A Question for fellow Christians.

[angellous_evangellous]

It was the right thing for me at the time.

Poor guy.

 

[sandandfoam]

I will answer, although this thread was for Christians, or at least I will try to.

You are assuming that I believe people are born separated from God, at least I think that is what you are saying. The opposite is true in my view. I believe that people are born united with God. When a person becomes able to make a decision at a certain age, then they make the choice to either stay united to God or to separate from Him. That age can 5 years old or maybe not until the person is an adult.

I don't understand anything about original sin, I never engage in such discussions.

Is it me you're answering? if it is I'd like to ask some more

 

[doppelganger]

although this thread was for Christians

"Christians" fits within the religious category "Any/None."

You are assuming that I believe people are born separated from God, at least I think that is what you are saying. The opposite is true in my view.

Birth of the identity is a prerequisite to the perception of choice. An individual becomes that individual (from her perspective) when she takes upon herself an identity. In other words, identity is created by the power of the construct "I am" becoming the means by which I relate to and organize reality as I experience it. Only then can "I" appear to myself to be making "choices," because, before that, there's no "me" to make a choice. So there must be an initial separation that precedes any "choice."

And then you find yourself up against the universal mystic conundrum - can you "choose" to no longer be without still being?

 

[sandandfoam]

Si. For a while in my late-teens and early twenties. It was the right thing for me at the time.

V. interesting. I've only ever seen evangelicals on telly. Seems to be something very American about them (also something a little scary!). I'd love to ask you about it sometime.

 

[ChristineES]

Is it me you're answering? if it is I'd like to ask some more

Yes, partially and everyone else who posted on the subject. Ask me any question you want to-- I can't guarantee that I will have an answer to it. I am a bit scatterbrained this morning. I used to be easily offended, but I grew a thicker skin when I realized that no one has to like me.

 

[sandandfoam]

Yes, partially and everyone else who posted on the subject. Ask me any question you want to-- I can't guarantee that I will have an answer to it. I am a bit scatterbrained this morning. I used to be easily offended, but I grew a thicker skin when I realized that no one has to like me.

I like you !:yes:

Would you answer this please:- how does your belief in choice fit with the idea that God "will have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).?

 

[ChristineES]

"Christians" fits within the religious category "Any/None."



Birth of the identity is a prerequisite to the perception of choice. An individual becomes that individual (from her perspective) when she takes upon herself an identity. In other words, identity is created by the power of the construct "I am" becoming the means by which I relate to and organize reality as I experience it. Only then can "I" appear to myself to be making "choices," because, before that, there's no "me" to make a choice. So there must be an initial separation that precedes any "choice."

And then you find yourself up against the universal mystic conundrum - can you "choose" to no longer be without still being?

I do understand your point, (I am very tired--I only had about 2 hours of sleep last night due to insomnia (off-topic)).
The only thing I can say right now is that I believe if a baby were to die, the child would be with God. If a person of limited intelligence were to die, the same would be true. It is my own belief that I said, it does not reflect my Baptist beliefs.
Maybe choice is an illusion, as you believe-- I don't claim to know anything or everything. All I have is my opinion.

I certainly don't mind you posting in this thread at all. I was just being mean, I think. I am sorry about that.
:sorry1:

 

[lunamoth]

I experience the burden of extreme horror when facing Ivan's question.

I'm left spent and empty with it, but I still am, as Nate has said, captivated by the promise of Christ. For me God can only be love, and faith the 'arational' hope that all shall be well. Somehow, and not just for me. For the child tortured and killed by the sociopath. For the mentally ill woman who hangs around my church asking for money, who I can see is in the downward spiral and she's going to end up under a bridge. and not in the next life. For them I have the obligation to go on knowing that my choices matter.

Theology, not logic, not science, puts the blame for the tortured and murdered girl back in the only place where we can take responsibility for the horror.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I experience the burden of extreme horror when facing Ivan's question.

I'm left spent and empty with it, but I still am, as Nate has said, captivated by the promise of Christ. For me God can only be love, and faith the 'arational' hope that all shall be well. Somehow, and not just for me. For the child tortured and killed by the sociopath. For the mentally ill woman who hangs around my church asking for money, who I can see is in the downward spiral and she's going to end up under a bridge. and not in the next life. For them I have the obligation to go on knowing that my choices matter.

Theology, not logic, not science, puts the blame for the tortured and murdered girl back in the only place where we can take responsibility for the horror.

For me as well, but I can only know God's love by his death and resurrection.

So we can say, "Look, the one who did this to us we have killed. The one who created and refuses to end suffering has suffered our worst himself." It's the kind of love that crushes us, driving us to our knees broken, confused, and absolutely alone, yearning for our own end.

 

[ChristineES]

I like you !:yes:

Would you answer this please:- how does your belief in choice fit with the idea that God "will have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).?

Thank you, I like you, too.

You certainly make a valid point with that verse. I wish I had all the answers. There is always a chance that I may be wrong in any of my beliefs. I hope that if I am wrong, that God will put it right in my head. But for now I can only gather evidence and listen to other's points of view.
For all we know, you are right and all men are saved. There are many times that I wished that were true.

 

[doppelganger]

Birth of the identity is a prerequisite to the perception of choice. An individual becomes that individual (from her perspective) when she takes upon herself an identity. In other words, identity is created by the power of the construct "I am" becoming the means by which I relate to and organize reality as I experience it. Only then can "I" appear to myself to be making "choices," because, before that, there's no "me" to make a choice. So there must be an initial separation that precedes any "choice."

The upshot of this, of course, is that "God" and only "God" can be responsible for "original sin." Perhaps this is why "God" has to sacrifice himself to at-one for it. :cover:

 

[sandandfoam]

The upshot of this, of course, is that "God" and only "God" can be responsible for "original sin." Perhaps this is why "God" has to sacrifice himself to at-one for it. :cover:

What does original sin mean to you?

 

[doppelganger]

What does original sin mean to you?

The initial separation from 'God'. The formation of "I am" as a thing that experiences and relates to "other" things. Self identity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The initial separation from 'God'. The formation of "I am" as a thing that experiences and relates to "other" things. Self identity.

I've read this before... can't place it...

 

[ChristineES]

This is hard for me to admit, after all I have been a Christian for 25 years, but I don't really understand the concept of "original sin". I figure it must be when Adam and Eve committed their sin of disobedience and was passed on to us. The thing is, the Bible also states that people will not suffer for his or her parents sin. If that is true, then how can there be original sin?

 

[doppelganger]

Poor guy.

That which does not destroy us only makes us stronger.

 

[doppelganger]

This is hard for me to admit, after all I have been a Christian for 25 years, but I don't really understand the concept of "original sin".

I could never make sense of "original sin" or really relate on a personal level to what "grace" meant, until I learned over several years how to read mythology as a guide to my interior life rather than a guide to history or the cosmos. Then faith was no longer a matter of "believing" in something I'd been told, but a matter of seeing the action of revelation in my own being and how I experience the world.

 

[sandandfoam]

The initial separation from 'God'. The formation of "I am" as a thing that experiences and relates to "other" things. Self identity.

Thanks, I would be inclined to see it as an example of what happens when we do wrong.
Now the bit that's going to end up hurting my brain.- I think the seperation from God is largely illusory. I think the sense of an I that we have is itself an attribute of God. There is no seperation. I think redemption might be to be lead inside ourselves to know this.
Are we on the same page or no?

 

[lunamoth]

Thanks, I would be inclined to see it as an example of what happens when we do wrong.
Now the bit that's going to end up hurting my brain.- I think the seperation from God is largely illusory. I think the sense of an I that we have is itself an attribute of God. There is no seperation. I think redemption might be to be lead inside ourselves to know this.
Are we on the same page or no?

I'd say that's a good answer.

 

[doppelganger]

Now the bit that's going to end up hurting my brain.- I think the seperation from God is largely illusory. I think the sense of an I that we have is itself an attribute of God. There is no seperation. I think redemption might be to be lead inside ourselves to know this.
Are we on the same page or no?

I think we are both in the same ballpark. :yes: You make a fine Buddhist, StephenW.

I don't know about "I am" being an attribute of "God" though any more than any other attribute we project onto "God." This is what the theologian Paul Tillich was getting at, I think, when he wrote about "God" as the "ground of being." Giving "God" attributes - even the attribute of "existence" - is to deny "God."

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

"Thus the question of the existence of God can neither be asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by it's very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer - whether negative or affirmative - implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being itself, not a being." - Systematic Theology, Volume I.

Though it's important to keep in mind I think that "God is being itself, not a being" is also just a metaphor.