Depravity

Originally posted by whodey
Moses never sinned? You mean the Moses of the OT who murdered an Egyptian? You mean the one not allowed to enter the promised land because of an act of disobedience to God referred to in Numbers 20:12? You mean that Moses? I am sure that Ahosyney would say that this is not the case because the scriptures have been "corrupted", however, the Bible says what it says.

It appears that God has a different standard for perfection and faithfullness than you do.


My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 12:8 With him will I speak face to face, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; (NUM 12:7)

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. JOHN 1:18

Moses has been to God's house and has talked to Him face to face. Jesus has only declared God.

Originally posted by josephw
The Biblical doctrine of the depravity of man is heavily debated within the church, and is supported by irrefutable empirical evidence.
Can there be any doubt that we are sinners?

There is no empirical nature for the existence of sin. Good and bad are qualitative judgements, they are not empirically verifiable. Doubt we are sinners? Absolutely, the concept of sin is ridiculous to me.

Originally posted by ahosyney
You are asking a wrong question.

I think it should be:

Can there be any doubt that we are [b]born sinners?
Because that what depravity of man means.

We are not born sinners, we are born clean and pure. Some choose to sin, and some don't. There are different levels of sins. And GOD forgives what he wants to whom he wants.

Th ...[text shortened]... if they are sinners. So to answer your questions, yes there could be many people without sins.[/b]

We are not born sinners, we are born clean and pure. Some choose to sin, and some don't.

No one is sinless except, Jesus Christ; no one is without spot except, Jesus Christ. Period. Your grandparents, though they may be great people, are definitely NOT sinless, I assure you. Only Jesus Christ is perfectly holy... "Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God" (1 Peter 1:19).

And GOD forgives what he wants to whom he wants.

God forgives everyone whose faith rests in Jesus Christ. "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son (Jesus Christ) and believes in him should have eternal life" (John 6:40).

How is eternal life imputed to sinful men? We are able to be declared righteous because of Christ's sacrifice! Everyone who 'looks on the Son' in faith is imputed with the righteousness of Christ--that is the will of the Father (YHWH).

Notice how in the next passage it is made clear WHY God is saving us. He is saving us from ourselves--the sinful nature which all people inherit from their ancestors:

"God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God" (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The reality is as God says it is: all men are born sinners, and the only Way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. Have you been cleansed by the blood of Christ? I assure you, there is no salvation outside of being cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ. On judgment day, your best attempt at obedience and all your good works won't do you any good, if you aren't covered by the blood of the Lamb.

This is Truth, dear ahosyney. I will pray for you...

-----------------------------

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her ... and they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last" (John 8:7, 9).

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us ... If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" (1 John 1:8, 10).

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight" (Romans 3:20).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
No one is sinless except, Jesus Christ; no one is without spot except, Jesus Christ. Period.

What type of "sin" did you commit as an infant? What type of "sin" does any infant commit?

This is the very epitome of cult indoctrination.

Originally posted by David C
What type of "sin" did you commit as an infant? What type of "sin" does any infant commit?

This is the very epitome of cult indoctrination.

A recent study proved that children only several months old are already capable of lying. Children learn early how to manipulate adults by crying without having any particular need.

Far from 'cult indoctrination' you will find the Lord's wisdom to be eminently practical and relevant.

Infants are born with the propensity for disobedience and error. Sin is error, 'missing the mark.' Children are no doubt born into sin, because every natural impulse they have is towards selfishness, disobedience, and evil. Any parent can attest to this...

Of course, God does not hold children accountable until they are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong. When exactly that is, only God knows.

So to answer your questions: the sins which infants commit are the same sins which adults commit (acts of selfishness, aggression, disobedience, rebellion, etc.), only they do so without conscience and therefore without condemnation.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Far from 'cult indoctrination' you will find the Lord's wisdom to be eminently practical and relevant.

I'm afraid it's precisely that. You are told that you have a disease, and only your cult leaders have the cure. Such a rudimentary con, it's no wonder that it works well for Scientology, too.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
A recent study proved that children only several months old are already capable of lying. Children learn early how to manipulate adults by crying without having any particular need.

Far from 'cult indoctrination' you will find the Lord's wisdom to be eminently practical and relevant.

Infants are born with the propensity for disobedience and error. ...[text shortened]... e, rebellion, etc.), only they do so without conscience and therefore without condemnation.

What utter tosh. At a couple of months old a child cries for any number of reasons, none of which are lies. Even if it is for attention, it's still a valid reason. They have not yet developed any sense of morals, consciousness or judgement. To say that they lie is hogwash, lying supposes an understanding of what is right and wrong and consciously choosing to do the wrong or decietful thing.

Error is not sin, even in the poppycock world of religion, it is failing to succeed. As a parent, the only thing I can attest to is that neither you, nor any of your cultist cohorts should ever be allowed to bring up children.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
A recent study proved that children only several months old are already capable of lying. Children learn early how to manipulate adults by crying without having any particular need.

I find this hard to believe. Children that cry have a need, even if the need is just to see a familiar face. Lying is a skill that the child learns from society and the parents in particular.

Originally posted by David C
I'm afraid it's precisely that. You are told that you have a disease, and only your cult leaders have the cure. Such a rudimentary con, it's no wonder that it works well for Scientology, too.

Believe what you wish, but our need for Jesus Christ is not a con. I hope that someday, before it's too late, you'll be able to see that, too.

Originally posted by Starrman
What utter tosh. At a couple of months old a child cries for any number of reasons, none of which are lies. Even if it is for attention, it's still a valid reason. They have not yet developed any sense of morals, consciousness or judgement. To say that they lie is hogwash, lying supposes an understanding of what is right and wrong and consciously choosi ...[text shortened]... that neither you, nor any of your cultist cohorts should ever be allowed to bring up children.

What utter tosh. At a couple of months old a child cries for any number of reasons, none of which are lies. Even if it is for attention, it's still a valid reason.

Here is the relevant article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/01/scibaby101.xml

Error is not sin, even in the poppycock world of religion, it is failing to succeed.

Actually, you are wrong. Sin literally means, "to miss the mark; to err, be mistaken." Yes, it can mean 'failing to succeed' if 'to succeed' refers to being perfectly upright or obedient to God's law. Otherwise, children can be said to sin simply because they err, whether they do so unconsciously or not.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
What utter tosh. At a couple of months old a child cries for any number of reasons, none of which are lies. Even if it is for attention, it's still a valid reason.

Here is the relevant article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/01/scibaby101.xml

Error is not sin, even in the poppycock world of religion, i ren can be said to sin simply because they err, whether they do so unconsciously or not.

The conclusions drawn are just plain wrong. There's no lie going on here. The children are crying to encourage attention, they're not purposefully deceiving their parents, they're asking for something and getting it. Lying requires consicous choice.

Where does sin 'literally' mean to miss the mark? You're just redefining words to fit your indoctrination.

To suggest 6 month children are liars and sinners is abhorrent and you should never be allowed to bring children up, or educate them in anyway, your view is utterly disgusting.

Originally posted by Starrman
The conclusions drawn are just plain wrong. There's no lie going on here. The children are crying to encourage attention, they're not purposefully deceiving their parents, they're asking for something and getting it. Lying requires consicous choice.

Where does sin 'literally' mean to miss the mark? You're just redefining words to fit your indoctrina ...[text shortened]... allowed to bring children up, or educate them in anyway, your view is utterly disgusting.

For the first time I think I agree with you.

Originally posted by ahosyney
For the first time I think I agree with you.

Actually, I wasn't aware we'd ever knocked heads before.

Originally posted by Starrman
There's no lie going on here. The children are crying to encourage attention, they're not purposefully deceiving their parents, they're asking for something and getting it. Lying requires consicous choice.

Where does sin 'literally' mean to miss the mark? You're just redefining words to fit your indoctrination.

To suggest 6 month children are liars ...[text shortened]... allowed to bring children up, or educate them in anyway, your view is utterly disgusting.

There's no lie going on here. The children are crying to encourage attention, they're not purposefully deceiving their parents, they're asking for something and getting it. Lying requires consicous choice.

That's exactly what the authors are saying, though. Take this example:
By eight months, more difficult deceptions became apparent, such as concealing forbidden activities or trying to distract parents' attention.

How is concealing forbidden activities not a form of lie? I don't get why you're so upset. Children lie. So? That's why good parenting is essential.

Like you said (or may have said, correct me if I'm wrong), they lack the ability to distinguish right and wrong. Why would they NOT lie then?

Originally posted by Starrman
The conclusions drawn are just plain wrong. There's no lie going on here. The children are crying to encourage attention, they're not purposefully deceiving their parents, they're asking for something and getting it. Lying requires consicous choice.

Where does sin 'literally' mean to miss the mark? You're just redefining words to fit your indoctrina ...[text shortened]... allowed to bring children up, or educate them in anyway, your view is utterly disgusting.

Where does sin 'literally' mean to miss the mark? You're just redefining words to fit your indoctrination.

The Greek word for 'sin' in the New Testament is, amartano, and its literal meaning is, "1. to be without a share in, 2. to miss the mark, 3. to err, be mistaken, 4. to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honor, to do or go wrong, 5. to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin."

See, I'm not redefining anything. I'm merely correcting your basic misconception of what sin is.

To suggest 6 month children are liars and sinners is abhorrent and you should never be allowed to bring children up, or educate them in anyway, your view is utterly disgusting.

I'm not suggesting that children are culpable for their actions in the same way Hitler was; infants are by definition 'sinners' because of their innate propensity towards selfishness, deception and rebellion. Children are innocent, yes, but out of that same inborn 'sinful' nature eventually arises every kind of evil imaginable (which history can attest to).

We are born with a propensity towards evil; we can't help ourselves--that's just the way we are. I'm not saying children aren't worthy of love. It's easy to love folly in a child.