everyone is born an arminian

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The Bible doesn't say the ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat.

Check it - Genesis 8:4.

Originally posted by sonship
No. Guess again.

Not my call; it's Hill's OP.

Originally posted by sonship
The Bible doesn't say the ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat.

Check it - [b]Genesis 8:4.[/b]

There are many things the Bible does not say.

Originally posted by moonbus
There are many things the Bible does not say.

" ... the mountains [plural] of Ararat" (Gen. 8:4)

Originally posted by moonbus
Not my call; it's Hill's OP.

Which point would that be? That a peculiarly Protestant doctrine regarding predestination is the natural or default position for newborns?

What the point is that I think the little quip makes is that humans naturally think, since the fall of man, that they can justify themselves before God.

That point, I think, is valid. And a more succinct way of making the point occurs early in the book of Genesis (chapters 3 and 4 ).

The offering of Cain being rejected by God as opposed to that of Abel being accepted, is generally thought to be a revelation of that truth.

But before that some see the attempt of Adam and Eve to cloth their own nakedness with fig leaves speaks of the same. God killed cattle and clothed them with the skins of the slain life. This speaks of justification by the death of the Son of God.

It is of course too much to say anyone is born either Calvinist or Arminian. But the point that we feel we need no Divine Savior and can make it right between us and God, is exceedingly innate.

Originally posted by sonship
[b]" ... the mountains [plural] of Ararat" (Gen. 8:4) [/b]

That's one big ark.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That's one big ark.

Mountains could be two (peaks).
Not a problem.

Originally posted by sonship

Which point would that be? That a peculiarly Protestant doctrine regarding predestination is the natural or default position for newborns?

What the point is that I think the little quip makes is that humans naturally think, since the fall of man, that they can justify themselves before God.

That point, I think, is valid. And a more ...[text shortened]... e feel we need no Divine Savior and can make it right between us and God, is exceedingly innate.

So that's the truth behind "everyone is born an arminian"?

Sounds vaguely allegorical.

Originally posted by moonbus
So that's the truth behind "everyone is born an arminian"?

Sounds vaguely allegorical.

That we all naturally think we can self justify ourselves before God without His grace ...

I think that is the point RBHILL was suggesting. But you will have to ask RBHILL to see if he concurs with my opinion.

Originally posted by sonship
That we all naturally think we can self justify ourselves before God without His grace ...

I think that is the point RBHILL was suggesting. But you will have to ask RBHILL to see if he concurs with my opinion.

Justification before God is a peculiarly Judeo-Christian way of looking at the human condition. Not everyone comes from that tradition, you know.

Originally posted by moonbus
Justification before God is a peculiarly Judeo-Christian way of looking at the human condition. Not everyone comes from that tradition, you know.

The Aztec civilization which flourished in Mesoamerica between 1345 and 1521 CE has gained an infamous reputation for bloodthirsty human sacrifice with lurid tales of the beating heart being ripped from the still-conscious victim, decapitation, skinning and dismemberment. All of these things did happen but it is important to remember that for the Aztecs the act of sacrifice - of which human sacrifice was only a part - was a strictly ritualised process which gave the highest possible honour to the gods and was regarded as a necessity to ensure mankind’s continued prosperity.

Aztec Sacrifice http://www.ancient.eu/Aztec_Sacrifice/


Do you think the Aztecs were concerned with justifying themselves in any way to their gods ?

Originally posted by moonbus
Justification before God is a peculiarly Judeo-Christian way of looking at the human condition. Not everyone comes from that tradition, you know.

Confucius we can say had nothing to do with "Judeo-Christian" tradition.

Do you think the ethical teachings of Confucius had any concern for justification before something supreme like God or gods ?

I think so. Confucius held to the belief in DiYu which was a carry over concept from Buddhism. And here is a brief discussion of the need for "atonement" for justification in the courts of the realm of death -

Diyu (Chinese: 地獄; Sanskrit: Naraka) is the realm of the dead or "hell" in Chinese mythology. It is loosely based on a combination of the Buddhist concept of Naraka, traditional Chinese beliefs about the afterlife and a variety of popular expansions and reinterpretations of these two traditions.

Diyu is typically depicted as a subterranean maze with various levels and chambers, to which souls are taken after death to atone for the sins they committed when they were alive. The exact number of levels in Diyu and their associated deities differ between Buddhist and Taoist interpretations. Some speak of three to four "courts"; others mention "Ten Courts of Hell", each of which is ruled by a judge (collectively known as the Ten Yama Kings); other Chinese legends speak of the "Eighteen Levels of Hell". Each court deals with a different aspect of atonement and different punishments;

So even in the Far East, quite separated from "Judeo-Christian" tradition, a great religio / philosophical tradition of Confucius had some concept of the need for human justification before a judgment of sorts, of the way people lived.

You are reading things into other religions which just aren't there.

Originally posted by sonship
Confucius we can say had nothing to do with "Judeo-Christian" tradition.

Do you think the ethical teachings of Confucius had any concern for justification before something supreme like God or gods ?

I think so. Confucius held to the belief in [b] DiYu which was a carry over concept from Buddhism. And here is a brief discussion of the need for "atonement" for justification in the courts of the realm of death -[/b]

Firstly, I do not think Confucius was heavily influenced by Buddhism. Buddhism only became a big thing in China after Confucius.

Secondly, I do not think the Chinese concept of 'heaven' can really be equated to 'God'.

There certainly were concepts regarding the need to behave appropriately in order to be supported by the 'heavens' and there may have been concepts regarding atonement after death.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Firstly, I do not think Confucius was heavily influenced by Buddhism. Buddhism only became a big thing in China after Confucius.

Secondly, I do not think the Chinese concept of 'heaven' can really be equated to 'God'.

There certainly were concepts regarding the need to behave appropriately in order to be supported by the 'heavens' and there may have been concepts regarding atonement after death.

Heavily influenced ? Probably not.
Somewhat influenced ?
Apparently according to Wiki.

Secondly, I do not think the Chinese concept of 'heaven' can really be equated to 'God'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Confucius used the phrase "sinned against heaven".
Some form of higher or supreme goodness I think is indicated.

That "atonement" was needed at all implies the need to be justified. And it is to some form of higher court.