptive term for the lack of the presence of God (which is 'good'). Change the terms. Are people bad (ie evil)? IOW, do people lack God? Yes, they do (until they fix that, right). If badness is the lack of God's presence, then it's not saying that people are carrying around a big dark/cold burden of badness, it's saying they're going around with the light/heat of the presence of God.

 

Anyway, that was my convoluted way of reasoning out this question. People alone are bad, because there isn't goodness without the presence of God.

 

Because we always long for God (goodness), even when we don't know it.

 

But can we really be totally without God in this lifetime (the afterlife is a different matter IMO)?

[8circles]

Right--I didn't mean what we "strive" to be, but at our core, our essence, what we ARE.

 

I believe that we are capable of good & bad but because we were created by God then at the heart of the matter, we are good. We were good when he first created us & I don't believe that we were/are capable of "ruining" that which God created to the point where we are no longer good.

[Crimson Wife]

But IS that Biblical, or is that just what we've been *taught*? God created man & said that it was "very good."

 

That quote comes from Genesis 1, prior to the Fall. At that point, humans did not have a sinful nature. After the Fall, we had a sinful nature.

 

As St. Paul put it in Romans 7:14-18: "I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature."

 

A person may work very hard to resist temptation and follow Christ's teaching to stay on the narrow path, but he/she will still feel temptation because of our sinful nature.

[KellyKelley]

My answer is neither. I am going against what my church teaches in this but I can not believe that we are born completely evil. I think we have good and bad because evil does not want to be good and if we didn't want to be good then we wouldn't want to accept Jesus sacrifice.

[Crimson Wife]

I see the opposite. I see those who seek to increase government control as saying they don't believe people are capable of making good choices or thinking on their own.

 

Those who seek to limit government control are saying that people will mostly do the right thing, without over-regulation.

 

Thanks for overgeneralizing and stereotyping. :glare:

 

Typical elitist "we liberals are SOOOO much more enlightened than you Neanderthal conservatives" attitude. :thumbdown:

[Rene']

Man's nature did not change at the "fall". We have the same nature now that Adam had when God created him. After all, he sinned in his created "it is very good" state, did he not?

[TXMomof4]

Man's nature did not change at the "fall". We have the same nature now that Adam had when God created him. After all' date=' he sinned in his created "it is very good" state, did he not?[/quote']

 

But man was created as one with God. After the fall there was a spiritual death, right? That is what allows sin into our life, the lack of spiritual life. We are alive in Christ - obviously not physical life, but spiritual.

[Lovedtodeath]

Wow I am so totally clueless about politics. Some posts make no sense.

I'm conservative, and I believe that people are by nature sinful--that's a pretty basic Christian belief.

 

But my basic personal beliefs are:

 

--What can go wrong will go wrong (so smile, take your time, and fix it)

--Done is good (so finish, already)

--Most people are really nice (and this is the expectation with which I approach them. My arms are open)

 

So I guess I'm one of those 'obligatory 'other'' answers!

Great post.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

Good :)

 

Gets me in trouble at times because I ALWAYS give people the benefit of doubt and think good of them.

:iagree:

[Spy Car]

That quote comes from Genesis 1, prior to the Fall. At that point, humans did not have a sinful nature. After the Fall, we had a sinful nature.

 

As St. Paul put it in Romans 7:14-18: "I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature."

 

A person may work very hard to resist temptation and follow Christ's teaching to stay on the narrow path, but he/she will still feel temptation because of our sinful nature.

 

Saul/Paul writes that good does not dwell in himself. That is what I would call a "conservative" worldview.

 

If one believes that Saints (who are supposedly the best amongst us) have to work very hard to resist temptation that again is what I would call a conservative worldview.

 

It is, at least a consistent worldview. People are sinful and are basically fallen and bad. It has internal logic.

 

What does not make sence is to hold all the above positions on man's sinful nature, and then conclude humans are basically "good."

 

Bill

[Barry Goldwater]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

A POLL, addressed to CONSERVATIVES, is attracting an awful lot of liberals!!

[8circles]

Saul/Paul writes that good does not dwell in himself. That is what I would call a "conservative" worldview.

 

If one believes that Saints (who are supposedly the best amongst us) have to work very hard to resist temptation that again is what I would call a conservative worldview.

 

It is, at least a consistent worldview. People are sinful and are basically fallen and bad. It has internal logic.

 

What does not make sence is to hold all the above positions on man's sinful nature, and then conclude humans are basically "good."

 

Bill

 

God's image trumps sinful nature IMO.

[Rene']

But man was created as one with God. After the fall there was a spiritual death, right? That is what allows sin into our life, the lack of spiritual life. We are alive in Christ - obviously not physical life, but spiritual.

 

There was no spiritual death. A search in the old testament will show that man's spirit is alive and functioning. Jesus said the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak - this was before the cross.

 

Christians say that man's spirit died at the fall, so that babies are born spiritually dead and with a fallen, sinful nature and that is why humans sin. So why then, after we come to Christ, and supposedly now have an alive spirit, do we still sin?

 

Why/how did Adam sin, if he did not have this dead spirit/sinful nature?

[Lovedtodeath]

God sees the good in people. He sees the good in you.

 

“MY OWN errors have passed over my head,” wrote the psalmist David. “Like a heavy load they are too heavy for me. I have grown numb and become crushed to an extreme degree.” YET “As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.” (Psalm 38:4, 8; 103:12)

 

When King Jehosaphat committed a foolish act, God’s prophet told him: “For this there is indignation against you from the person of Jehovah.” This is the thought a lot of us get stuck on. But the message did not end there. It went on: “Nevertheless, there are good things that have been found with you.” (2 Chronicles 19:1-3) God's righteous anger did not blind him to the good in Jehoshaphat.

 

When God decreed that the entire apostate dynasty of King Jeroboam was to be executed, He ordered that one of the king’s sons, Abijah, be given a decent burial. Why? “Something good toward Jehovah the God of Israel has been found in him.” (1 Kings 14:1, 10-13) However small or insignificant that bit of good may have been, Jehovah found it worth noting in his Word. He even rewarded it, showing an appropriate degree of mercy to that one member of an apostate household.

 

“‘And I will rock all the nations, and the desirable things of all the nations must come in; and I will fill this house with glory,’ Jehovah of armies has said." Haggai 2:7

Edited April 13, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

A POLL, addressed to CONSERVATIVES, is attracting an awful lot of liberals!!

Oh yes, good point. How dare they come into this thread in order to add their thoughts on the matter.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Lovedtodeath
punctuation.

[sheryl]

There was no spiritual death. A search in the old testament will show that man's spirit is alive and functioning. Jesus said the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak - this was before the cross.

 

Christians say that man's spirit died at the fall' date=' so that babies are born spiritually dead and with a fallen, sinful nature and that is why humans sin. So why then, after we come to Christ, and supposedly now have an alive spirit, do we still sin?

 

Why/how did Adam sin, if he did not have this dead spirit/sinful nature?[/quote']

 

UP.TO.THE.MOMENT.the fruit was eaten Adam and Eve were perfect....made in the image of God WHO is perfect. The kicker is this.....the "chose" to usurp God's authority. They "acted" God-like when they made a choice "separate" from God's command. He told them NOT to eat from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. They "chose". Simply, they "chose" to disobey and at that moment sin entered the world. He became "dead" after he made and fulfilled that lust. And, btw it was the woman who blamed the serpent and Adam blamed Eve for "enticing" him.

[Carol in Cal.]

"God showed His love for us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (from Romans 5)

 

God puts Christ's righteousness onto us like a garment, and that's what He sees when He looks at us. And we didn't deserve this, but He did it out of love.

 

That's my emphasis.

 

That's why, I guess, I approach people as if they are good. I'm grateful to God for looking at us as though we are good. How can I then not look at others the same way? How can I not love them? How can I not see Christ in them, when God chooses to see it in me?

 

The fact of our sinful nature is only part of the story. The rest of it is what dominates. That's why I don't fit either category.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

That's why, I guess, I approach people as if they are good. I'm grateful to God for looking at us as though we are good. How can I then not look at others the same way? How can I not love them? How can I not see Christ in them, when God chooses to see it in me?

:iagree:

[sheryl]

"God showed His love for us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (from Romans 5)

 

God puts Christ's righteousness onto us like a garment, and that's what He sees when He looks at us. And we didn't deserve this, but He did it out of love.

 

That's my emphasis.

 

That's why, I guess, I approach people as if they are good. I'm grateful to God for looking at us as though we are good. How can I then not look at others the same way? How can I not love them? How can I not see Christ in them, when God chooses to see it in me?

 

The fact of our sinful nature is only part of the story. The rest of it is what dominates. That's why I don't fit either category.

 

Yes, I agree with you too. But, that's the "result" of sin. God redeemed humanity through Jesus. Jesus is our redeemer b/c we sinned. Loving, is another issue too. Believers are commanded to LOVE everyone, but that is not the focus of the thread, imo.

[abacus2]

Other: both good and bad. From my Christian perspective, people are created in the image of God (good), but sin has also affected all (bad).

[Carol in Cal.]

Yes, I agree with you too. But, that's the "result" of sin. God redeemed humanity through Jesus. Jesus is our redeemer b/c we sinned. Loving, is another issue too. Believers are commanded to LOVE everyone, but that is not the focus of the thread, imo.

 

Maybe not the focus, but it seems integral to the intent of the question to me.

 

The question was whether we believe that people are inherently good or bad, right? But the follow up post by the OP was about how that plays out in how people treat others. And I anticipated that in my original answer and expanded on it in my second one. Because I think it's relevant to say that even though I believe that people have a sinful nature, I do not approach them like that.

[Rene']

UP.TO.THE.MOMENT.the fruit was eaten Adam and Eve were perfect....made in the image of God WHO is perfect.

 

The bible never says Adam and Eve were perfect, God called them "very good". The bible calls Adam "earthy", and Jesus "Heavenly" - Adam was not created heavenly and fell to earthy, he was created earthy.

 

The kicker is this.....the "chose" to usurp God's authority. They "acted" God-like when they made a choice "separate" from God's command. He told them NOT to eat from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. They "chose".

 

They chose with the nature that God created them with. They did not need a sinful nature to make a choice for disobedience. The bible says nothing about man's nature changing.

 

Simply, they "chose" to disobey and at that moment sin entered the world. He became "dead" after he made and fulfilled that lust.

 

Adam's death was not spiritual, but physical. He was removed from the tree of life.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Rene'

[Lovedtodeath]

Adam's death was not spiritual' date=' but physical. He was removed from the tree of life.[/quote']I agree with this.

 

(Myself, I'm a moderate--I dislike everyone equally.)

Another thought I can agree with. :001_smile: Edited April 13, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[Gooblink]

Thanks for overgeneralizing and stereotyping. :glare:

 

Typical elitist "we liberals are SOOOO much more enlightened than you Neanderthal conservatives" attitude. :thumbdown:

 

Yes, my post was overgeneralized and oversimplified, and overstereotypified :tongue_smilie: for sure.

 

Are you calling me a liberal elitist, though? That's really quite funny.:D

[susankenny]

Adam's death was not spiritual' date=' but physical. He was removed from the tree of life.[/quote']

 

I believe it was both.

 

Out of curiosity, why do you think we need a Savior if mankind is still spiritually well & in good standing with God?

 

Not snarky. Honestly interested.

 

Susan

[Free]

Hi Aubrey,

 

From the wording of the opening post and poll I suppose you are looking for mainly Christian and/or Conservative perspectives. I am neither.

 

However it seems to me after reading the replies in this thread that what is being labelled as "sin" is really just the ability to choose. I believe that we have an unlimited power to choose our every thought, every word and every action. These choices can lead to pleasant consequences or to unpleasant ones but "good" and "bad" cannot be judged by how pleasant something is.

 

Some people seem to regularly make more bad choices than others - bad in the sense that they harm themselves and others around them. I do not think of these people as "inherently bad". I think of them instead as people who are acting out of fear, "reacting" to people and situations around them rather than exercising their power of consciously and fully choosing their thoughts, words and actions.

[Rene']

I believe it was both.

 

Out of curiosity, why do you think we need a Savior if mankind is still spiritually well & in good standing with God?

 

Not snarky. Honestly interested.

 

Susan

 

Because we all have sinned - violated our own conscience, our own understanding of right and wrong - and fallen short of the glory of God.

 

Man does not need a dead spirit to be capable of sin. Can you show me scriptures that say man's spirit died when Adam sinned? It is assumed, but the Word never says it.

[sheryl]

Maybe not the focus, but it seems integral to the intent of the question to me.

 

The question was whether we believe that people are inherently good or bad, right? But the follow up post by the OP was about how that plays out in how people treat others. And I anticipated that in my original answer and expanded on it in my second one. Because I think it's relevant to say that even though I believe that people have a sinful nature, I do not approach them like that.

 

Right, I understand. Neither do I go approach a person and say, uh-oh, you just sinned. We all do....some more than others, granted. So, yes, it's integral, I agree with you and now I believe I sounded harsh eventhough that was not my intent. There I go....see how those words apply to me. I'm a believer, but it was not my intent to sound argumentative. If such was the case I do apologize. However, I'm wanting to keep just with what the OP stated in her original question.

 

In short, in an expanded form, I agree with some of what you said.