Political Crossfire Forums

Drey · Joined: 27 Jun 2006 Posts: 49

Christians are bound and determined to make value judgments and they usually do so about other people. Two examples would be homosexuals and health care providers for women.

I am curious is this a result of sin? I mean it was learning good and evil that was the result of the 'original' sin stated in Genesis.

This is from the second chapter of the Way of Life by Lao Tzu.

Since the world points up beauty as such,
There is ugliness too.
If goodness is taken as goodness,
Wickedness enters as well.

For the mystics of old the 'wrong' way of looking at life was to break it up into parts and designate them with labels because it destroyed the cosmic unity of life. That can be seen in the verse.

Now is the knowledge of good and evil just this kind of thing? It is evident in Genesis that God did not want us to have this knowledge to begin with. Is it therefore sinful to think in categories that use 'good and evil' as ways of understanding things.

Would that be a right conclusion?

Further does a Christian sin when he continually divides things up into 'good and evil'? Is it simply a continuation and a fruit of the original sin?

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2111 Location: Washington

Drey wrote: This is from the second chapter of the Way of Life by Lao Tzu.

Since the world points up beauty as such,
There is ugliness too.
If goodness is taken as goodness,
Wickedness enters as well.

For the mystics of old the 'wrong' way of looking at life was to break it up into parts and designate them with labels because it destroyed the cosmic unity of life. That can be seen in the verse.
I read that verse as doing the opposite. It IS breaking up things into good and wicked, beautiful and ugly. But, I've never read the whole book, so I wouldn't know.

Quote: Now is the knowledge of good and evil just this kind of thing? It is evident in Genesis that God did not want us to have this knowledge to begin with. Is it therefore sinful to think in categories that use 'good and evil' as ways of understanding things.
No. I also don't think that God didn't want them to have this knowledge. Why put the tree there in the first place if he didn't?

Drey · Joined: 27 Jun 2006 Posts: 49

CrossEyedMary wrote: Drey wrote: This is from the second chapter of the Way of Life by Lao Tzu.

Since the world points up beauty as such,
There is ugliness too.
If goodness is taken as goodness,
Wickedness enters as well.

For the mystics of old the 'wrong' way of looking at life was to break it up into parts and designate them with labels because it destroyed the cosmic unity of life. That can be seen in the verse.
I read that verse as doing the opposite. It IS breaking up things into good and wicked, beautiful and ugly. But, I've never read the whole book, so I wouldn't know.

Quote: Now is the knowledge of good and evil just this kind of thing? It is evident in Genesis that God did not want us to have this knowledge to begin with. Is it therefore sinful to think in categories that use 'good and evil' as ways of understanding things.
No. I also don't think that God didn't want them to have this knowledge. Why put the tree there in the first place if he didn't?

Well one reason to think that the knowledge was forbidden is that he told them not to eat and when they did they all at once knew that there was 'Good' and 'Evil'. Funny thing is they saw it as enlightenment and God understood it as the factor that ruined his creation.

Who was right?

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2111 Location: Washington

Drey wrote: Well one reason to think that the knowledge was forbidden is that he told them not to eat and when they did they all at once knew that there was 'Good' and 'Evil'. Funny thing is they saw it as enlightenment and God understood it as the factor that ruined his creation.

Who was right?
I think the only reason god forbade it is because God could not tell them to do something that not only would result in pain, suffering, and temptation, but also physical and spiritual death. If it was something he really wanted to prevent, he wouldn't have made the friut available to them in the first place. I also don't recall it "ruining" his creation in the least. His creation was made so humans could experience things. How could we experience things in a pradisical locale?

Drey · Joined: 27 Jun 2006 Posts: 49

CrossEyedMary wrote: Drey wrote: Well one reason to think that the knowledge was forbidden is that he told them not to eat and when they did they all at once knew that there was 'Good' and 'Evil'. Funny thing is they saw it as enlightenment and God understood it as the factor that ruined his creation.

Who was right?
I think the only reason god forbade it is because God could not tell them to do something that not only would result in pain, suffering, and temptation, but also physical and spiritual death. If it was something he really wanted to prevent, he wouldn't have made the friut available to them in the first place. I also don't recall it "ruining" his creation in the least. His creation was made so humans could experience things. How could we experience things in a pradisical locale?

Sin is generally considered a catrosphe in christian thought. It is called 'the fall'. Most Christian thinkers regard sin as ruining what god had in mind.

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2111 Location: Washington

Drey wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Drey wrote: Well one reason to think that the knowledge was forbidden is that he told them not to eat and when they did they all at once knew that there was 'Good' and 'Evil'. Funny thing is they saw it as enlightenment and God understood it as the factor that ruined his creation.

Who was right?
I think the only reason god forbade it is because God could not tell them to do something that not only would result in pain, suffering, and temptation, but also physical and spiritual death. If it was something he really wanted to prevent, he wouldn't have made the friut available to them in the first place. I also don't recall it "ruining" his creation in the least. His creation was made so humans could experience things. How could we experience things in a pradisical locale?

Sin is generally considered a catrosphe in christian thought.
SIN is a catastrophe. The fall and Sin are not synonymous. The fall brought sin into the world. This was not in itself catostrphic. What is catostrophic is when people CHOOSE sin.

Drey · Joined: 27 Jun 2006 Posts: 49

CrossEyedMary wrote: Drey wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Drey wrote: Well one reason to think that the knowledge was forbidden is that he told them not to eat and when they did they all at once knew that there was 'Good' and 'Evil'. Funny thing is they saw it as enlightenment and God understood it as the factor that ruined his creation.

Who was right?
I think the only reason god forbade it is because God could not tell them to do something that not only would result in pain, suffering, and temptation, but also physical and spiritual death. If it was something he really wanted to prevent, he wouldn't have made the friut available to them in the first place. I also don't recall it "ruining" his creation in the least. His creation was made so humans could experience things. How could we experience things in a pradisical locale?

Sin is generally considered a catrosphe in christian thought.
SIN is a catastrophe. The fall and Sin are not synonymous. The fall brought sin into the world. This was not in itself catostrphic. What is catostrophic is when people CHOOSE sin.

I hate the concept of sin. From sin there follows of necessity in Christian thought atonement and guilt and judgment. These are things that pollute mens way of thinking about themselves, God and others.

The reasonable thing for a person to do if he makes a mistake in judgment is to avoid doing it in the future and if another person has been injred to make amends as best as he can. I refuse to think of myself as someone who 'cannot' for whatever reason choose to do the right thing.

The unreasonable thing for a person to do who has made a mistake in behavior or judgment is to start whimpering about how faulty he is and thus reinforce in his own mind the tendency and apptitude and thus the probablility of doing the same or similar thing all over again.

Also killing people for making mistakes in judgment may be the 'godly' thing to do, but I do not suggest that you try it even though God sentenced an entire race of people to death for their mistakes.

Sin is a concept that needs to be denied because of the above noted associations.

Forgiving and overlooking others behavior towards us that is less than pleasant is something that should be encouraged.

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2111 Location: Washington

Drey wrote: The reasonable thing for a person to do if he makes a mistake in judgment is to avoid doing it in the future and if another person has been injred to make amends as best as he can. I refuse to think of myself as someone who 'cannot' for whatever reason choose to do the right thing.
I think that's a good mentality to have, and I agree. If somebody screws up, they should learn from their mistake and try to rectify any bad consequences of their poor choice.

Quote: Sin is a concept that needs to be denied because of the above noted associations.
Those are associations YOU have made, and if you therefore feel the need to ignore sin or whatever, that's fine, but I don't make those associations.

John · Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:34 pm Post subject:

Quote: I hate the concept of sin.

As do I. Who would like it? But it's a Truth we all have to face.

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

Drey wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Drey wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Drey wrote: Well one reason to think that the knowledge was forbidden is that he told them not to eat and when they did they all at once knew that there was 'Good' and 'Evil'. Funny thing is they saw it as enlightenment and God understood it as the factor that ruined his creation.

Who was right?
I think the only reason god forbade it is because God could not tell them to do something that not only would result in pain, suffering, and temptation, but also physical and spiritual death. If it was something he really wanted to prevent, he wouldn't have made the friut available to them in the first place. I also don't recall it "ruining" his creation in the least. His creation was made so humans could experience things. How could we experience things in a pradisical locale?

Sin is generally considered a catrosphe in christian thought.
SIN is a catastrophe. The fall and Sin are not synonymous. The fall brought sin into the world. This was not in itself catostrphic. What is catostrophic is when people CHOOSE sin.

I hate the concept of sin. From sin there follows of necessity in Christian thought atonement and guilt and judgment. These are things that pollute mens way of thinking about themselves, God and others.

God gives man laws to live by, not to set arbitrary rules to punish man for breaking them, but to enable man to achieve as much happiness in this life, and in the life to come, as possible. When we do things in violation of God's laws, it is called sin. Therefore - God must teach us what sin is, and how to avoid it, so that we can have the happiness he desires for us.

So - as I see it - rather than polluting our thinking, this should work to open our eyes to the understanding that we need to depend on God to guide us, and, if we do, this should instill in us a sense of humility and gratitude, with the realization that we are all dependent on God for mercy, which should likewise cause us to be more inclined to feel merciful toward others.

Drey wrote: The reasonable thing for a person to do if he makes a mistake in judgment is to avoid doing it in the future and if another person has been injred to make amends as best as he can. I refuse to think of myself as someone who 'cannot' for whatever reason choose to do the right thing.

This I absolutely agree with. And if you haven't realized it, this is what repentance is all about. Repentance involves more than just asking God to forgive our sins. First we must recognize that we've done wrong, have remorse for that wrong, and have the desire to change. We then do our best to forsake that wrong, and if it was against another person, we make restitution if possible. This is the process of repentance.

Drey wrote: The unreasonable thing for a person to do who has made a mistake in behavior or judgment is to start whimpering about how faulty he is and thus reinforce in his own mind the tendency and apptitude and thus the probablility of doing the same or similar thing all over again.

Agreed. We need to take responsibility for our actions, and not excuse ourselves simply because we are imperfect beings. Even so - just as it is wrong for us to be judgmental and unforgiving of others, we can do ourselves harm if we are too unforgiving of ourselves. We need to repent, learn from our mistakes, and move on. We shouldn't forget what we've done, but we do need to look to the future, and not dwell on the past, which we cannot change.

Drey wrote: Also killing people for making mistakes in judgment may be the 'godly' thing to do, but I do not suggest that you try it even though God sentenced an entire race of people to death for their mistakes.

I don't see God as having sentenced mankind to death for his mistakes. I don't see mortality as a punishment, or sentence, at all, but that life in mortality was and is an important part of God's plan for man's progression, with death being a natural aspect of the mortal state, and a temporary one, as we will all live again, because of the resurrection.

Drey wrote: Sin is a concept that needs to be denied because of the above noted associations.

Perspective explained above.

Drey wrote: Forgiving and overlooking others behavior towards us that is less than pleasant is something that should be encouraged.

Absolutely agree. :wink:

eynon · Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:41 am Post subject:

Quote: I hate the concept of sin. From sin there follows of necessity in Christian thought atonement and guilt and judgment. These are things that pollute mens way of thinking about themselves, God and others.

so how then should we judge our actions? :-|

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2111 Location: Washington

wannabe wrote: Quote: I hate the concept of sin. From sin there follows of necessity in Christian thought atonement and guilt and judgment. These are things that pollute mens way of thinking about themselves, God and others.

so how then should we judge our actions? :-|
By the harm it does to others, perhaps?

eynon · Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:51 am Post subject:

CrossEyedMary wrote: wannabe wrote: Quote: I hate the concept of sin. From sin there follows of necessity in Christian thought atonement and guilt and judgment. These are things that pollute mens way of thinking about themselves, God and others.

so how then should we judge our actions? :-|
By the harm it does to others, perhaps?

can we not do harm to ourselves as well? :-|

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14795 Location: Florida

Drey wrote: I hate the concept of sin. From sin there follows of necessity in Christian thought atonement and guilt and judgment. These are things that pollute mens way of thinking about themselves, God and others.

The reasonable thing for a person to do if he makes a mistake in judgment is to avoid doing it in the future and if another person has been injred to make amends as best as he can. I refuse to think of myself as someone who 'cannot' for whatever reason choose to do the right thing.

And that reasonable thing is what most Christians do believe. Sin is an intentional mistake in judgement. We vow and try to not do it again, and we make amends for it. Part of those amends have to be to ourselves. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I will always do the right thing, as you seem to think.

Drey wrote: The unreasonable thing for a person to do who has made a mistake in behavior or judgment is to start whimpering about how faulty he is and thus reinforce in his own mind the tendency and apptitude and thus the probablility of doing the same or similar thing all over again.

1) Christians are at least honest that we have flaws.

Drey wrote: Also killing people for making mistakes in judgment may be the 'godly' thing to do, but I do not suggest that you try it even though God sentenced an entire race of people to death for their mistakes.

How is killing people for making mistakes a Godly thing to do? Yes, the OT has such things, but the NT, which Christians follow, does not advocate killing for mistakes in judgement. Heck, the Catholic Church all but declares capital punishment as a sin.

Drey wrote: Sin is a concept that needs to be denied because of the above noted associations.

Forgiving and overlooking others behavior towards us that is less than pleasant is something that should be encouraged.

And that is what Christians should do. One of our major prayers says that we should forgive each other.

(from the Lord's prayer)
forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.

If we don't forgive others, we can't be forgiven.

Overlooking is a different matter. Why should we overlook something that is harmful? IF you had a buddy who was a coke addict, and was spending all of his savings on coke, as well as ruining his job,etc. Would you just overlook it? I wouldn't. I'd forgive him for what he did against me, but not overlook. He needs help, and overlooking it doesnt' help him one bit, it enables him to continue screwing up.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5057 Location: Boston, MA

Drey wrote:

I hate the concept of sin. From sin there follows of necessity in Christian thought atonement and guilt and judgment. These are things that pollute mens way of thinking about themselves, God and others.

The reasonable thing for a person to do if he makes a mistake in judgment is to avoid doing it in the future and if another person has been injred to make amends as best as he can. I refuse to think of myself as someone who 'cannot' for whatever reason choose to do the right thing.

There is simply NO difference between your wrong and how you deal with it and Christian sin and how we deal with it in our lives.

Drey wrote: The unreasonable thing for a person to do who has made a mistake in behavior or judgment is to start whimpering about how faulty he is and thus reinforce in his own mind the tendency and apptitude and thus the probablility of doing the same or similar thing all over again.
You have a misinformed point of view of Christian atonement, in fact if a Christian were to wallow in his/her FAULT they would be committing the sin of self indulgence. The true acknowlegement of sin CAN NOT include a self indulgent self serving SORROW. God clearly could care less how many tears we shead in fact seems far more interested in RELEASING us from anxiety and guilt than imposing it. Since guilt (not the fact of wrong doing but the feeling) is a pointless selfish exercise.

Drey wrote: Also killing people for making mistakes in judgment may be the 'godly' thing to do, but I do not suggest that you try it even though God sentenced an entire race of people to death for their mistakes. Since God is God we need not worry about what His activities include, Christians CAN NOT kill anyone unless it is in self defense, nothing could be clearer. Your continued assertions that out of context Biblical excerpts JUSTIFY and even PROMOTE individual Christian violence are simply and obviously false. This is NOT to say that individual Christians and at times Christian leadership has not wrongly employed evil and violence as a means to an end, it simply means that they like all of us are human being and subject to human fraility.

Drey wrote: Sin is a concept that needs to be denied because of the above noted associations.

Forgiving and overlooking others behavior towards us that is less than pleasant is something that should be encouraged.

Sin is a concept that is being denied more and more all the time in western civilization.

Sex outside marriage is rampant and the single greatest contributor to both poverty and violence in the so called "advanced" societies.

Forgetting about religion for a moment let me pose two secular questions to you.

Is it best for people to be in a committed mature relationship prior to getting pregnant?

Is it best for young people to complete as much of their education as possible before beginning full time work and having children?

The obvious answer to both of these questions is a resounding YES.

Making no moral judgement but acknowledging the FACT that the primary element contributing to poverty in the so called first world today is single parent(almost always mothers) families with limited educations, why if it is beneficial to the individuals and society NOT to behave this way, is it "better" to encourage destructive behavior by not merely "overlooking" it, but actually promoting it?

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2111 Location: Washington

wannabe wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: wannabe wrote: Quote: I hate the concept of sin. From sin there follows of necessity in Christian thought atonement and guilt and judgment. These are things that pollute mens way of thinking about themselves, God and others.

so how then should we judge our actions? :-|
By the harm it does to others, perhaps?

can we not do harm to ourselves as well? :-|
We can. I was just offering ONE way of judging our actions aside from whether they are "sin" or not. Another alternative could be "Does it hurt me?" Another could be, "Does it hurt me and others?"

eynon · Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 1:10 am Post subject:

CrossEyedMary wrote: wannabe wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: wannabe wrote: Quote: I hate the concept of sin. From sin there follows of necessity in Christian thought atonement and guilt and judgment. These are things that pollute mens way of thinking about themselves, God and others.

so how then should we judge our actions? :-|
By the harm it does to others, perhaps?

can we not do harm to ourselves as well? :-|
We can. I was just offering ONE way of judging our actions aside from whether they are "sin" or not. Another alternative could be "Does it hurt me?" Another could be, "Does it hurt me and others?"

I'd say that the Christian concepts of sin match the criteria of hurting others and hurting ones-self......there a good standards by which to judge one's behavior in life.

read the book of James, is anything in there untrue?

Roman · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 180

There seems to be blance in nature which is what your quote is saying. You have rich without poor bcuz there is only so much money. A few having more than others creates poor. It's a balance of all that is. I'm not sure if this works with Good and Evil but it would make sense if you put it in these terms.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

Drey wrote: Christians are bound and determined to make value judgments and they usually do so about other people. Two examples would be homosexuals and health care providers for women.

I am curious is this a result of sin? I mean it was learning good and evil that was the result of the 'original' sin stated in Genesis.

This is from the second chapter of the Way of Life by Lao Tzu.

Since the world points up beauty as such,
There is ugliness too.
If goodness is taken as goodness,
Wickedness enters as well.

For the mystics of old the 'wrong' way of looking at life was to break it up into parts and designate them with labels because it destroyed the cosmic unity of life. That can be seen in the verse.

Now is the knowledge of good and evil just this kind of thing? It is evident in Genesis that God did not want us to have this knowledge to begin with. Is it therefore sinful to think in categories that use 'good and evil' as ways of understanding things.

Would that be a right conclusion?

Further does a Christian sin when he continually divides things up into 'good and evil'? Is it simply a continuation and a fruit of the original sin?

What would christians have against women's health care providers?

jcfreeman · Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 4

Ah the ethics, values, and moral judgements issue. My favorite.

First, there is obviously absolute truth and therefore moral judgements. Because we can make a moral judgement for who a murderer is, or if something is generally fair or not, moral judgements exist.

However, belief does not constitute reality. Just because one culture believes in something does not necessarily mean it is reality. Hence another reason absolute truth exists.

For moral judgements to exist, good and evil must exist.

On the topic of sin..

Sin is real. Hell is real. Satan is real.

I skimmed many of the replies to this topic and saw one that mentioned that sin brings on guilt. That's not the reaction God wants. Atonement has already been done. Jesus Christ died on the cross and atoned where we never possibly could because we have all fallen short of the glory of God. Instead, God wants us to see the need to change our ways- not feel guilt. Guilt is satan attempting to cause us to stumble and walk away from walking the strait and narrow path that God has laid out for us.