Sin and God

Both.

cantata said:

Is sin a result of human beings' estrangement from God?

Or is human beings' estrangement from God the result of sin?

Click to expand...

Why would a non-theist care either way?

Polycarp_fan said:

In Britain it's of no consequence now, no authority and no influence right?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that.
Thankfully, it has little overlap with party politics, but other than that I think it is of great consequence to the majority of people.
It can still be a matter of life and death importance in certain regions, eg Ulster.

The face of Christianity itself is changing also. Due to years of Irish immigration and now a massive influx of Polish immigrants it is estimated that within a few years the majority Christian denomination is likely to be Roman Catholicism as opposed to Anglicanism.
Couple this with how Christianity needs to respond to Britain's sizeable and increasingly radical Moslem population and I think you'll find it's interesting times ahead.

Polycarp ... at times you can seem a little hostile. Why is this?

Mike.

Being the determinist I know you are Cantata, it's clear if God exists, then God the creator of the world is responsible for all sin.

So in conclusion, it's all God's fault. You can use that if you want.

And yeah, I'd agree with Oneofthediaspora's answer - it's both. When my brain's a bit more awake, I might be able to unpack that answer a bit more, but for the time being that's as much as I can manage.

cantata said:

Thanks! I'll credit you.

Click to expand...

No need, really!

Oneofthediaspora said:

I wouldn't say that.
Thankfully, it has little overlap with party politics, but other than that I think it is of great consequence to the majority of people.
It can still be a matter of life and death importance in certain regions, eg Ulster.

The face of Christianity itself is changing also. Due to years of Irish immigration and now a massive influx of Polish immigrants it is estimated that within a few years the majority Christian denomination is likely to be Roman Catholicism as opposed to Anglicanism.
Couple this with how Christianity needs to respond to Britain's sizeable and increasingly radical Moslem population and I think you'll find it's interesting times ahead.

Click to expand...

OK.

Polycarp ... at times you can seem a little hostile. Why is this?

Mike.

Click to expand...

I'm not. There is little emotionalism in any of my posts. I just have a style that's all. No where do I present an altered Gospel or New Testament text. This is just a debate site.

It's just that most people pretend that they have never encountered a Christian willing to give back the arrows that they are constantly a victim of. I just enjoy watching the non and anti Christians writhe and sream when they get a dose of their own medicine. This is not about converting people, it is about standing up to secular bullies. They usually crumble like a house of cards and that is what I desire to show my brothers and sisters in Christ. We are not being persecuted by these people, but we are under attack in many other ways and many of those ways are far worse than persecution. Seduction is far more cunning.

I'm just rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's.

What is God's I leave to the Apostles.

cantata said:

Is sin a result of human beings' estrangement from God?

Or is human beings' estrangement from God the result of sin?

Click to expand...

I believe that God is literally that thing that we call "love". So, let me take a stab at a Parable.

One Xmas tree light is angry, because another xmas tree light is in the string with him. The 1st is surely better than the other light, so he decides to make himself a little taller.

As a result, his light goes out, while the other's light stays just as bright. He is ANGERED! and tells the other light how terrible he is, how the stringer of lights is going to pluck him out, and crush him like a bug.

However, the stringer of the lights comes along, and says, "huh. One of the bulbs is out." He almost throws it away, but notices that it is just out of it's spot. He puts it back in, and it lights again.

The 1st bulb, humbled, and realizing that not until everyone works together, will he light.

God is the electricity, and if we cut ourselves off from God, from love, then we go off thinking that we are right, but are lonely, unhappy, sad. When we reach out to others in love, we connect to each other. When we cooperate with others, we are given cooperation. When we forgive others, they have mercy on us. When we act generous to others, the act generously in turn.

However, man thinks that "the one who dies with the most toys wins." The one who wins the game, and says, "in your face" is the bigger man. This means one must ask selfishly, must ignore the needs of others, must accuse the needy of being thieves. To do all of this, one must quiet the inner voice inside that says, "You know, you shouldn't have done that." That voice, in my opinion is God. Then, you must believe that God is past the Milky Way, that he is an old grandpa that falls asleep mid sentence, so he doesn't see the way you act selfishly, the way you neglect your neighbor, they way you worship money and material. The Sheep and the Goats? That doesn't apply to you. Point to the sins of others, and you will look less guilty!

And so, people create an environment where they believe that God is outside of them, not a part of them, even when asking God into their heart. If you say, "God told me..." they will answer, "I'VE NEVER HEARD GOD! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?", questioning you for hearing God, and not themselves for not. They will accuse you of blasphemy for stating that you don't know where you end and God begins, when they don't sense God within them. They will point fingers of accusation at you for having answered prayers, claiming that they have never had any answered, and yet, claim to be a superior Christian.

Yet, they seem angry, haughty, proud, snarky. They have nothing to add to conversation but look for an opportunity to insult, to mock, to hate.

In Buddhism, it's called Karma. Lie to people, and they will think you a liar, and not trust you. You create that.

In Christianity, as in Buddhism, you have to follow an illogical path for enlightenment, to enter the Kingdom. You have to give without expecting something in return. You have to return curse with blessing. You have to love your enemies.

This is a very radical life from what modern society suggests, of getting even, of getting from others instead of giving. And that is probably why there are so many problems in the world, because until we start working together, as one string of lights, on family, we work against each other, and live in a terrible world. However, if we live and act in love, we sense God, are born of God, and know God,

However, when we do, we expose the darkness in others, so in a desparate attempt to hold onto it, one will be accused in the only way that Man knows - with envy, with deceit, with arrogance, with haughtiness, with anger. And all you can do is to remember that they are a child of God as well, and love them as God loved you, that they will shed themselves of their selfish ways, and join the rest of us.

cantata said:

You'd win your bet.

C S Lewis is not a theologian, but a popular Christian writer. You may as well ask me to cite Richard Dawkins in an essay about philosophy of religion.

Click to expand...

WHAT!

Mere Christianity is hailed as possibly THE best example of Christian theology ever written. I am one for it being included in every New Testament published. It explains what the Christian "is."

Are you really a Brit?

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.

Click to expand...

The Christian apologist

Click to expand...

In addition to his career as an English professor and an author of fiction, Lewis is regarded by many as one of the most influential Christian apologists of his time; Mere Christianity was voted best book of the twentieth century by Christianity Today in 2000. Due to Lewis' approach to religious belief as a skeptic, and his following conversion, he has been called "The Apostle to the Skeptics."

Click to expand...

I do, however, use various well-respected Christian theologians in my work, including Aquinas, Bonhoeffer, Swinburne, Tillich, Niebuhr, Bultmann, Hick, Macquarrie... You know, proper theologians? I hope you've heard of at least some of them.

Click to expand...

Lewis ranks equal to or far surpassing some of those theologians.

Incredible Cantata. Simply unfathomably incredible.

I am seeing you much more clearer now.

cantata said:

Mere popularity does not a theologian make.

Click to expand...

Substance does though. Lewis is a great theologian. Do your research. You can't be serious about "Christians" theology without this man's works being used. All you're doing is shwoing your agenda-laden plans.

Depends what you want from your theologians, I suppose.

Click to expand...

Intelligence and a well-reasoned position. Lewis excells on both.

Must you be so judgemental (not to mention such an insufferable know-it-all about people you have never met)?

Click to expand...

Yes. Your flippancy about Lewis is a perfect indication of your motives. It's stageringly obvious. Judging someone is not unethical and neither is it uncivilized. It is quite respectable when done correctly.

Which I have implemented accordingly here.

I'd like to expand on my asnwer "both" when I have finished work.

In the meantime, the last chapter of "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis addresses your question quite well IIRC. (Could be the second to last).

I'm with Polycarp on this one. The man was a genius (not a word I use lightly). Not a theological genius (as he would have been the first to admit). Rather his genius was in clarity of exposition. Hence his popularity. The fact that he is popular does not render what he has to say as lightweight.
It was in fact by avidly reading his apologetics and wanting to know more that I looked into the works of some of the other theologians you mentioned.

Now you're obviously very intelligent and I would guess your reading of theology is way ahead of mine, but I'd like to recommend a Lewis book to you called "The Abolition of Man". It's very short and would take an afternoon to read.

If you have read it, I would love to know your views on it and discuss it with you.

Mike.

Polycarp_fan said:

Substance does though. Lewis is a great theologian. Do your research. You can't be serious about "Christians" theology without this man's works being used. All you're doing is shwoing your agenda-laden plans.

Click to expand...

Referring to theologians other than Lewis - preferring them, even - is hardly indicative of "agenda-laden plans". FWIW, I tend to agree with Cantata on this one; Lewis is okay for populist Christian apologetics - and definitely a darned sight better than Josh McDowell, for instance - but I wouldn't really describe him as a theologian per se.

Yes. Your flippancy about Lewis is a perfect indication of your motives.

Click to expand...

When exactly has Cantata been flippant about Lewis? She just said she doesn't rate him highly as a theologian and gave her reasons for not doing so. What motives do you read into that?

Frankly, one of the best theologians I've read is Tom Wright. His Simply Christian is an excellent work on Christianity. And if you've not read Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship, you really should. Both, IMO, are miles better than anything I've read by Lewis.

David.