2 edits
Originally posted by josephwIf it heavily debated by even the devout, then evidently there can be doubt that we are (born) sinners.
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?
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwAre some men more depraved than others? Or are all men equally depraved? Are women as depraved as men? Am I, an unbeliever, more depraved than you, a believer?
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?
Originally posted by epiphinehas...and now comes the not-so-thinly veiled threat. You do realize this is exactly what cults do to ensure their success, right?
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.
2 edits
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeEveryone is depraved, whether believer or unbeliever.
Are some men more depraved than others? Or are all men equally depraved? Are women as depraved as men? Am I, an unbeliever, more depraved than you, a believer?
"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).
Of course, some are more so than others, but nobody is spotless and sinless. God's law condemns all people, because nobody can keep God's law perfectly. Therefore, Christ, who was sinless, purposefully died for everyone, so that all who believe in Him escape condemnation. His perfectly sinless nature won our salvation, because He freely chose to die a sinner's death on our behalf.
1 edit
Originally posted by David CIf you believe Christianity and Scientology are equally false, then there's nothing I can say, as a Christian, to dissuade you otherwise. I admit, if Christ did not raise from the dead, then I am indeed a miserable fool worthy of your pity. Likewise, the urgency of the Gospel (i.e. warnings of impending damnation) would be on par with a not-so-thinly veiled cultic threat. I see where you're coming from. Though, if the bible is truly God's word, which is my position, you should also be able to understand where I'm coming from: having a genuine concern for your immortal soul.
...and now comes the not-so-thinly veiled threat. You do realize this is exactly what cults do to ensure their success, right?
Originally posted by epiphinehasAre babies depraved?
Everyone is depraved, whether believer or unbeliever.
"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).
Of course, some are more so than others, but nobody is spotless and sinless. God's law condemns all people, because nobo ...[text shortened]... ss nature won our salvation, because He freely chose to die a sinner's death on our behalf.
2 edits
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeNot in the sense that they are 'wicked' or 'perverted' right from the get go, but 'morally indifferent', yes.
Are babies depraved?
A child is born with an innate self-centeredness, which in itself is the root of all depravity. So babies are depraved in the sense that their utter selfishness inherently nixes the possibility of a moral center.
A better term would probably be 'amoral', I think, i.e. babies are 'selfishly amoral'. That selfishness is the foundation of our nature, i.e. we are born into sin, meaning that throughout life our original nature is the root cause of our propensity towards sin.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThat's an adult's interpretation, using words like conceal and forbidden just doesn't fit with the infant mind. They're not yet aware of either of these concepts, they're going through the motions of a game they don't yet understand the implications of. You just can't suggest that they are concealing forbidden activities until you have proof that they understand such concepts. I will steadfastly stick to the idea that lying/deceit/distraction require a conscious choice. Without that you can't say a child is doing anything wrong, it can't be a lie, certainly not in the way ephineas is using it.
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 ng), they lack the ability to distinguish right and wrong. Why would they NOT lie then?[/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou know perfectly well that is not the interpretation of sin that the church peddles. If it were, the whole heaven hell concept would be nonsense, the punishments even more overkill and hypocritical than they are.
[b]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 o ...[text shortened]... saying children aren't worthy of love. It's easy to love folly in a child.[/b]
Originally posted by StarrmanOf course you do. Because then you would have to acknowledge that there is a Holy God.
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.
You say there is no empirical evidence for sin. Open your eyes. Everybody has it. It is the reason for all of mans problems.
To explain it away with the evolutionary model and say it's genetics, then you make us out to be just mindless robots.
Originally posted by StarrmanYou're right here. Children need all the love we can give them.
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.
Originally posted by josephw
You say there is no empirical evidence for sin. Open your eyes. Everybody has it. It is the reason for all of mans problems.
Read up on empirical evidence and get back to me with something to verify your claim.
To explain it away with the evolutionary model and say it's genetics, then you make us out to be just mindless robots.
That's not what I was doing, I'm just saying there's no such thing, not explaining it away.
1 edit
Originally posted by Starrmanem·pir·i·cal /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[em-pir-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
Originally posted by josephw
[b]You say there is no empirical evidence for sin. Open your eyes. Everybody has it. It is the reason for all of mans problems.
Read up on empirical evidence and get back to me with something to verify your claim.
To explain it away with the evolutionary model and say it's genetics, then you make us out to b ...[text shortened]...
That's not what I was doing, I'm just saying there's no such thing, not explaining it away.
–adjective 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
Like I said, just take a look around. We make choices. Man is a sinner. It's obvious.
That's how I see it.
How do you explain it?