What is Sin?

[SandRose]

Thus, when we fully grasp the nature of the Honor/Shame aspect of Sin, we see that it holds a great amount of weight in our lives.

Tell me if this is making sense to you so far?

In all honesty, I'm not sure. Maybe an apt question right now would be, are these concepts of Honor and Shame objective? (In my view they are social constructions that exist primarily in the eyes of those who perceive them to be there, but from your post I'm getting the idea that in Christianity this isn't the case.)

 

[Key]

In all honesty, I'm not sure. Maybe an apt question right now would be, are these concepts of Honor and Shame objective? (In my view they are social constructions that exist primarily in the eyes of those who perceive them to be there, but from your post I'm getting the idea that in Christianity this isn't the case.)

This is a great question, and I hope that I can provide you an answer to them. See, when we deal with Gods Law, it is God establishing something, not the other way around. God by his law established Cultural Interaction between Humans, in a way we should act towards each other (Beyond not killing each other), that will be positive to our personal and social growth and development. There is no sin that is Good for you.

In this case, you know that when you meet a Christian, that they would (or Should) act in a way when they meet you, this is not some arbitrary thing, this is their culture rule of God acting upon them.

Now, Honor/Shame, or Respect/Disrespect are not subjective things, they are real aspects of all interaction, the only part that is subjective, is what we consider to be shame or honor to us.

Let me give you an example, and for this example, I am just going to say that you have a Boyfriend, and his name is John.

You are with your BF, and your just hanging out at the mall (I know just scene setting), and one of your friends comes up and says

"Hey, John, why are you with SandRose?"

John Replies with you standing right next to him, "Well she is good in the sack"

Now, lets say, John is not lying about this, that you two do enjoy good sexual exchange. So in that case, John has not commit any immoral act of lying.

But you would be insulted by this response, the question you have to ask is why.

Did he insult you? No.. he paid you a complement.. that you are good at sex.

So, why are you offended? That is because John has shamed you.

You see, you have expectations of people, and how they will act towards you and with you, and that is Honor/Shame. You expect those that you love to Honor you, now, to give an example of what happens when we loose this.

Take the same situation as above, as we degrade, and let the sin of our lives destroy that culture, eventually (and it does exist today) you would have said "Yah, I am good in the Sack, thank you baby for saying that"

And thus, we see no longer respect and Honor each other as people, but degrade (In this example) into little more then Organic Sexual Pleasure devices, and we find pride or honor in that. This the spiral of our falling into Sin and Corruption penetrates our entire live and culture, not just simple moral issues.

See, Honor/Shame is how we interact beyond simple moral acts towards each other. It is loosely translated to Respect, but that is a loose translation.

Both Moral/Immoral and Honor/Shame establish Human Culture, and these were founded by God. What an awesome God, that he would go beyond simple moral acts, and develop a cultural set of interaction for us, to help us have a productive, peaceful and positive environment for us to grow and develop.

See we grasp this Concept of Honor/Shame and know that it is integral to our culture, as such, it is not a mutable thing, it is a nessity of our survival.

Have I explained that for you, or do you have more questions?

God Bless

Key.

 

[SandRose]

Have I explained that for you, or do you have more questions?

Well... I'm not sure I understand why you say that John's actions in this story aren't immoral. Even if his words are technically a compliment and technically not a lie, they're still shallow and offensive. Assuming John wouldn't appreciate the same thing being said about him if the roles were reversed, it would seem he failed at the most basic principle of morality... "treat others how you would like to be treated."

But in terms of my question about the objectivity of these concepts of Honor / Shame, I'm wondering what would happen if a few variables in this story changed. How would it work in the following cases?

(a) When John says "Because she's good in the sack," I can tell he's kidding (assume he has an odd sense of humor) so I play along and say, "Yeah baby, thank you for saying that." To my friend the situation plays out the exact same way, but John and I wink at each other because we just shared an inside joke. Is this a case of Shame?

(b) John and I are very close, and while we may be wildly attracted to each other and greatly enjoy our time in the sack, that is only one dimension of our relationship -- we love and support one another and want to spend the rest of our lives together. Is this a case of Shame? (And how would someone outside our relationship go about deciding that?)

 

[Key]

I see we are progressing wonderfully, and I see that you are grasping things well, and do fully comprehend many of the points I have been trying to make. This is a Good, maybe you understand already, more then you think.+

Well... I'm not sure I understand why you say that John's actions in this story aren't immoral.

Because, They technically are not.

Even if his words are technically a compliment and technically not a lie, they're still shallow and offensive. Assuming John wouldn't appreciate the same thing being said about him if the roles were reversed

Ahhh, here you fully grasp the Honor/Shame part of Social interaction, that there is more then just simple "Morals" but also cultural interaction. This is wonderful.

However, you and I both know if the roles were reversed, and it was you that said "John was good in the sack", that John would puff out his chest, and his Ego would inflate, because, you had complemented him, you gave praise to his sexual prowess. And Every man would take complement in that.

This, also, you seem to fully grasp that Woman are Different then Men. That is a wonderful thing as well.

See, you are learning, or maybe always had known.

This is truly a step in the right direction for you to get the answers you have been seeking.

he failed at the most basic principle of morality... "treat others how you would like to be treated."

Ah, I am happy to see you bring this up, yes, truly that is a powerful aspect of Moral and Respect among humans, however, it is also a Jewish-Christian construct. Which, as much at this point I would like to say that you are a free spirit, or have come to grasp your own way and own morals, you can see that you are irrevocably influenced by the Christian Religion, it surrounds you, and penetrates your very being, to the point that today, you may not grasp, that this ideal was not common at all among humans in many older cultures.

But, now you understand, that God has foresight, and saw that we needed laws and rules like this, to better our culture and interaction, and that such rules should be immutable to us, and our culture.

But in terms of my question about the objectivity of these concepts of Honor / Shame, I'm wondering what would happen if a few variables in this story changed. How would it work in the following cases?.......

The Two examples you have provided, however, have no bearing, and no relation to the initial point, this is similar to your trying to link Fulfillment, Love, Respect, to Sexual Orientation. They are mutually exclusive. As you know very well, that Sexual Orientation has no bearing on love or anything else, it is just simple sexual orientation.

You have already expressed that you fully grasp this concept, and that is wonderful, we can move on.

Unless there is more you would like to add, or something I may have missed.

God Bless

Key.

 

[SandRose]

However, you and I both know if the roles were reversed, and it was you that said "John was good in the sack", that John would puff out his chest, and his Ego would inflate, because, you had complemented him, you gave praise to his sexual prowess. And Every man would take complement in that.

Ha ha, good observation. But perhaps I should have been a bit clearer on this -- if the roles were reversed in that John truly cared about me and loved for who I am, and I meanwhile treat him as though he's nothing more to me than a sex toy, I honestly don't think he would appreciate it. (Unless you're implying that men are incapable of emotion, the general point is valid.)

Which, as much at this point I would like to say that you are a free spirit, or have come to grasp your own way and own morals, you can see that you are irrevocably influenced by the Christian Religion

Please stop and think about this for a moment: it makes no more sense than saying that people in other cultures who believe that killing is wrong must believe so because of the influence of the bible. Nothing I've said in any of my posts has been grounded in anything but rationality.

The Two examples you have provided, however, have no bearing, and no relation to the initial point, this is similar to your trying to link Fulfillment, Love, Respect, to Sexual Orientation.

Hold on a second -- I fear that I'm having words put into my mouth with this. I don't believe fulfillment / love / respect are linked to a particular sexual orientation any more than they're linked to a particular eye color. I do, however, believe that they can be present in individual human relationships and experiences, regardless of the gender of those involved.

As for my two examples: this is how I reason things out. If you have a general principle... it may sound good on paper, and you may be able to cite an example where it works, but unless you can consistently apply it to different instances or situations, what good is it? For me, there's something wrong if these kinds of follow-up questions can't be answered.

You have already expressed that you fully grasp this concept, and that is wonderful, we can move on.

Yes -- unless you have something to add / clarify about anything I've said in this post, perhaps we should just move on. We seem to be straying pretty far away from the original subject.

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

I think sin can be different things to different people. If you are talking about a christian's version of sin then it has to be what God himself has defined as sin. This is where we will disagree with the worldview as many examples that are given in the bible would not constitute as being sinful in a worldview since their definition is different.

Sin is inbuilt, the bible explains how all men are born with a sinful nature which in essence is all about self. It is what I want for me, because I deserve it, it's my right etc. This sinful nature controls our desires and seeks to get what we want. From childhood this is exhibited in say wanting more sweets because I like them and a parent deciding too many will make me sick. This creates in me anger because someone is denying me the right to do or have what I want. Is the parent wrong here because they deny the child more sweets or is the child wrong for thinking they know better and being angry at not having their own way?

God is our father and as such wants the best for us. He created a handbook (The bible) if you like, of laws and precepts that help us to live the life that will be best for us. We may not always understand some of the precepts He asks us to follow but as we mature and grow in wisdom we see how He has protected us from all sorts of hurts and sorrow and likewise when we disobey and receive the consequences of sin we realise that God had a better way.

Take premarital sex, God wants us to save intimacy for someone who is willing to commit their lives to us and stay with us until death. Premarital sex can result is disease, pregnancy and when separation comes, hurt and sorrow. Sure, even christians fall, have sex before marriage, get divorced and so on, but it is not God's best. He still forgives us though because His son bore our sin on the cross so we would not receive the punishment for our sin which is death and eternal separation from God.

Sin always hurts you or others, if I overeat or self harm, it may not hurt others but it does hurt me and indirectly hurt those who love me.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

To start off, you need to Grasp the Nature of Gods Laws and Sin.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that it's all the same thing, or that they are all one dimensional. This is not true.

Gods Laws fall under Two Major Groups, and Four Sub Groups. But all of them Fall under the Umbrella of "Gods Laws"

The Two Major Groups:

Social

Wellness.

The Social Category has two Sub Groups-

Moral/Immoral

Honor/Shame

Now Moral/Immoral is a simple one for most people, is the group we all relate to, doing something wrong. Sums it up nicely. Rules by which a community should abide by for safe and peacful living. IE: Not Killing Each other.

The Honor/Shame is a bit tougher for most Americans to grasp because of our individualistc mentaliry, if we were born in Japan, or the middle east, it would be much easier to comperhend it. The best way I can translate it, is into Respect/Disrespect. This is simple enough, these are rules we should follow to allow for order and graceful coexistence beyond simple not killing each other.

The Wellness Category has two Sub Groups-

Physical Health - Diet

Clean/Unclean

Physical Health and Diet are very well known, but given little attention, most notably in the kosher diet plan. But also rules like rest one day a week are equally included. These rules are in place for our overall physical and mental health.

Clean/Unclean is straightforward, what we should do to maintain body health to avoid external infections, etc. This allows us to live in communities that can maintain healthily living conditions. For example, we need to clean ourselves in running water if we have touched a dead body (Animal or Human).

When we approach the Story of Adam and Eve, we are dealing with mostly the Moral/Immoral aspects of the Sin nature, but we see also the Respect/Disrespect part.

Now the Place is Eden. A Garden made by God, for Adam and Eve to enjoy the labors of Gods work.

[bible]Genesis 2:8-9[/bible]

In this Garden is the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge. The only tree that Adam and Eve can not eat of, is the Tree of Knowledge. God, makes this clear as he can, "Eat that fruit from that tree and you will die" this is about as straight froward as you can get. "Eat this and Die"

[bible]Genesis 2:15-17[/bible]

Any Questions So far? or Points you would like to make?

God Bless

Key

The Genesis 2:17 verse above raises a question that has bothered me for some time. This verse indicates God is saying that eating from the tree of knowledge will cause them to die. Yet, they eat from this tree and stay alive. I double-checked the Hebrew for "die" and confirmed it is dealing with a physical death, not a spiritual death. So, the question is did God tell a "fib" since they stayed alive after eating from the tree? If not, what is the explanation for them staying alive after eating the fruit? From a literalist interpretation, it seems they should have died immediately after eating the fruit.

I remain that curious,

OldChurchGuy

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

The Genesis 2:17 verse above raises a question that has bothered me for some time. This verse indicates God is saying that eating from the tree of knowledge will cause them to die. Yet, they eat from this tree and stay alive. I double-checked the Hebrew for "die" and confirmed it is dealing with a physical death, not a spiritual death. So, the question is did God tell a "fib" since they stayed alive after eating from the tree? If not, what is the explanation for them staying alive after eating the fruit? From a literalist interpretation, it seems they should have died immediately after eating the fruit.

I remain that curious,

OldChurchGuy

Man was originally created to live forever with God. Physical death was the punishment of sin (wages of sin =death) Man is mortal meaning body of death. God tells Adam what the consequences are including the returning to dust from which he was formed,
God did not want man to then eat of the tree of life which would make him eternal and therefore bound forever in his sinful state so he banished him from the garden.

Some interpretations of verse 21 are that when God clothed Adam and Eve with skin, that an animal sacrifice was made to cover their sin.

 

[Key]

Sorry if this moves around a bit.. I am only doing what I can as a human, with my limited knowledge.. I am not God.. nor do I speak for God, I only speak for myself, and try to explain God as best as I currently understand things. Hence, my words are not biblical, they are just the words of a man.

As for my two examples: this is how I reason things out. If you have a general principle... it may sound good on paper, and you may be able to cite an example where it works, but unless you can consistently apply it to different instances or situations, what good is it? For me, there's something wrong if these kinds of follow-up questions can't be answered...

Then at this point, I need to explain why they are of no value, that can be respected.

(a) When John says "Because she's good in the sack," I can tell he's kidding (assume he has an odd sense of humor) so I play along and say, "Yeah baby, thank you for saying that." To my friend the situation plays out the exact same way, but John and I wink at each other because we just shared an inside joke. Is this a case of Shame?

This is you confusing the Honor/Shame concept from the view of the third member of the conversation, as such, they are not relevant to this situation.

However, even if this was the case, lets work with this, and the friend took John as serious, and then told your other friends that John was only with you because you were good in the sack, (He's not lying, he is telling what he knows, and you even validated the truth of the statement) as this message passes though your friends, they all believe that the only reason why John is with you, is for you skills at sex, so.. that might equally cause you to be embarrassed, because now all your friends think you are a "easy" and "Good at it".... which we both know can lead to all types of.... slander.. that if this was not the case.. you would have to correct. The slander on you.. would be shameful.. at this point you would either ask John to correct the problem, or tell John that he is to not do that in the future.. but still, you would be a looked upon as a harlot.

(b) John and I are very close, and while we may be wildly attracted to each other and greatly enjoy our time in the sack, that is only one dimension of our relationship -- we love and support one another and want to spend the rest of our lives together. Is this a case of Shame? (And how would someone outside our relationship go about deciding that?)

That has no bearing on Honor/Shame, as every married couple should enjoy their time in the sack, that is even a biblical directive that a married couple should not only have sex, but lots of it, and enjoy it as much as possible.

Equally so, people "Outside" the relationship, have no point in this discussion, unless it comes to how people that are around you, view you. Are you a decent woman, or just a floozy that will sack anyone.

Ha ha, good observation. But perhaps I should have been a bit clearer on this -- if the roles were reversed in that John truly cared about me and loved for who I am, and I meanwhile treat him as though he's nothing more to me than a sex toy, I honestly don't think he would appreciate it. (Unless you're implying that men are incapable of emotion, the general point is valid.)

Men view things different then woman.

Please stop and think about this for a moment: it makes no more sense than saying that people in other cultures who believe that killing is wrong must believe so because of the influence of the bible. Nothing I've said in any of my posts has been grounded in anything but rationality.

I really wish I could believe that, but see, rationality dictates that your every opinion is influenced, by media, culture, your parents, surrounding religion, government, your friends, your lovers, etc.

It would be viewed as "Reason derived from influence"

Now, as for Murder, in many cultures, and even in our own.. Murder is case of view. IE: We do not call a military solder a murdered, however, the people that he is fighting to defend our freedoms... do.

Now, if you lived in say... the 1600's in Europe, the punishment for stealing was death. Sounds harsh huh?

Plato taught that stealing and lying were fine and good things to do.

So, we see, the Morals of Christ, and the Jewish Religion, are universally morals that we have come as a world nation, to appreciate and wonder how we survived with out such guidance.

Just because, one group found that "Bing Killed was no Fun" does not mean that this established morals, it only means that they did not want to be killed, however, that did not mean, that given the chance, they would not kill others.

For example, Native American Indians had many tribal blood feuds, and would kill each other on sight.

South American Cultures, would not only kill others they would eat them as a sign of dominance over them.

Hold on a second -- I fear that I'm having words put into my mouth with this. I don't believe fulfillment / love / respect are linked to a particular sexual orientation any more than they're linked to a particular eye color. I do, however, believe that they can be present in individual human relationships and experiences, regardless of the gender of those involved.

Good, now you might be ready to come to terms with "Sexually Moral" and "Sexually immoral" as per the Christian Faith, many people think that it is a "Heterosexual-Homosexual" face off, when in truth, nothing could be farther from the reality of it. It has to do with Sexual Morality, not orientation.

We seem to be straying pretty far away from the original subject.

Not really, is there is a need to discuss foundation, before we can just jump ahead, just as you would not want to discuss quantum physics, unless you grasped the concepts of math first.

The Genesis 2:17 verse above raises a question that has bothered me for some time. This verse indicates God is saying that eating from the tree of knowledge will cause them to die. Yet, they eat from this tree and stay alive. I double-checked the Hebrew for "die" and confirmed it is dealing with a physical death, not a spiritual death. So, the question is did God tell a "fib" since they stayed alive after eating from the tree? If not, what is the explanation for them staying alive after eating the fruit? From a literalist interpretation, it seems they should have died immediately after eating the fruit.

I remain that curious,

OldChurchGuy

Hopefully I can give you an answer to this.

Allow me to provide for you an example.

When I went to Canada, I bought a pack of "Reds" and right on the cover of this cigarette pack, in big bold letters was a warning "Smoking will kill you"

Now, we both know that\ no one dies on the first puff. Did that make the warning invalid, or a lie? No. This will kill you... it just takes some time.

As opposed to say drinking bleach, which the warning is "Danger! Harmful or fatal if swallowed"

In this case, God did not say "I will strike you dead" he said "You will die from this" the waring seems to be along the same lines as the smoking warning, then say the bleach warning.

I hope to further expound on that more later as time goes on.

God Bless

Key

 

[revmalone]

Firstly, I want to check my understanding of the Christian definition of sin... I'm under the impression that it's something like, "transgression against God," and that it has nothing to do with whether or not an act is harmful to another human being. (This is based on the observation that God has often done things, or required others to do things, that hurt people, but are righteous in his eyes.) I'm also under the impression that sin somehow exists independently of individuals' actions, if an infant could be said to be sinful before it is old enough to really do anything yet. (But feel free to expand on this paragraph if need be.)

Anyway, here's what I'm wondering: what really is the nature of sin? How does it work? Is it supposed to be tangible in some form, or is it meant to be taken as a metaphor? Is there any way that we as mortal beings can detect its existence or negation? In particular, I'm wondering about sin both in the sense of "original sin" and in the phrase, "Jesus died for our sins" -- if someone could explain how sin operates in both of these contexts, I'd appreciate it.

Sorry for the number of questions, but since they're all centered around the same basic topic I'm hoping it won't be a problem. Thanks in advance for your responses.

Hey
What is sin, well this is a big subject, sin according to the Scriptures, (never go by what christians think, go by scripture) has been given to you for your dads seed when you were placed into your birth mother.

Sin has been passed down for father to son since adam sinned in the garden and tainted his blood with death.
Death is how the scriptures say we can see we have this sin nature in us, if we die we have it, pretty simple.

Here is were Jesus was different, He was Placed by God into Marys womb, so God bypassed the siful seed man had.

God was Jesus Father and he wasn't born with the sin seed if you will. When he Died on the Cross that Blood he carried from the moment God placed him into her womb was pure, the only of it's kind and that was what had to be shed to cleanse the wrong satan had caused mankind to do.

This is what people are saying when they tell others Jesus died for them, he was super special, and Gods only Child, all that was just for you.

If you want him to apply what he did to your account and wipe it clean just ask him, it's his to do not mine nor and chruch, anyone must go to Jesus Christ to be forgiven it's his blood.

Find him, your all running out of time.
Rev Malone

 

[SandRose]

Key: Firstly, thanks for taking the time to follow up on the two examples. I think I'm having trouble reconciling two contradictory ideas here, though... On the one hand people outside the relationship have no point in the discussion, but on the other hand the fact that I'm shamed depends a lot on how other people look at me. Scenario A only shames me if others get the idea I am a harlot (and even then, only if I care what they think). Scenario B is completely shame-free unless you switch "John" with "Mary."

I guess I'm still having a hard time seeing how honor and shame can be objective, not just in the variations on the "boyfriend John" example, but in general. (And maybe I should explain what I even mean by objective... I don't doubt that honor and shame exist as human emotions, and I don't doubt that certain actions or situations can cause a person to feel honored or shamed... What I'm having trouble understanding is how honor and shame can be said to exist when no one actually feels them.)

I really wish I could believe that, but see, rationality dictates that your every opinion is influenced, by media, culture, your parents, surrounding religion, government, your friends, your lovers, etc.

If this were true, I can assure you that I wouldn't be an atheist. There have been many things, in all of the above categories, that should long ago have dissuaded me from my current views.

But don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that I'm the very first person in the world to hold these particular ideas about morality, or that Christianity doesn't have some very good principles contained within it. Many of the historical examples you cited simply would not pass my test of rationality, regardless of the cultural contexts they were contained in.

Good, now you might be ready to come to terms with "Sexually Moral" and "Sexually immoral" as per the Christian Faith, many people think that it is a "Heterosexual-Homosexual" face off, when in truth, nothing could be farther from the reality of it. It has to do with Sexual Morality, not orientation.

This sounds like a step in the right direction... How would you define "Sexually Moral"?

 

[SandRose]

I also have a few other follow up questions about things people have said in this thread...

He still forgives us though because His son bore our sin on the cross so we would not receive the punishment for our sin which is death and eternal separation from God.

Some interpretations of verse 21 are that when God clothed Adam and Eve with skin, that an animal sacrifice was made to cover their sin.

This kind of relates back to one of my follow-up questions from earlier, which I'm still pretty confused about and which I'd appreciate if someone could elaborate upon... Why did Jesus receive the punishment for someone else's sin? And also, how does an animal sacrifice cover sin?

The Genesis 2:17 verse above raises a question that has bothered me for some time. This verse indicates God is saying that eating from the tree of knowledge will cause them to die. Yet, they eat from this tree and stay alive. I double-checked the Hebrew for "die" and confirmed it is dealing with a physical death, not a spiritual death. So, the question is did God tell a "fib" since they stayed alive after eating from the tree? If not, what is the explanation for them staying alive after eating the fruit? From a literalist interpretation, it seems they should have died immediately after eating the fruit.

Key's interpretation of this passage was pretty interesting. I'm curious about the original Hebrew you mentioned, though, if you or anyone else on this thread is well-versed enough in it to answer... does the original read more like "this will kill you immediately" or like "you will eventually die from this"? The English version says "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (which seems to imply an immediate death) but I'd be interested to know how it might have been altered during translation.

What is sin, well this is a big subject, sin according to the Scriptures, (never go by what christians think, go by scripture) has been given to you for your dads seed when you were placed into your birth mother.

I don't think I understand... Why is natural conception sinful?

 

[Key]

Key: Firstly, thanks for taking the time to follow up on the two examples. I think I'm having trouble reconciling two contradictory ideas here, though... On the one hand people outside the relationship have no point in the discussion, but on the other hand the fact that I'm shamed depends a lot on how other people look at me. Scenario A only shames me if others get the idea I am a harlot (and even then, only if I care what they think).

That would be correct, however, as you said, only if you care. However, it is vastly different then the first example, where John shamed you directly.

Scenario B is completely shame-free unless you switch "John" with "Mary."

Not quite. But we would have to get into Morals for that to make sense.

I guess I'm still having a hard time seeing how honor and shame can be objective, not just in the variations on the "boyfriend John" example, but in general. (And maybe I should explain what I even mean by objective... I don't doubt that honor and shame exist as human emotions, and I don't doubt that certain actions or situations can cause a person to feel honored or shamed... What I'm having trouble understanding is how honor and shame can be said to exist when no one actually feels them.)

You feel them all the time, same as embarrassment, love, hate, pride, lust, guilt,.. etc... etc...

They are a part of you, just because you recognize them as something else, does no mean that they do not exist, it just means that you fail to give them credit, for what they are.

Just as some people may not believe in Love, because they have not felt it, but have felt concern, respect, admiration, and a desire for company. In that case, they have felt Love in a way, but have chosen to view it as something else.

If this were true, I can assure you that I wouldn't be an atheist.

I could almost assure you.. that you would be.

There have been many things, in all of the above categories, that should long ago have dissuaded me from my current views.

Not true.. they very well have sculpted and guided your current view for what it is. See, our conversation, will not convince you, but it will influence you, in some form. Just because you do not believe as I believe, does not mean I have not influenced you, I have, just as have everyone else.

But don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that I'm the very first person in the world to hold these particular ideas about morality, or that Christianity doesn't have some very good principles contained within it. Many of the historical examples you cited simply would not pass my test of rationality, regardless of the cultural contexts they were contained in.

I believe they would have, see, you can only assume what you may and may not have done, but that decision is based on what you have been brought up with and taught, and how you have been influenced. When people say these types of things, there is no truth to them, because, we are cultural animals. You are applying your current day, culturally induced morals, to a situation that you could not even imagine living in.

That would not be proper application of Logic, or Rational, as you and I both know, if you were born in those times, or placed in those situations, you would not be the same type of person you are today.

This sounds like a step in the right direction... How would you define "Sexually Moral"?

That is simple, not sexually sinning.

See take your situation with John as your BF, and you two are sexually active, and not married, you do not get bonus points with God, because you are Heterosexual, you are still being sexually immoral, in that front, no different then the Homosexual that would have sex out of wedlock.

So what about marriage... right... does that make it all well and Good? Well not really. in every relationship.. there is the Masculine/Feminine aspects.

In the traditional sense.. the male is the "Masculine", and the Female is the "Feminine", and each plays a role in the household. Now if both are male, then one plays the Feminine role, and the Other Plays the Masculine role, as such, the Feminine male, is not respected as a Man, but treated as a woman. That is the shame aspect of it , because they do not look at each other as "Same" equals, which they should be.

Key's interpretation of this passage was pretty interesting. I'm curious about the original Hebrew you mentioned, though, if you or anyone else on this thread is well-versed enough in it to answer... does the original read more like "this will kill you immediately" or like "you will eventually die from this"? The English version says "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (which seems to imply an immediate death) but I'd be interested to know how it might have been altered during translation.

The word used, means to "Die of Natural Causes", The word being Muth, with means "to die" in a natural sense, as opposed to the word Mita which would mean "to Kill" or to die suddenly/violently.

So, we see that this was not a "I will strike you dead" type of deal. More alone the lines of the Smoking, as opposed to drinking of bleach.

Are you learning what you have come here to learn so far SandRose?

And OldchurchGuy, have I given you insight into this?

God Bless

Key

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PenelopePitstop2
Some interpretations of verse 21 are that when God clothed Adam and Eve with skin, that an animal sacrifice was made to cover their sin.

This kind of relates back to one of my follow-up questions from earlier, which I'm still pretty confused about and which I'd appreciate if someone could elaborate upon... Why did Jesus receive the punishment for someone else's sin? And also, how does an animal sacrifice cover sin?

Ever heard the term scapegoat? It means someone who takes the blame for someone else and is punished instead.
The wages of sin are death. God is Holy and sin is a violation something He cannot look upon. At the time of the crucifixion when Jesus cried out my God why have you forsaken me, God turned his face away as Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world.

Sin in God's eyes is judged and deserves punishment but His mercy provides a way out. In the OT animals were sacrificed to cover sin and their blood was poured on the mercy seat in the temple so instead of judgment the people received mercy. However sacrifices of animals was only a temporal thing and had to be repeated each time an offense was committed that violated the law as described in detail in Leviticus.
Jesus as you know is refered to as the lamb of God, an excellent example is found in Genesis where God asks abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac and then as he is about to do it God provides a lamb. God showed Abraham an analogy of how He would give His own son in sacrifice for our sin. Interesting side point, Abraham would have seen Calvary from the viewpoint he was at.

A sacrificial lamb had to be without spot or blemish. Sin is passed down genetically through the father, Jesus was not conceived through a human father so He did not inherit original sin........He was without spot or blemish. He also did not sin during His life. Jesus became a once and for all sin offering for mankind. He chose to die and take the punishment in our place for our sin.

Jesus is referred to also as the second Adam, through the first man sin entered mankind and through the second redemption from sin. This is why he is called our redeemer ( I could say so much about kinsman redeemer but I won't for now!) and also our saviour.

Hope this helps.

 

[SandRose]

They are a part of you, just because you recognize them as something else, does no mean that they do not exist, it just means that you fail to give them credit, for what they are.

Just as some people may not believe in Love, because they have not felt it, but have felt concern, respect, admiration, and a desire for company. In that case, they have felt Love in a way, but have chosen to view it as something else.

Hm, this may be getting somewhere... Are you saying that shame is subconscious?

Also, regarding my questions about the objectivity of it, I feel like I've been having a hard time articulating what my confusion is. Perhaps it would help to consider the following statement... "You are happy, you just don't realize you're happy." If there are no signs that the person is actually happy, and they don't feel happy, how can you reasonably conclude that happiness exists in this situation?

Not true.. they very well have sculpted and guided your current view for what it is.

Though I'm sure this wasn't your intention, I find it a little offensive that you would presume to know enough about my life to make this kind of a claim.

That would not be proper application of Logic, or Rational, as you and I both know, if you were born in those times, or placed in those situations, you would not be the same type of person you are today.

I agree that it would be wrong to say that culture has no effect on our views. However, I think it's equally wrong to say that culture is the only thing that affects our views. You seem to be essentially saying that it's impossible for people to think for themselves, and on that I disagree.

That is simple, not sexually sinning.

See take your situation with John as your BF, and you two are sexually active, and not married, you do not get bonus points with God, because you are Heterosexual, you are still being sexually immoral, in that front, no different then the Homosexual that would have sex out of wedlock.

So what about marriage... right... does that make it all well and Good? Well not really. in every relationship.. there is the Masculine/Feminine aspects.

In the traditional sense.. the male is the "Masculine", and the Female is the "Feminine", and each plays a role in the household. Now if both are male, then one plays the Feminine role, and the Other Plays the Masculine role, as such, the Feminine male, is not respected as a Man, but treated as a woman. That is the shame aspect of it , because they do not look at each other as "Same" equals, which they should be.

Hm... I'm a little concerned that I asked about sexual morality and the answer includes a reference to "earning bonus points with God." Does what you're saying boil down to, it is God's opinion that it is immoral, therefore it is immoral? (And don't get me wrong... if this is what you're saying, that's fine, I won't argue, it answers my question -- it just seems like it contradicts some of the prior definitions that have been given in this thread.)

Also, could you clarify how these notions of Masculine / Feminine have anything to do with it? I'm not sure I follow.

The word used, means to "Die of Natural Causes", The word being Muth, with means "to die" in a natural sense, as opposed to the word Mita which would mean "to Kill" or to die suddenly/violently.

So, we see that this was not a "I will strike you dead" type of deal. More alone the lines of the Smoking, as opposed to drinking of bleach.

Thanks for following up on this question... I'm impressed that you have such a detailed knowledge of the language. Since this has been brought up and since you may be able to answer a further question about it, I'm wondering about the rest of the words in the passage... To use the cigarette example, there seems to be a large difference in saying "smoking this cigarette will eventually kill you" as opposed to "on the day you smoke this cigarette, you will surely die." How does the wording / grammar in the original compare to the translation? (In other words, is there a reference to "immediately" or "today" in the original passage, or are those extra words something that was added later?)

Are you learning what you have come here to learn so far SandRose?

I hope I'm not annoying you with my endless barrage of follow up questions -- but yes, I do feel like I'm gaining some insight here. Thanks once again to you and everyone else who's taken the time to post in this thread.

 

[SandRose]

PenelopePitstop2: Thanks for your response. I hope you don't mind if I have a few comments / questions about your post...

Ever heard the term scapegoat? It means someone who takes the blame for someone else and is punished instead.

Yes, I have heard this term... but in all honesty I have always thought of it as a very, very bad thing. For me the word is associated with injustice, cruelty, immaturity... I can think of no context where the use of a scapegoat would be tolerable, let alone admirable. (And I don't mean to offend with any of that -- I just think it's part of the reason I have such a hard time understanding what the Crucifixion was supposed to be about.)

Maybe a good follow up question would be, why was a scapegoat necessary? And also, why was using a scapegoat acceptable in God's eyes?

 

[Key]

Hm, this may be getting somewhere... Are you saying that shame is subconscious?

It is an aspect of our lives.. a part of us.. as much as Hope, Love, Hate, Pride, Guilt, Greed, Etc...

How we choose to view it. or acknowledge it.. is different.. some cultures embrace it.. like Oriental and Middle East.. while others have rejected it.. like Western.. or mistake it for something else.. IE: They think of it in terms of Respect.. not Honor.

Also, regarding my questions about the objectivity of it, I feel like I've been having a hard time articulating what my confusion is. Perhaps it would help to consider the following statement... "You are happy, you just don't realize you're happy." If there are no signs that the person is actually happy, and they don't feel happy, how can you reasonably conclude that happiness exists in this situation?

This would be an example.. I do not think I could use.. as I do not see how it applies...

If you felt good to be alive.. but said.. "I feel good to be alive.. Not Happy" and I said "Well that is a form of happiness.. to feel good" then we would have a working analogy.

Though I'm sure this wasn't your intention, I find it a little offensive that you would presume to know enough about my life to make this kind of a claim.

It's not personal.. it affects about 110% of all people... No one is out side the realm of influence.. what we look at.. even the clothing we buy and how we dress are culturally induced.. for example.. I do doubt that you go to school.. or out with friends in a Fully Complete Victorian Dress.. the question is.. why..?

Now.. to be fair.. that dress is quite comfortable.. (I was in a play... ) and quite pretty... but you do no wear it... thus.. you are affected by your culture.. even down the way you dress… what you eat… even the way and style of your speech…

I agree that it would be wrong to say that culture has no effect on our views. However, I think it's equally wrong to say that culture is the only thing that affects our views. You seem to be essentially saying that it's impossible for people to think for themselves, and on that I disagree.

Ok, now… let me ask you… if there is something beyond our culture and upbringing.. then what is it?

Hm... I'm a little concerned that I asked about sexual morality and the answer includes a reference to "earning bonus points with God." Does what you're saying boil down to, it is God's opinion that it is immoral, therefore it is immoral?

We have established that Sin is breaking Gods Laws, in this case.. Heterosexuality, does not mean you have broken the law less.. when you do commit sexual immorality.

(And don't get me wrong... if this is what you're saying, that's fine, I won't argue, it answers my question -- it just seems like it contradicts some of the prior definitions that have been given in this thread.)

No.. it does not.. I have only said.. that every one of Gods Laws was for our Benefit.. because of his foresight and knowledge of what is best for Gods creation.. that being Human… not that God has not established these laws..

The idea is.. that they are Good for us to follow.. and they have a positive impact on our lives.. and that Sin.. destroys us.. corrupts us.. makes us cowards.. weak… pathetic things.. shadows of what we could be if we followed Gods Laws…

Also, could you clarify how these notions of Masculine / Feminine have anything to do with it? I'm not sure I follow.

Simple.. If two people are same Gender.. they are equals.. but they are same equals..

Let me ask you.. are you an Evolutionist..?

If you are.. this might be easier to explain…

Thanks for following up on this question... I'm impressed that you have such a detailed knowledge of the language.

I am just a man…. But thank you.. you may however have honored me more then I deserve…

Since this has been brought up and since you may be able to answer a further question about it, I'm wondering about the rest of the words in the passage... To use the cigarette example, there seems to be a large difference in saying "smoking this cigarette will eventually kill you" as opposed to "on the day you smoke this cigarette, you will surely die." How does the wording / grammar in the original compare to the translation? (In other words, is there a reference to "immediately" or "today" in the original passage, or are those extra words something that was added later?)

Well first… it is “Smoking” not “This Cigarette” that will kill you… lets start that off…

Think of it like this.. “The day you start smoking.. you start killing yourself”… there is truth in that.. and it explains the point well…

Now It is in the context that the “Happening” is immediate.. IE: “The Moment you eat of this fruit.. you will surly die (of natural cause)” in this sense.. God had given them eternal life.. so it would be the same as “Walking the Green Mile” if they ate that fruit… They were dead and walking… they were going to die for this… this carried with it.. the sentence… death….

Now.. They knew this.. there was not illusion involved reading this.. “Eat this Fruit and you will die”

Now the word you are looking for.. is “Yowm”.. which means “day”.. it can equally mean “Moment” or “Set Time Frame”… but does not mean “Night” it means.. day as in “Light Time”..


This is what it was translated to “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”

But it could be taken.. “The Moment you eat of the fruit you shall be mortal” Now.. this is of value.. because.. Adam was immortal at this time.. he was not to face a “death”.. as we might know of it.. so this is a very important aspect.. to eat of that fruit.. was a “Death Sentence” but not an immediate killing of him.

I hope I'm not annoying you with my endless barrage of follow up questions -- but yes, I do feel like I'm gaining some insight here. Thanks once again to you and everyone else who's taken the time to post in this thread.

If you were annoying me.. I would not keep responding…

God Bless

Key.

 

[SandRose]

This would be an example.. I do not think I could use.. as I do not see how it applies...

If you felt good to be alive.. but said.. "I feel good to be alive.. Not Happy" and I said "Well that is a form of happiness.. to feel good" then we would have a working analogy.

But see, this is what I'm trying to figure out... If they don't say anything remotely like that to indicate they're actually happy (but don't realize it), and in fact say something that implies the precise opposite, how can you conclude that the emotion exists there? How can it be said to be a part of them?

I do doubt that you go to school.. or out with friends in a Fully Complete Victorian Dress.. the question is.. why..?

Because that would be horribly uncomfortable... waaayyy too bulky for my style and how active I tend to be. But I see the point you're trying to make, and I think you're making some unwarranted assumptions about me. So I'll give you an example of the sort of thing that I do do... In the summers, I like to shave my head. (Not completely skin-bald, but to go over it with an electric razor so that the hair is very very short.)

Now, for a girl in American society, this isn't exactly what's considered acceptable or "normal"... I believe Britney Spears just received a similar haircut and everyone said she was losing her mind. It's true that you get strange looks, and people who assume certain things, or who call you "sir" until they take the time to look at your face. But I do it anyway. Why? Because of how awesome the wind feels when you drive around with the windows down on a warm summer evening...

I suppose that's one example of how I resist becoming a slave to the culture I live in. But again, I'm not saying that anyone is completely unaffected by their environment -- I'm just saying that in my point of view, there's more to people than culture and upbringing. We're all individuals with the ability think and make choices, and we're free to choose to swim with the current or against it.

Simple.. If two people are same Gender.. they are equals.. but they are same equals..

I don't think I understand what the implications of this are supposed to be... why is the concept of "same equals" bad?

Let me ask you.. are you an Evolutionist..?

If you mean do I support the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, then yes (I think we've established that in some of our past discussions. ) But I'm not really sure how this is relevant to anything to do with morality...?

Think of it like this.. “The day you start smoking.. you start killing yourself”… there is truth in that.. and it explains the point well…

Now It is in the context that the “Happening” is immediate.. IE: “The Moment you eat of this fruit.. you will surly die (of natural cause)” in this sense.. God had given them eternal life.. so it would be the same as “Walking the Green Mile” if they ate that fruit… They were dead and walking… they were going to die for this… this carried with it.. the sentence… death….

Now.. They knew this.. there was not illusion involved reading this.. “Eat this Fruit and you will die”

Now the word you are looking for.. is “Yowm”.. which means “day”.. it can equally mean “Moment” or “Set Time Frame”… but does not mean “Night” it means.. day as in “Light Time”..


This is what it was translated to “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”

But it could be taken.. “The Moment you eat of the fruit you shall be mortal” Now.. this is of value.. because.. Adam was immortal at this time.. he was not to face a “death”.. as we might know of it.. so this is a very important aspect.. to eat of that fruit.. was a “Death Sentence” but not an immediate killing of him.

Your interpretations of the language here actually makes a lot of sense, I have to say. I wonder if it's helping to clear up some of OldChurchGuy's misgivings about this passage?

 

[Zeena]

It was a spiritual death that Adam & Eve suffered..

Sin cuts off our spirits from God, it is the great divider, but God made Him who knew no sin to become sin for us, so that we might become the Righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.

The body is the lowest part of man, formed from dust, and to return to dust.. This was the consequence of sin, that is;being cut off from the Life giving Spirit of God. When the body died, the soul also ceases to exist, for the soul that sins shall die..

I can site MANY verses which say we died and are dead spiritually without the Life of Christ Jesus if you require

 

[Key]

But see, this is what I'm trying to figure out... If they don't say anything remotely like that to indicate they're actually happy (but don't realize it), and in fact say something that implies the precise opposite, how can you conclude that the emotion exists there? How can it be said to be a part of them?

You might have a point.. if people never felt anything that might relate to Honor/Shame in our culture, but we do, we just have chosen to give it different names, or view it differently.

Because that would be horribly uncomfortable... waaayyy too bulky for my style and how active I tend to be.

You would be amazed at how comfortable that dress is.

Ok.. your active.. so why don't you wear knickers?

See.. you do realize that we are culture creatures.. now.. if there is something that guides us beyond our culture... what is it?

But I see the point you're trying to make, and I think you're making some unwarranted assumptions about me. So I'll give you an example of the sort of thing that I do do... In the summers, I like to shave my head. (Not completely skin-bald, but to go over it with an electric razor so that the hair is very very short.)

Now, for a girl in American society, this isn't exactly what's considered acceptable or "normal"...

It's all good in my book.. half my female friends while I was in college kept their hair shaved or short.

It was to rebel against the cultural norms.. however.. their choice to do that.. was influenced by culture.. if there was no "Norm" then they would not have done as they did to rebel against it.

Other friends of mine.. kept their hair only 1/4 long (It did not have the same problems as shaved).. it was the fact that it was "Easy to maintain" and Hats will keep a head warm (I was in Rochester New York... they have Coooooooold.. winters)

I believe Britney Spears just received a similar haircut and everyone said she was losing her mind.

Which may or may not be true.. but.. I do not think the Haircut alone was the sole source of their judgment.

But then again.. Look at Michael Jackson... he did some strange things as well.. but even his actions were induced by culture and upbringing.

It's true that you get strange looks, and people who assume certain things, or who call you "sir" until they take the time to look at your face. But I do it anyway. Why? Because of how awesome the wind feels when you drive around with the windows down on a warm summer evening...

That is a good reason.. but.... aren't cars... part of your culture?

The Car is an American Icon.. it is a part of our lives.. and our culture.. you do as you do.. because of your desire to embrace the cultural icon the Car.. and make it's ride more pleasing to you.

Like I said.. I mean you no disrespect.. I am sure you feel that you are "Against the Grain" or something, but.. all that you have done.. is induiced by your culture.. even if you go against the grain.. that desire to go against the culture.. and the only way that can happen.. is if the culture is there for you to go against.. and it's make up and style influence if not decide outright HOW you will act to go against it...

In a culture where woman were required to shave or keep their hair short... (this is assumption) I would imagine that you would grow yours long.. and use the same reason.. You like the way the wind feels as it goes though your long hair... that is speculation.. on my part however...

I suppose that's one example of how I resist becoming a slave to the culture I live in.

Ah.... I see the confusion.. you think influence and becoming a slave to.. are the same thing.. that is not true on any level..

Influence.. just means they affect how you will act.. as such.. you go against the cultural norms.. but that would hold true.. maybe for you.. no matter what the "Norm" might be.. you would not want to be a "Slave to it" so even if the cultural norm was.. say nudity.. you would wear clothing to try and separate yourself.. as such.. the cultural norm.. influences what you will do.. because you will do what is not the "Norm" to try and establish yourself as unique.. just like all the other people that go against the cultural norm do...

Understand what I am saying regarding that?

Are you still offended?

But again, I'm not saying that anyone is completely unaffected by their environment -- I'm just saying that in my point of view, there's more to people than culture and upbringing.

can you give me an example?

We're all individuals with the ability think and make choices, and we're free to choose to swim with the current or against it.

But your choices are based on what you know, or what you think you know, and that comes from your culture, if you swim against the current or with it.. both those choices are a part of your cultural environment.. you can not swim against a current.. unless it is there... right?

If you mean do I support the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, then yes (I think we've established that in some of our past discussions. ) But I'm not really sure how this is relevant to anything to do with morality...?

Well.. it is always a good time for you to learn more about evolution, if you believe it, you should learn it.

Humans are a sexually dimorphic species.. that means the males are physically different then the females.

Now when you think about this a moment.. that single Y chromosome, affects where your bladder is going to be located, how fat builds up on your body, and even skeletal changes in your structure, as a matter of fact... that little gene.. is quite changer of your entire body make up.

So... to say that man and woman are not different, is to ignore the entire of our culture, our science, our very history (Either Biblical or Evolutionarily)

As such, a man.. should be a man.. and a woman should be a woman.. a man should not be playing the role of.. or treated as.. anything.. but a man...

Just as a woman.. should not be treated as anything but a woman..

Each are part of Humanity... each are equal parts of the equation that is our continual survival... and each one of us.. is made of the combination of a man and a woman.. joining together..

As such.. we not only deny our existence, shaming what made us.. but equally maltreat our partner.. if we expect them to play a role that they should not play.

This the shame aspect.. of Homosexuality.. when a man and man join together.. as a family unit.. one plays the "feminine" role.. and other the "Masculine" role.. however.. that is not the end of the problem.. it also works down the line.. one is treated as if they are a wife.. and the other is treated as if they are a husband.. but to treat a man as a woman.. is to deny him and shame his entire make up, history, and nature of what a man is. To say.. something is not what it is.. is insulting, however, to say that it is.. what it is not... is an abomination.

These things bring confusion, and personal delusion as to one's place in their own life, as it destroys their identity.

You may not grasp that.. so let me give you an example...

You have shaved your head.. and people call you "Sir" but even after they see you.. and notice your face.. and body shape.. they still call you sir... you would eventually feel offended.. that they did not give you proper credit as a woman...

You might even go so far as to demand it.. or correct them...

Out of time right now.... I'll have to get to your other points later..

God Bless

Key