Righteousness of Men

[Spirko]

The entire chapter is about the fact that we are not responsible for our father's sin and we are only responsible for our own sin. It is only our own sin that kills our soul. If we turn from wickedness to righteousness we will live and not die. If we do not turn from wickedness to righteousness we will die and not live.

That doesn't have anything to do with original sin. That has to do with God dealing with Israel in a corporate fashion.

 

[Spirko]

No I am calling men mistaken in their theology.

Romans 5 shows us that original sin is a Biblical teaching and is not man-made.

 

[elman]

Romans 5 shows us that original sin is a Biblical teaching and is not man-made.

No it does not. Ezekiel 18 shows us that original sin is man made and not from God.

 

[Spirko]

No it does not. Ezekiel 18 shows us that original sin is man made and not from God.

Ezekiel 18 never once refers to the idea of original sin. It's talking about the differences in the way that God deals with Israel on a corporate level and how God deals with individuals.

Romans 5 explains original sin. It tells us precisely how sin entered into the world and how and why man has inherited a sinful nature as a result of Adam's sin.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

No, absolutely not. What i am saying is that neither you me or anyone else (not even the pope) is immune to being influenced by their own versions of "God's nature" or righteousness. Where the bible comes in is as a standard to help us sift our versions and interpretations from His expressed Nature.

But do you not acknowledge that the Bible was written by men? You say that "neither you me or anyone else...is immune to being influenced by their own versions of "God's nature"'. Was Paul immune? John? Luke? Timothy? Matthew? Were they all immune to their own version of God's nature?

As Paul was dictating to his scribe to write the letter to the church of Corinth, was he somehow immune to sin, selfishness, culture and subjectivity? As he finished his letter and sent it off and then lay down to bed that night, did he think that he had just completed a section of the nearly-complete Word of God we now call the Bible? Did he think about the fact that his verses may be read at millions of weddings into the 21st century?

And if he did think this, would people of the time not call him self-righteous to think so highly of himself? Imagine if CS Lewis had openly said, "I am writing the Word of God and my book 'Mere Christianity' will be read well into the 41st century". People would have thought that to be ludicrous!

If it did it would seamlessly line up with Scripture. Now, What if it doesn't?
You would try and rewrite the bible to match your actions.
What more closely describes your situation?

Paul re-writing the Jewish Law seems to mirror this quite well.

The bible describes Righteousness as the standard in which God defines the actions of one who is in His Will.

And those actions would be....morally upright and justifiable and in accordance with what Jesus said. Same as my definition. You do realize that I define morality as it is described by Jesus: selfless, loving, compassionate, forgiving, not vengeful, etc. I don't define morality based on moral relativism. Moral objectivity exists and that is God's morality which is a manifestation of his righteousness.

The fact that you are looking for righteousness in your sense or any sense of right and wrong, proves your ideals do not line up with that of God. He tells us true righteousness can not be obtained by us through works. true righteousness can only be obtained through atonement. He has provided this atonement through His son. He has also told us how to accept this atonement.

I don't understand how you define righteousness. In one breath you say that righteousness is the standard in which God defines the actions of one who is in His will. And in the next you say that my actions can never line up with righteousness.

So it seems you're saying that people who have never accepted the atonement of Christ can not act righteously.

So it seems you're saying that if a non-Christian helps an old lady cross the street and then a Christian helps an old lady cross the street, the non-Christian has done nothing meaningful while the Christian has acted in accordance with God's will. To me, they have both acted in accordance with God's will because the loving action of helping the old lady is what God would want anyone to do in that situation: atonement or no atonement.

Then it would not sinc up with the expressed will of God.

Woah woah, now you're running into circular reasoning.
Premise 1: You claim that you cannot trust personal judgement or experience, so you must use the Bible.
Premise 2: The Bible includes the writings of Paul.
Therefore: If Paul was trusting his own personal judgement and experience, then you cannot trust him to be telling you the expressed will of God.

But wait, you use Paul's writings as the source of the expressed will of God because Paul's writings are including in the Bible. Circular logic.

One of the same writers who established the deity of Christ established Paul's status as an apostle. so no.


Because the gospel writer of the book of Luke did not confirm your status as anything..

So I can raise all the exact same logical conundrums about Luke. Was Luke outside subjectivity? Was Luke not just a man trapped inside his own subjective conscious? Why is Luke allowed to have such authority as a mere man to tell you the expressed will of God?

So what if I "believe" you do not have a sincere relationship with God? Does my "belief" have absolutely any bearing on the truth?

You may have a sincere belief that you have a relationship with God.

Thank you. Am I then forgiven by God of my sins and shortcomings and do I have the indwelling Holy Spirit?

If it is as you say, and our beliefs carry the exact same weight, then why would you think your belief that you have a relationship with God has any bearing on actual truth?

Because I am saying that we all have a relationship with God in some way, not just Christians. I've never claimed that you don't have a relationship with God. I just think your relationship expresses itself in a different way than me: namely through the divinity of Jesus.

Its like all humanity is trying to complete a puzzle, the Puzzle of Life, Meaning and Purpose. And we're all trying to find different pieces but no one can quite see the whole puzzle nor can they seem to find exactly where the borders of the puzzle are. And some people have some pieces and some have others and everyone is missing lots of pieces. But we're still all working on the same puzzle and God IS the puzzle because he is everything: Life, Meaning and Purpose. And even if you're an atheist who is missing the "God exists" piece of the puzzle you're still working on the exact same puzzle, living through it, experiencing God in the process. Similarly, if someone is missing the "Jesus is God" piece, that doesn't affect the relationship with God because no one can claim seriously that they have any better or worse relationship with God than themselves.

Keep in mind that analogy is NOT Biblically-based. It is just a useful way that I tend to think of God and what it means to be "in relationship" with him.

We have the truth. Your truth does not align itself with the "truth" God has given us.

"What i am saying is that neither you me or anyone else (not even the pope) is immune to being influenced by their own versions of "God's nature" or righteousness" - your words, not mine. You have your version of the truth, you cannot claim to have the truth because of the very words I just quoted you saying.

 

[elman]

That doesn't have anything to do with original sin. That has to do with God dealing with Israel in a corporate fashion.

No it does not have anything to do with corporate fashion. It is as individuals we kill our own soul with our own sin. We don't do that in groups. It is individuals that we turn from wickedness or as Jesus called it to repent. Luke 13:3. It is individuals that will live and not die if they have been pleasing to God and recreated by Him spiritually. We are not saved in groups.

 

[elman]

Ezekiel 18 never once refers to the idea of original sin. It's talking about the differences in the way that God deals with Israel on a corporate level and how God deals with individuals.

Romans 5 explains original sin. It tells us precisely how sin entered into the world and how and why man has inherited a sinful nature as a result of Adam's sin.

Ezekiel 18 refers to the idea of original sin in that original sin says I am responsbile for the sin of Adam. It says I am not. It never deals with Israel on a corporate level and is always about the individual killing their own soul with their own sin. Romans 5 says sin entered the world through Adam and all are guilty because all have sinned. Notice the words: "because all have sinned". Those words mean the reason we all die spiritually is because we all sin, not because Adam sinned.

 

[Spirko]

No it does not have anything to do with corporate fashion. It is as individuals we kill our own soul with our own sin. We don't do that in groups.

In the Old Testament, under the Old Covenant, individuals were punished for corporate sin and vice versa.

 

[Spirko]

Ezekiel 18 refers to the idea of original sin in that original sin says I am responsbile for the sin of Adam. It says I am not.

I simply cannot find that anywhere in Ezekiel 18.

Romans 5 says sin entered the world through Adam and all are guilty because all have sinned.

Thank you.

Notice the words: "because all have sinned". Those words mean the reason we all die spiritually is because we all sin, not because Adam sinned.

And you've completely ignored the part that says that we inhereted our sinful nature as a result of Adam's sin.

 

[elman]

I simply cannot find that anywhere in Ezekiel 18.



Thank you.



And you've completely ignored the part that says that we inhereted our sinful nature as a result of Adam's sin.

And you are ignoring the part about it not be because of Adam's sin but because all have sinned. You could not find in Ezekiel 18 that I am not responsible for my father's sin?

 

[Spirko]

And you are ignoring the part about it not be because of Adam's sin but because all have sinned.

No, I never ignored it. I've acknowledged it. I simply don't accept that that's all there is to the chapter.

No, I could not find what you claimed to be in Ez 18 anywhere Ez 18.

 

[elman]

No, I never ignored it. I've acknowledged it. I simply don't accept that that's all there is to the chapter.

No, I could not find what you claimed to be in Ez 18 anywhere Ez 18.

Read it carefully. It says we kill our own soul with our own sin. It also says the sin of our father does not kill our soul.

 

[Spirko]

Read it carefully. It says we kill our own soul with our own sin. It also says the sin of our father does not kill our soul.

I read it. It says that we will be judged and punished for our own sin. It doesn't address original sin at all or say anything to negate the portions of Romans 5 you keep ignoring.

 

[drich0150]

But do you not acknowledge that the Bible was written by men? You say that "neither you me or anyone else...is immune to being influenced by their own versions of "God's nature"'. Was Paul immune? John? Luke? Timothy? Matthew? Were they all immune to their own version of God's nature?

As Paul was dictating to his scribe to write the letter to the church of Corinth, was he somehow immune to sin, selfishness, culture and subjectivity? As he finished his letter and sent it off and then lay down to bed that night, did he think that he had just completed a section of the nearly-complete Word of God we now call the Bible? Did he think about the fact that his verses may be read at millions of weddings into the 21st century?

And if he did think this, would people of the time not call him self-righteous to think so highly of himself? Imagine if CS Lewis had openly said, "I am writing the Word of God and my book 'Mere Christianity' will be read well into the 41st century". People would have thought that to be ludicrous!



Paul re-writing the Jewish Law seems to mirror this quite well.



And those actions would be....morally upright and justifiable and in accordance with what Jesus said. Same as my definition. You do realize that I define morality as it is described by Jesus: selfless, loving, compassionate, forgiving, not vengeful, etc. I don't define morality based on moral relativism. Moral objectivity exists and that is God's morality which is a manifestation of his righteousness.



I don't understand how you define righteousness. In one breath you say that righteousness is the standard in which God defines the actions of one who is in His will. And in the next you say that my actions can never line up with righteousness.

So it seems you're saying that people who have never accepted the atonement of Christ can not act righteously.

So it seems you're saying that if a non-Christian helps an old lady cross the street and then a Christian helps an old lady cross the street, the non-Christian has done nothing meaningful while the Christian has acted in accordance with God's will. To me, they have both acted in accordance with God's will because the loving action of helping the old lady is what God would want anyone to do in that situation: atonement or no atonement.



Woah woah, now you're running into circular reasoning.
Premise 1: You claim that you cannot trust personal judgement or experience, so you must use the Bible.
Premise 2: The Bible includes the writings of Paul.
Therefore: If Paul was trusting his own personal judgement and experience, then you cannot trust him to be telling you the expressed will of God.

But wait, you use Paul's writings as the source of the expressed will of God because Paul's writings are including in the Bible. Circular logic.



So I can raise all the exact same logical conundrums about Luke. Was Luke outside subjectivity? Was Luke not just a man trapped inside his own subjective conscious? Why is Luke allowed to have such authority as a mere man to tell you the expressed will of God?



Thank you. Am I then forgiven by God of my sins and shortcomings and do I have the indwelling Holy Spirit?



Because I am saying that we all have a relationship with God in some way, not just Christians. I've never claimed that you don't have a relationship with God. I just think your relationship expresses itself in a different way than me: namely through the divinity of Jesus.

Its like all humanity is trying to complete a puzzle, the Puzzle of Life, Meaning and Purpose. And we're all trying to find different pieces but no one can quite see the whole puzzle nor can they seem to find exactly where the borders of the puzzle are. And some people have some pieces and some have others and everyone is missing lots of pieces. But we're still all working on the same puzzle and God IS the puzzle because he is everything: Life, Meaning and Purpose. And even if you're an atheist who is missing the "God exists" piece of the puzzle you're still working on the exact same puzzle, living through it, experiencing God in the process. Similarly, if someone is missing the "Jesus is God" piece, that doesn't affect the relationship with God because no one can claim seriously that they have any better or worse relationship with God than themselves.

Keep in mind that analogy is NOT Biblically-based. It is just a useful way that I tend to think of God and what it means to be "in relationship" with him.



"What i am saying is that neither you me or anyone else (not even the pope) is immune to being influenced by their own versions of "God's nature" or righteousness" - your words, not mine. You have your version of the truth, you cannot claim to have the truth because of the very words I just quoted you saying.

I guess I was not meant to respond the way I had orginally intended. So let me ask this, are you or were you ever a mormon? is the pastor you goto luch with a mormon?

 

[elman]

I read it. It says that we will be judged and punished for our own sin. It doesn't address original sin at all or say anything to negate the portions of Romans 5 you keep ignoring.

If I am judged and punished only for my own sin, how does that leave opportunity for you to believe I will be judged and punished for Adam's sin?

 

[Spirko]

If I am judged and punished only for my own sin, how does that leave opportunity for you to believe I will be judged and punished for Adam's sin?

Straw man. Nobody has said that you'll be judged and punished for Adam's sin.

By the way, since trying to talk to you yesterday, I've read several posts in a couple different threads where people showed you Biblical evidence to try to correct you. If you wouldn't listen to them, then it's no surprise that you won't listen to me. And since you don't appear to want to listen to anyone, wisdom dictates that I bow out of this conversation with you.

 

[elman]

Straw man. Nobody has said that you'll be judged and punished for Adam's sin.

By the way, since trying to talk to you yesterday, I've read several posts in a couple different threads where people showed you Biblical evidence to try to correct you. If you wouldn't listen to them, then it's no surprise that you won't listen to me. And since you don't appear to want to listen to anyone, wisdom dictates that I bow out of this conversation with you.

What does original sin say if it does not say we are guilty of the sin of Adam from our birth? Bibical evidence that God is evil does not convince me. If it convinces you, fine.

 

[Spirko]

What does original sin say if it does not say we are guilty of the sin of Adam from our birth? Bibical evidence that God is evil does not convince me. If it convinces you, fine.

Since trying to talk to you yesterday, I've read several posts in a couple different threads where people showed you Biblical evidence to try to correct you. If you wouldn't listen to them, then it's no surprise that you won't listen to me. And since you don't appear to want to listen to anyone, wisdom dictates that I bow out of this conversation with you.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Obviously both of our perceptions are subjective and flawed, but I believe the reality is much more loving and caring is going on around you than you recognize. I see you looking at loving actions and discounting them as being unworthy of praise. The sheep were surprised that their loving actions were seen by God as valid expressions of their love for God. Matt 25:31 and following. I think all loving actions are worthy of praise and respect.

MY FRIEND,

Sooooooo . . . . if all this purported "loving actions" are going on continuously all around us, unconnected with a God who IS Love, why are you bothering to claim to be a Christian if the world could get along just as well without all this "God business?" If "niceness" is inherent in human beings, why worry about the existence or non-existence of God at all as He would appear to be unnecessary in any event, and perhaps even a little jealous of our ingrained "goodness" which you appear to believe rivals His own?

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I guess I was not meant to respond the way I had orginally intended.

Not sure what you mean by this. I had no problem with how you responded I was just probing further. No harm intended

So let me ask this, are you or were you ever a mormon? is the pastor you goto luch with a mormon?

Certainly not. I went to a Catholic elementary school as a kid. I currently go to a Baptist church and the pastor at that church is the one I go to lunch with.

Although, "Baptist" doesn't really mean much as far as I can tell; I'm sure there are many people in the congregation that would call themselves non-denominational or simply "Christian".

What about my post made you think I had been influenced by Mormonism??? (I'm intrigued )