capnkirk

Disobedience does not equal sin, per se. When your dog or your child does not obey you, is it a sin? Yet I concede that many people define sin as disobedience to the "known" will of god. The problem with that definition is Upon whose authority is the will of god to be interpreted? My childhood Methodist minister seized upon that word (known) to help us understand sin and its debilitating effect upon the soul. Here is the jist of what he taught. It is the knowing that you are disobeying god's will that causes guilt, and unforgiven guilt (sin) festers and debilitates a person's character, outlook, and ultimately will to live.

While I concur that unrelieved guilt does those very things, I would argue that it is the fact of the self-recrimination that does the damage, not the truth of the act (sin). (Self-)Guilt falsely held is just as debilitating as guilt truly held.

That kind of dogma makes me want to hurl

I concur that we are not the only animals with self awareness. I hinted at this when I alluded to "recent research with other primates". The implication of these new discoveries is that sentience is not a digital (either you are or you aren't) function. There is growing realization that there is a continuum here. The smug seperation that allowed us to make all kinds of claims of having exclusive status with god is threatened by such discoveries because ultimately it attacks the contention that only humans have souls.

P.S. I don't believe that we are seperated from the harmony of nature either, but it is because IMHO the harmony of nature upon closer examination is itself a myth!

vtran31

Originally posted by vtran31
yes it says that. so adam was not decieved. so he knew full well what would happen if he ate it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then the distinction in 1 Tim is unfounded.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no. just different sins[/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wow, thanks for elaborating. I thought a sin was a sin in god's eyes.

It is. just being decieved is one type if sin

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no. God adequately blamed BOTH.[/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again, this is not the case in the NT.

you must of missed this:

Romans 5:

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

PS. how do you do quotes? the html location thing just confused me

Hawkingfan

Ah, no mention of Eve. Then please explain why a woman is to learn in full submission, not allowed to speak in church, not allowed to lead prayer, or to have authority over a man.

vtran31

hawkingsfan that is a legitimate question that i havent found the answer yet too. www.christian-thinktank.com has osme answers, under women in main index, but I am not sure wether it is correct

PS. So it is resolve that the NT does not put all the blame on Eve and indirectly women in general( an assumption that cannot be really taken but asserted)?

Hawkingfan

I call it a contradiction between a passage in 1 Timothy and a passage in Romans.

capnkirk

Hawkingfan,

That, if you don't agree with it, is something you should challenge your Campbellite minister on...since that is where you learned it. This thread should surely have provided you with sufficient grounds to make such a challenge.

Hawkingfan

Thanks capn'

But I'm afraid I was being sarcastic when I asked him to tell me why. I know why. I just wanted to see what he said. I know why because of the verses appearing before the one in question:
1 Timothy 2:11--
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman..." yada-yada-yada.

Paul is justifying this mistreatment of women by the A&E "deception" argument. The preacher I heard it from condoned it. I mean, he IS following what the scripture says. I just don't understand why in this day and age he does not have the intelligence not to believe it and follow it. It is shit.