Children are sinful

[Spy Car]

Erica's example clearly states that the isolated man does not know that murder is wrong. He has no innate ability to discern the immorality of murder. In that set of circumstances that man cannot be held accountable for murder. Of course, the example itself, really is not possible.

 

Again, Erica's example was offered as proof that someone that doesn't know they are doing wrong, like babies, should be punished according to the law of God. We can quibble all day long about an adult having an innate sense of right and wrong, but a baby crying for no apparent reason is not willful disobedience, it's communication. Children have to be taught what is right and wrong. Once they are taught this, then they can be held accountable. That's all I'm trying to say. I believe Erica's example says that children should be held accountable for things they don't even know yet. I don't think that's right and I don't believe that God works that way.

 

Very thoughtful post.

 

It does make me want to clarify my thought by agreeing with your point that part of becoming a person of moral discernment, such as a child learning to understand right from wrong, does involve an educational component. Not all our ethics, morals, and values are innate. You make a good point!

 

Bill

[Cheryl in NM]

Very thoughtful post.

 

It does make me want to clarify my thought by agreeing with your point that part of becoming a person of moral discernment, such as a child learning to understand right from wrong, does involve an educational component. Not all our ethics, morals, and values are innate. You make a good point!

 

Bill

 

Thank you! Your post made me smile! :)

 

I just realized why this thread is really bothering me. My step-son was killed a little over a week ago. I think I'm still a little "raw" around the edges. Sorry if I was out of line anywhere with anyone. The idea that he might be getting punished for any sins is completely unbearable.

[Joanne]

Mary, his mother, was conceived without sin and did not sin.

 

This is Catholic doctrine. It may be part of other types of Christianity, but it's not across the board.

 

It's not part of my understanding of scripture.

[Alenee]

To clarify, this is what my understanding of 'myth' was when I replied.

 

 

1. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
   
2. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).
   

 

I would be curious how many understood the word 'myth' in the entire definition w/o first having to look it up. It's not something I've on my own had to question the definition of until now. If the above was not how you meant it BIll, I apologize.

[Erica in PA]

I guess the problem some would see with your standard is that it might do away with the notion of God as fair and just. Condemning someone to punishment because they didn't measure up to a standard God didn't communicate with them (the isolated person) or God didn't give them the faaculties to understand ( a baby) is hardly a fair and just act.

 

The Romans 1:18-20 passage addresses the isolated person-- it says that every one of us can be rightly judged by God because He has made all of us aware of him. He has put his law into our hearts, so that we know, deep down, that we do wrong. C.S. Lewis does a great job of explaining in Mere Christianity how we all share certain values as right, even though we all violate them as well. He has put His principles into our nature, so that we know what is right, but we disobey. So God is just in judging sin in all of us.

 

That passage doesn't relate well to the children issue, so I muddied the issue by mentioning it in this thread. This is an issue of a baby who is mentally unable to know right from wrong, which is different. I believe that babies do sin, but I also believe that it's very likely that God has mercy on them and does not judge them for their sin.

 

Erica

[KarenNC]

I see the behavior of children as more of an indication that they have not yet been fully socialized ;) into the expected behavior of the society in which they live. We are all born self-absorbed---one has to learn how to interact with others in what ever one's society deems to be a socially acceptable manner.

[Cheryl in NM]

To clarify, this is what my understanding of 'myth' was when I replied.

 

 

1. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

2. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).

I would be curious how many understood the word 'myth' in the entire definition w/o first having to look it up. It's not something I've on my own had to question the definition of until now. If the above was not how you meant it BIll, I apologize.

 

I think this is how many people think of myth.

[Spy Car]

I thank you for your concern, but as far as I know I am the only practicing Hellenic Neopagan on the board:) and I regularly refer to the sacred stories of my tradition as "myth" because that is what I believe a "myth" is---a sacred story, one conveying a deeper truth than a simple literal surface reading can give it. All societies and religions have their sacred stories---they are how one passes on to others the ways in which that society or religion define what it means to be human and how to relate to that which is beyond the full understanding of humans. Human language is a very limited vehicle when it comes to doing so.

 

In this case, it appears to be simple difference of opinion on use of terminology, not hostility.

 

In case anyone has a lingering doubt, I use the term "myth" is exactly the sense Karen describes, as "a sacred story, one conveying a deeper truth".

 

I believe the creation myth in Genesis is important in understanding how we humans view ourselves and that this myth contains deep truths.

 

I'll grant the term "myth" is sometimes misused as isaying "it's only a myth" to imply something is a "falsehood", much like "it's only a theory" is mistaken used to suggest "theories" are mere "opinion". But this is not my intent.

 

Bill

[Erica in PA]

Thank you! Your post made me smile! :)

 

I just realized why this thread is really bothering me. My step-son was killed a little over a week ago. I think I'm still a little "raw" around the edges. Sorry if I was out of line anywhere with anyone. The idea that he might be getting punished for any sins is completely unbearable.

 

 

(((Cheryl))) :grouphug:

 

You were not out of line with anyone, anywhere. You expressed yourself very well. I am so very sorry to hear about your step-son. :grouphug:

[Spy Car]

To clarify, this is what my understanding of 'myth' was when I replied.

 

 

1. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

2. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).

 

I would be curious how many understood the word 'myth' in the entire definition w/o first having to look it up. It's not something I've on my own had to question the definition of until now. If the above was not how you meant it BIll, I apologize.

 

Carli, I meant myth in the old and long-standing meaning of the term of as mythos.

 

I'd strongly object to using "myth" as a synonym for "fictitious or false story" as this perverts the true meaning of this word. I do understand this is a common "colloquial" usage, but this was is not my intended meaning.

 

I understand how you, or another, might have been offended by misunderstanding my usage of this term.

 

What's the old joke?

 

We're sometimes seperated by a common language :lol:

 

No hard feelings here.

 

Bill

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Not all Christians believe in original sin or that infants have a sinful nature.

 

My fellowship does not hold the doctrine of original sin. We do not baptize infants or young children. They are considered innocent until they come to a mature understanding of what it means to sin and fall short of the glory of God, not just when they can answer all the questions right. Then it is left up to the individual to decide when they are ready to accept God's free gift of salvation.

 

God's elect or those predestined for salvation are ALL those who have made that decision and perservered in the faith till death.

[unsinkable]

This is Catholic doctrine. It may be part of other types of Christianity, but it's not across the board.

 

It's not part of my understanding of scripture.

 

:confused: I just don't :confused:

 

I thought I was telling what MY belief is about dangermom's statement that: "No one except Jesus has ever gone through life without sinning."

 

Why would you? Huh? :confused:

[Erica in PA]

In case anyone has a lingering doubt, I use the term "myth" is exactly the sense Karen describes, as "a sacred story, one conveying a deeper truth".

 

I believe the creation myth in Genesis is important in understanding how we humans view ourselves and that this myth contains deep truths.

 

I'll grant the term "myth" is sometimes misused as isaying "it's only a myth" to imply something is a "falsehood", much like "it's only a theory" is mistaken used to suggest "theories" are mere "opinion". But this is not my intent.

 

Bill

 

Do you believe that myths are historically true events? I have never heard the word used in that way. To me, using the word is a way to make it clear that a particular account did not actually take place in history. Since many people here believe that the events of Scripture, including Adam and Eve, were actual historical events, it makes sense to me that some would bristle at having those events described as myths.

 

Erica

[Spy Car]

Thank you! Your post made me smile! :)

 

I just realized why this thread is really bothering me. My step-son was killed a little over a week ago. I think I'm still a little "raw" around the edges. Sorry if I was out of line anywhere with anyone. The idea that he might be getting punished for any sins is completely unbearable.

 

Wow, I'm sorry Cheryl.

 

We really don't always realize the burdens others are carrying.

 

I can only imagine the loss and grief you must be feeling :grouphug:

 

I send good thoughts,

 

Bill

[dangermom]

:confused: I just don't :confused:

 

I thought I was telling what MY belief is about dangermom's statement that: "No one except Jesus has ever gone through life without sinning."

 

Why would you? Huh? :confused:

Unsinkable, I think the confusion probably arose because you made a bald statement, without saying "I believe that..." or "I'm Catholic, and our doctrine states..." I replied to your post with a similar comment. You didn't specify that it's your belief, so some people didn't know quite what to make of the statement. (I'm only guessing that you're Catholic, so please don't be offended if I guessed wrong.)

[dawn of ns]

In case anyone has a lingering doubt, I use the term "myth" is exactly the sense Karen describes, as "a sacred story, one conveying a deeper truth".

 

I believe the creation myth in Genesis is important in understanding how we humans view ourselves and that this myth contains deep truths.

 

I'll grant the term "myth" is sometimes misused as isaying "it's only a myth" to imply something is a "falsehood", much like "it's only a theory" is mistaken used to suggest "theories" are mere "opinion". But this is not my intent.

 

Bill

 

I'll add that if anyone sees me using the term myth, I also use it as above. I think the way we demean and dismiss myths in modern times is a mistake

[OnTheBrink]

I believe people are born with a sin nature. Meaning, they are born with the nature to sin, not that they are born as little demon children who are out to sin from the second they take their first breath. I believe God has wider grace toward those who don't have the capacity to know right from wrong and that includes children as well as those who don't have the mental capacity to know right from wrong. It does not include those who know right from wrong and just don't care (sociopaths, for example).

 

I believe if a child dies before they have the capacity to know right from wrong, they are taken to heaven. I don't believe there is a set age for this; I think it's different with different people.

 

To whomever said people use it as an excuse to abuse children: Yes, some people do that. Some people also abuse their children because they believe the child is the cause of all their problems. Some people abuse their children because they're evil people (the parent, not the child), some abuse children because they were abused themselves, some abuse because they're drunks, junkies, immature, selfish, without conscience, are mentally ill, are off their meds, etc. I'd hazard to think that the majority of abused children don't come from homes who believe that all people are born sinners. I don't think anyone in this thread has advocated the abuse of a child because they believe all are born with sinful natures.

[emeraldjoy]

Thank you! Your post made me smile! :)

 

I just realized why this thread is really bothering me. My step-son was killed a little over a week ago. I think I'm still a little "raw" around the edges. Sorry if I was out of line anywhere with anyone. The idea that he might be getting punished for any sins is completely unbearable.

 

Thank you for this perspective. We all could use mass doses of perspective every now and again.

I am so sorry for you and your family to suffer such a loss. Know that G-d is perfectly merciful.

e

[Greta]

KarenNC, thanks so very much for posting that information. It was very enlightening to hear this perspective on scripture. Makes a lot of sense to me.

[Slartibartfast]

I will be praying for your family Cheryl, I am sorry for your loss. :grouphug:

[Michele B]

No offense Erica, but this belief is exactly what is wrong with "religion". How can God condemn someone for their actions if they didn't know their actions were wrong? I beleive in a loving God.

 

 

Some of that would be learned from Natural Law. Example: Living things are supposed to live. Killing them would be wrong. That brand of thinking.

[Greta]

If people are inherently good, manifestations of God, then it wouldn't matter if we are aware of that fact or not. Awareness wouldn't change our nature, if we were inherently good. We wouldn't do sinful things if we are inherently good.

 

Dictionary.com's definition of inherently: existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute.

 

I can understand your perspective, but I don't share it. I believe our awareness is everything. Our thoughts are our reality. Our awareness can either limit us or free us. There's a saying that comes to mind, something along the lines of thoughts/impulses become speech/action, which becomes habit, which becomes character. If we change our thoughts (awareness) we change our character and we change the world. That change can either be for the better, when we do it with awareness, or for the worse, when we lack awareness and are bogged down in delusions.

[Erica in PA]

Can anyone tell me if Jesus himself ever taught this concept of original sin? I ask as a non-Christian who is respectfully curious about Christianity, and who finds much of worth in the Gospels, but has, um, let's say some "baggage" about the OT. I mean no offense or disrespect, but I don't put much stock in the Bible unless it's something that came directly from Jesus' own teachings. I think that Jesus was a wise man, though that phrase doesn't even begin to do him justice. He was clearly something rare and special (whether or not he was divine, I can't say). But pretty much everyone else who is mentioned in the Bible strikes me as ordinary average people, and I am no more inclined to take their words on faith than I would the words of the average person I meet on the street. So that's why I'm wondering what Jesus said about this.

 

I am often surprised to hear this sentiment expressed-- that the words of Jesus in the Bible carry more weight with them than the rest of the Bible. The entire Bible was written by men other than Jesus, including the parts that describe what Jesus did and said. They recorded His words and actions... so if you do not trust any biblical perspective other than Jesus's words, than you also can't trust His words as recorded in the Bible, because they were written down by men. Now if you believe as I do, that those mere men were inspired by God, and wrote exactly what He wanted them to write, without error, then the words of Jesus that they recorded are perfect and reliable... but then so are all the other parts of the Bible, right? Either God gave His Word to men to record, and they did so, or they did not. If they did not, I don't see any reason to put much stock in what they wrote about Jesus, either.

 

Of course I believe that that is what happened, so I accept all parts of the Bible as accurate and reliable. But to accept only what men wrote about the words of Jesus, and to reject the rest of what the men wrote about everything else, that just doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Erica

[Greta]

I am often surprised to hear this sentiment expressed-- that the words of Jesus in the Bible carry more weight with them than the rest of the Bible. The entire Bible was written by men other than Jesus, including the parts that describe what Jesus did and said. They recorded His words and actions... so if you do not trust any biblical perspective other than Jesus's words, than you also can't trust His words as recorded in the Bible, because they were written down by men. Now if you believe as I do, that those mere men were inspired by God, and wrote exactly what He wanted them to write, without error, then the words of Jesus that they recorded are perfect and reliable... but then so are all the other parts of the Bible, right? Either God gave His Word to men to record, and they did so, or they did not. If they did not, I don't see any reason to put much stock in what they wrote about Jesus, either.

 

Of course I believe that that is what happened, so I accept all parts of the Bible as accurate and reliable. But to accept only what men wrote about the words of Jesus, and to reject the rest of what the men wrote about everything else, that just doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Erica

 

I'm sorry if what I said was upsetting or offensive. But I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at, which is probably my fault for not stating it better. I wasn't judging any one part of the Bible to be more accurate or reliable than another part. I was judging the character, integrity, wisdom, and compassion of Jesus to be greater than that of other people in the Bible. So I am simply more interested in what he said and how he lived than I am in the lives and teachings of the other people in the Bible. I think he provided a far better example of a moral and noble life than any of the other figures in the Bible that I am familiar with (which I admit is not all of them). So I have more trust in his wisdom, insights, and teachings than I do in theirs. Does that make more sense?

[sunshine]

I remember one comment a long ago Pastor said:

 

"You never have to teach a child how to lie, be disobedient, to do wrong in general, but you do have to teach them how to be good."

 

That is evidence that we have a sinful nature. It also says it clearly that we are depraved from birth.

 

The Bible for Christians is the last word. And it says clearly in Revelation that there are no other revelations, that anyone who added or took away from the Bible would be condemned. Revelation 22:18-19.

It also states that All scripture is God breathed. This means that every word is true. SO that means we all have a sin nature. 2 Timothy 3:1

 

But what is wonderful is that the book of Proverbs tells us how to raise these wonderful little sinners and make them mighty warriors of the Lord. In Deuteronomy it tells how to walk continuously with our children and teach them. We are also told to emulate Christ who with the endless patience that He had with the wicked and the lost and taught them in a gentle manner.

 

Stating that all children are sinners from birth does not make them any less adorable, sweet and precious, just a warning to the parents that we must always be on standby to be aware of the propensity toward sin in our children and teach them right from wrong, to guide them gently toward our Savior and the peace that comes with forgiveness of our sins.

Edited October 29, 2008 by sunshine
grammar, the bane of my existence

[Lovedtodeath]

Hmmm...I don't really have what you asked for Greta, but here is a start:

At John 1:29 John calls Jesus "The lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." He was not corrected. Matthew 26:28 "For this means my blood of the covenent which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins."

 

Still looking. But you should know that Jesus often quoted from Hebrew Scripture. Matthew 4:10 (Deut 5:9), Mark 12:29 (Duet 6:4), Matt 19:6 (Gen 2:24) And references it Matt 24:37, and opened scrolls to read from it Luke 4:16-21 (Isaiah 61:1,2) and in some of these instances, he used God's name YHWH, which in most translations of the Bible has been replaced with LORD (some may indicate this with a footnote at the beginning. In any case, he claimed the God YHWH of the Hebrew Scriptures as his own God and believed the Hebrew scriptures himself. He also commissioned his disciples to continue to "feed his sheep."

[Lovedtodeath]

I was interrupted by Baby, but I have to say that I agree with Erica. Jesus himself asked, "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God." Matt 10:18. Then in the next verse he quotes from The Law of Moses. And also he stated, "The things that I saw to you men I do not speak of my own originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works." John 14:10, and at John 5:19 "Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner."

 

It just does not make sense to have great respect for what Jesus says but not for the rest of the Bible or for his God. (John 20:17)

[asta]

A couple of things:

 

I am often surprised to hear this sentiment expressed-- that the words of Jesus in the Bible carry more weight with them than the rest of the Bible. The entire Bible was written by men other than Jesus, including the parts that describe what Jesus did and said. They recorded His words and actions... so if you do not trust any biblical perspective other than Jesus's words, than you also can't trust His words as recorded in the Bible, because they were written down by men.

 

and

 

The Bible for Christians is the last word. And it says clearly in Revelation that there are no other revelations, that anyone who added or took away from the Bible would be condemned. Revelation 22:18-19.

It also states that All scripture is God breathed. This means that every word is true.

 

(probably starting a fight here)

 

The Bible, as we all know it, in all of its various forms (King James, Catholic, etc.) is the result of committee. Way back when, when the Church (big C) was being formed (back when there was only one, and it was Catholic), everyone had a story to tell, and everyone wanted it in "the book".

 

Now, I'm obviously not talking about the Old Testament; the Jews have had those stories down for a long time (yet even so, a Torah and what we read in "today's" Old Testament are many times different).

 

Back to the "New Testament". Everyone wanted to be in the book. Everyone couldn't be in the book. The RCC had to draw the line somewhere-- it wasn't like a prostitute or Judas was going to get their own Gospel, afterall. And then there were those "weirdos" who insisted on the "old ways" being incorporated (the Gnostics). Why show a link as to how the ancient Celtic festivals suddenly became "Christian" ones? It would just muddy the waters. (that is sarcasm, BTW)

 

Even the Apostles got wordy. Someone had to edit. Someone had to make sure that the stories all flowed together. It was a tough job. So while the New Testament was finished by the end of the first century AD (hey, only about 70 years after Christ died), the 27 books that are commonly recognized as the New Testament weren't finalized until the 300s.

 

And then they were copied. By hand. Over and over. Until the 1400s, at which point they were typeset.

 

I'm not trying to denigrate anyone's faith in their religion; I am a very faithful individual. But I recognize the Bible for what it is: a book. A book that was written and selectively edited over hundreds of years by men. And then copied (with mistakes) over hundreds more. I'm not willing to bet my life or my soul on it.

 

*********************

 

Next up: Myth (as in mythos)

 

I am currently teaching my son about the creation myths of different cultures. They are so similar it is amazing. Right down to the creation of man as a "perfect being who falls from grace after choosing imperfection/sinning". Huh. Guess that isn't just in the Christian mythos.

 

Lots of food for thought.

 

 

asta

[Laura in VA]

A couple of things:

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

(probably starting a fight here)

 

The Bible, as we all know it, in all of its various forms (King James, Catholic, etc.) is the result of committee. Way back when, when the Church (big C) was being formed (back when there was only one, and it was Catholic), everyone had a story to tell, and everyone wanted it in "the book".

 

Now, I'm obviously not talking about the Old Testament; the Jews have had those stories down for a long time (yet even so, a Torah and what we read in "today's" Old Testament are many times different).

 

Back to the "New Testament". Everyone wanted to be in the book. Everyone couldn't be in the book. The RCC had to draw the line somewhere-- it wasn't like a prostitute or Judas was going to get their own Gospel, afterall. And then there were those "weirdos" who insisted on the "old ways" being incorporated (the Gnostics). Why show a link as to how the ancient Celtic festivals suddenly became "Christian" ones? It would just muddy the waters. (that is sarcasm, BTW)

 

Even the Apostles got wordy. Someone had to edit. Someone had to make sure that the stories all flowed together. It was a tough job. So while the New Testament was finished by the end of the first century AD (hey, only about 70 years after Christ died), the 27 books that are commonly recognized as the New Testament weren't finalized until the 300s.

 

And then they were copied. By hand. Over and over. Until the 1400s, at which point they were typeset.

 

I'm not trying to denigrate anyone's faith in their religion; I am a very faithful individual. But I recognize the Bible for what it is: a book. A book that was written and selectively edited over hundreds of years by men. And then copied (with mistakes) over hundreds more. I'm not willing to bet my life or my soul on it.

 

*********************

 

Next up: Myth (as in mythos)

 

I am currently teaching my son about the creation myths of different cultures. They are so similar it is amazing. Right down to the creation of man as a "perfect being who falls from grace after choosing imperfection/sinning". Huh. Guess that isn't just in the Christian mythos.

 

Lots of food for thought.

 

 

asta

 

 

I believe that God is Sovereign over all things. He was, is, and will always be in complete control. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Whatever changes were made, were made under God's control.

 

As far as the similarities of various creation myths, I am not surprised. As people moved away from God, they incorporated the one, true story of creation into their own stories.

[dawn of ns]

 

Even the Apostles got wordy. Someone had to edit. Someone had to make sure that the stories all flowed together. It was a tough job. So while the New Testament was finished by the end of the first century AD (hey, only about 70 years after Christ died), the 27 books that are commonly recognized as the New Testament weren't finalized until the 300s.

 

I've heard estimates for John that pinned it at about 120 AD.

[asta]

I've heard estimates for John that pinned it at about 120 AD.

 

Thank you, that's good info.

 

 

a

[Laura Corin]

I remember one comment a long ago Pastor said:

 

"You never have to teach a child how to lie, be disobedient, to do wrong in general, but you do have to teach them how to be good."

 

 

 

I see many untaught impulses to good in my children: small, wonderful actions and thoughts that come from them, rather than from my specific teachings.

 

Laura

[Erica in PA]

I'm sorry if what I said was upsetting or offensive. But I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at, which is probably my fault for not stating it better. I wasn't judging any one part of the Bible to be more accurate or reliable than another part. I was judging the character, integrity, wisdom, and compassion of Jesus to be greater than that of other people in the Bible. So I am simply more interested in what he said and how he lived than I am in the lives and teachings of the other people in the Bible. I think he provided a far better example of a moral and noble life than any of the other figures in the Bible that I am familiar with (which I admit is not all of them). So I have more trust in his wisdom, insights, and teachings than I do in theirs. Does that make more sense?

 

No, what you said wasn't offensive or upsetting at all! I am sorry if I gave that impression in any way. You are correct that Jesus's character, integrity, wisdom, etc. is greater than anyone else's in the Bible, or than anyone else who has ever lived, for that matter. The Bible says that He was the only person who never sinned, and that he was the son of God.

 

However, if the Bible is not the true Word of God, then I don't think it makes any difference what *it says* that Jesus said or did. If it's accurate and true when it tells us about Jesus, then it's equally so when it conveys truth about Adam and Eve, Israel's flight from Egypt, Jonah, Daniel in the Lion's den, Paul's teaching on sexual morality, the doctrine in Romans, etc. If you reject any or all of those things as truth, then the parts of Jesus are in question also. Perhaps Matthew just wrote what he wanted Jesus to have said or did, or what he thought people wanted to hear. Maybe he thought those stories would cause a sensation, or a political uprising. Same for Mark, Luke, and John. We don't know in Jesus's own words what he thought... we only know what other men wrote about Him.

 

(I am playing devil's advocate, of course, because I do believe that these things did happen, exactly the way the Bible says. And I believe that the entire Bible was inspired by God, and that He enabled those writers to write exactly what He wanted them to, complete truth, without error.)

 

But my point is.... if Jesus is just a character in a great myth *i.e. a story that did not actually happen but was created to convey a truth,* what difference does it make what the myth says he said or did? It wouldn't be binding on my life or require me to follow Him or change my behavior. I might as well say that I'm only interested in the teachings of Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, not Frodo or Sam or Sauron because he also has a better, higher character than most of the others in those books. But if he's not real, just like all the others, and just a character in a story, who really cares what he says or does in that story? Then it's really just the values of the writer who created him that are coming through, not anything spiritual or supernatural.

 

On the other hand if the Bible is more than a myth, then it is truth and is binding on our lives, whether it be about Jesus or any of the other teachings that are contained in the Bible. So if Jesus didn't mention a particular concept, that doesn't make it any more biblical, or any more true or trustworthy, because it is contained in God's Word, which is all inspired, all reliable and true. If you reject all of that, then I think rejecting what it records as Jesus's life is the logical conclusion.

 

I hope that's more clear. I appreciate your posts, GretaLynne! I'm glad you're on the boards.

 

Erica

Edited October 29, 2008 by Erica in PA

[asta]

(and the 14 year old weighs in on the thread)

 

The bible is in itself a parable to teach people the morals of how to live their lives; so it doesn't matter how it is said, or by whom, as long as the morals get across...

 

It doesn't matter if Jesus was the actual son of God -- he could have been just a great guy -- it was what he was teaching -- because it is generally not a good idea to steal, it is generally not a good idea to commit adultery...

 

 

(from the mouths of babes, typed by mom)

 

 

a

[jejily]

(and the 14 year old weighs in on the thread)

 

...

 

It doesn't matter if Jesus was the actual son of God -- he could have been just a great guy -- it was what he was teaching -- because it is generally not a good idea to steal, it is generally not a good idea to commit adultery...

 

...

 

 

 

With all respect, it does matter a great deal to some people. Jesus being the son of God, not just some great man, is the bedrock, the foundation of the Christian faith.

 

 

 

I really think this is one of those topics where we, as a community, should simply agree to disagree and move on. Those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and that Jesus was the son of God are not likely to persuade to their way of thinking those who hold the opposite viewpoint, and vice versa. For the sake of harmony, could we please let this one go?

[Lizzie in Ma]

The Bible says we are "wayward from the womb". As soon as my children were old enough to say "no" to defy me they did. That was not taught, it was their nature. Why is disobedience so easy for kids and obedience so challenging? Why does it seem so hard to do the right thing instead of the wrong?

 

Even the Apostle Paul struggled with these matters. It always makes me feel better that Paul shares how hard it is for him. In Romans 7 he writes:

 

15I do not know why I do the things I do. I do not do what I want to do. But I do the things I hate.

 

16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.

 

17So now it is no longer I who do it, but my wrong ways in me.

 

18I know that no good thing lives in me. I mean, no good thing lives in my body. I want to do what is good, but I cannot do it.

 

19I do not do the good thing I want to do, but I do the wrong thing that I do not want to do.

 

20If I do the thing I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but the wrong thing in me that does it.

 

21So there is a law I find that it is at work in me. When I want to do what is right, I can only do what is wrong.

 

22In my own mind I am glad to obey the law of God.

 

23But I see that in my body there is another law fighting against the law in my mind. And that makes me like a prisoner to the law of wrong things in my body.

 

24I am a very sad man. Who will save me from this body that will make me die?

 

25Thank God for Jesus Christ our Lord who will do it! So this is the way it is. In my mind I am a slave to do the law of God, but in my body I am a slave to do the law of wrong things.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

With all respect, it does matter a great deal to some people. Jesus being the son of God, not just some great man, is the bedrock, the foundation of the Christian faith.

 

 

 

I really think this is one of those topics where we, as a community, should simply agree to disagree and move on. Those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and that Jesus was the son of God are not likely to persuade to their way of thinking those who hold the opposite viewpoint, and vice versa. For the sake of harmony, could we please let this one go?

 

I agree. Church History, the history of the writings of the Bible, interpretations of scripture, and other forms of apologetics fill hundreds of pages of hundreds of books. To try to condense these scholastic teachings into a few sentences that you know will never change the minds of someone who doesn't believe what you are saying is certainly an exercise in futility.

[Jenny in Atl]

(and the 14 year old weighs in on the thread)

 

The bible is in itself a parable to teach people the morals of how to live their lives; so it doesn't matter how it is said, or by whom, as long as the morals get across...

 

It doesn't matter if Jesus was the actual son of God -- he could have been just a great guy -- it was what he was teaching -- because it is generally not a good idea to steal, it is generally not a good idea to commit adultery...

 

 

(from the mouths of babes, typed by mom)

 

 

a

:iagree:

[asta]

With all respect, it does matter a great deal to some people. Jesus being the son of God, not just some great man, is the bedrock, the foundation of the Christian faith.

 

 

I really think this is one of those topics where we, as a community, should simply agree to disagree and move on. Those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and that Jesus was the son of God are not likely to persuade to their way of thinking those who hold the opposite viewpoint, and vice versa. For the sake of harmony, could we please let this one go?

 

I (nor my child) wasn't trying to persuade you one way or another. I would hope that the very children we are teaching should be allowed to express their views on subjects without being subject to ridicule.

 

We, as a community, are not homogenic. We, as a community are of many faiths, many paths, and, I thought, had all landed here due to our desire to homeschool our children in the Classical style. Greeks, Romans, et al? Did I miss the chapter that said it did not involve discourse?

 

 

asta

[unsinkable]

I (nor my child) wasn't trying to persuade you one way or another. I would hope that the very children we are teaching should be allowed to express their views on subjects without being subject to ridicule.

 

We, as a community, are not homogenic. We, as a community are of many faiths, many paths, and, I thought, had all landed here due to our desire to homeschool our children in the Classical style. Greeks, Romans, et al? Did I miss the chapter that said it did not involve discourse?

 

 

asta

 

I feel similarly to you, asta. I read others' statements and realize that each person is sharing her own belief. I don't see a need to preface each statement with "We Catholics believe..." I am under no illusion that I am persuading anyone to my faith's way of thinking. I always think that I am sharing what is the belief in my faith...and I know it is not shared by many on this board.

[jejily]

You know, I'm probably just hyper-sensitive right now because so many hot-topic threads (RE: politics & religion) over the past few weeks have led to uncivil discourse.

 

But, by all means, discourse away.

[sagira]

My mom and I don't subscribe to the belief that we are born sinful. I thought about it before baptizing ds and dd. I believe there is no sin when we are born. We learn what is sin (our interpretation of it depending on what your beliefs are, if you even believe in sin) because of our family, culture, society at large.

 

Now I do believe what Miss Charlotte Mason says is true: Children are all born with the possibility of being good or evil. Possibility being the key.

 

Remember that we (and that includes the Bible) label actions such as fighting, arguing, etc. as sin, but it could be considered just "the norm", co-existing peacefully with other actions such as helping and caring for people.

[Lovedtodeath]

Many of the arguments in this thread make sense. Which is why holding to a belief or religion or (lack thereof) blindly is folly. This is why my religion encourages research on these matters. I have studied creation vs evolution, authorship of the Bible as a whole, and authenticity (or lack there of) of each book of the Bible and questionable scriptures within those books. Archeology has proven time and again the reliability of the scripture that I hold to. I just finished reading an article concerning a translation of the Bible in the Sahidic dialect of Coptic.

 

The Bible, as we all know it, in all of its various forms (King James, Catholic, etc.) is the result of committee. Way back when, when the Church (big C) was being formed (back when there was only one, and it was Catholic), everyone had a story to tell, and everyone wanted it in "the book".Even the Apostles got wordy. Someone had to edit. Someone had to make sure that the stories all flowed together. It was a tough job. So while the New Testament was finished by the end of the first century AD (hey, only about 70 years after Christ died), the 27 books that are commonly recognized as the New Testament weren't finalized until the 300s.

 

And then they were copied. By hand. Over and over. Until the 1400s, at which point they were typeset.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Lovedtodeath

[nmoira]

 

I believe that God is Sovereign over all things. He was, is, and will always be in complete control. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Whatever changes were made, were made under God's control.

So if God is in complete control of all things, wouldn't that make him a sinner? If not, how does one determine where God retains complete control or chooses to step back, so to speak?

[Cheryl in NM]

I really think this is one of those topics where we, as a community, should simply agree to disagree and move on. Those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and that Jesus was the son of God are not likely to persuade to their way of thinking those who hold the opposite viewpoint, and vice versa. For the sake of harmony, could we please let this one go?

 

I love this thread. I love learning different veiwpoints. I have been very impressed with everyone's ability to disagree "nicely". I don't even consider this thread a "spirited debate". I am not threatened that others believe differently than me. I believe that the hand of God will work in this thread. I don't think it's time to move on because we are still getting different viewpoints. I've learned, after years at these boards (before the new format) that if I feel a thread isn't speaking to me anymore I need to quit following it. It only makes me mad.

[Gailmegan]

(and the 14 year old weighs in on the thread)

 

The bible is in itself a parable to teach people the morals of how to live their lives; so it doesn't matter how it is said, or by whom, as long as the morals get across...

 

It doesn't matter if Jesus was the actual son of God -- he could have been just a great guy -- it was what he was teaching -- because it is generally not a good idea to steal, it is generally not a good idea to commit adultery...

 

 

(from the mouths of babes, typed by mom)

 

 

a

 

I think it's great that you are using this thread to dialog with your daughter regarding this topic.

 

But I must point out that this conclusion is exactly what the Bible is NOT.

When you read the entirety of scripture, particularly keeping in mind the letters of Paul and other NT epistles, you are repeatedly presented with the argument that while these great morals are the standard, none of us is able to keep them perfectly. God makes such a strong point of showing what holiness looks like in order to show our shortfallings and to make us realize that the only hope we have is salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. The OT is filled with promises that are fulfilled only in the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible itself tells us that it is NOT about morals, but about hope in Jesus Christ.

[Lovedtodeath]

Moira, I know that you do not believe the scriptures, but like most questions that people have and use to disprove others faith the question you ask is explained within them. The scriptures explain that for the present, "The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth for a single act of worship. He would not have been able to offer them if they were not his.

 

Moira, perhaps your research has led you to the opposite conclusion that mine has. But there are many on both sides who need this warning: We should research these things carefully for ourselves. Assumptions and faith in men are very dangerous and can mean our lives. I know, for myself, I sometimes need reminders and have to go back and read it all over again. Which is why these threads are good for me.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Lovedtodeath

[nmoira]

Moira, I know that you do not believe the scriptures, but like most questions that people have and use to disprove others faith the question you ask is explained within them.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I am not a Christian, but I teach my kids Christian mythology; I'm not a Hindu, but I teach them Hindu mythology; etc. I view religious systems as discrete, and don't go outside the system when examining them other than to examine historical context. Though to be fair, comparative religion, which we have not yet formally broached, is another story.

 

The scriptures explain that for the present, "The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth for a single act of worship. He would not have been able to offer them if they were not his.

 

I know that most Christians would not say their religion was dualistic like Manichaeism, so I don't get the Satan vs God thing as absolving God of responsibility. As I understand it, Satan is also part of God's creation. So if God is in control of all things, then God must be in control of this too? Allowing of course that being hands-off wouldn't mean that God wasn't in control, just choosing not to exercise power (but knowing the precise outcome because of omniscience). I just don't understand how, if God has all the power (which he does by definition), he doesn't also have all the sin.

 

There is also the question of how people choose to believe where God has intervened. If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, God would have to have interfered directly with those, who over time, were in charge of redacting and translating the Bible. But there are translations that differ widely, and differences from language to language.

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything.

 

There is also the question of how people choose to believe where God has intervened. If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, God would have to have interfered directly with those, who over time, were in charge of redacting and translating the Bible. But there are translations that differ widely, and differences from language to language.

 

I am sorry if I have made assumptions about you, Moira.

 

 

The Bible explains this as well. Satan has transformed himself into an angel of light. Wolves will enter the congregations and lead many astray with philosophies, this would include translating incorrectly. I won't go into a lot of details. This discussion is taking quite a bit of my time.

[Cheryl in NM]

There is also the question of how people choose to believe where God has intervened. If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, God would have to have interfered directly with those, who over time, were in charge of redacting and translating the Bible. But there are translations that differ widely, and differences from language to language.

 

I think translations differ widely because God needs to speak to so many different people. I look at it like learning styles in kids. God has to say things in many different ways to reach everyone. That's were religion differences come into play also. Of course, along with this comes the opening for people to mislead others. God gave us free will that's why he "can't" interfere. He can answer prayers. God is not like a child playing Barbies. He can't just pick us up and move us around and make us do what's right. I think our human, mortal minds just cannot grasp how God can allow bad things to happen. There's so much that we just can't understand and I believe that when we meet Jesus and God we will learn the answers. Until then, we have faith. Your heart tells you what is right and what belief system you need to follow according to your thought processes and capabilities.