Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (13470)	5/11/2001 2:41:08 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Pelagius would not agree with you. To believe in original sin is like believing in physical sickness. Do you believe that at birth you require an attendant physician to administer medicine to you all the days of your life? The belief that man is morally ill and needs constant administration is a hold over from latter Roman times when they changed from Rome to Holy Roman. newadvent.org

To: Neocon who wrote (13470)	5/11/2001 3:05:49 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Thanks for the reminder Neo. I meant to respond to this earlier but I got distracted, loading the kiln. Your first point regarding original sin would only apply to those who for some reason, usually lack of opportunity, have yet to commit any sin. There is disagreement about whether God extends grace until an age of accountability, or for those who are unable to form intent, but those are only possible exceptions, and not the rule. Once a sin has been freely committed, then we are held to be responsible for those specific deeds, not for some propensity to do so. If I inherited a propensity to drink excessively, and then got into a car and killed a family because I was drunk, then I would be accountable for my action, not my inclinations. The bible does teach that our inclination to sin is inherited from Adam, because of his free will decision to disobey God. We are held responsible for the things we do. Point two, I think it was Jonathan Edwards that pointed out that although we are finite creatures, and we sin in finite ways, never the less, the sins we commit are against an infinitely holy, being, Therefore proportionality from our perspective might seem to be an issue, but from God's perspective, perhaps not. Besides if God is infinitely Just as you have eluded, how is it that you assume it even possible for Him to pronounce an unjust sentence??? Point three; This God is love stuff is true but it's only part of the equation. God's essential character is holiness. It was the Beatles who sang love, love, love, but Isaiah noted that the angels cry, "Holy, Holy, Holy". Trying to pit some of God's attributes against others, is a good strategy for kids to manipulate their parents, but it won't work with God. Unless you are willing to adapt a universalist position, that flies in the face of the biblical text. You are stuck with the fact that not every one will be saved. Your "reason to expect" God's grace is unfounded, and denies the definition that started the discussion , Namely, Grace being defined as, unmerited favor towards sinners. Therefore, First; You are only held accountable for what you do, not who you are, so the perfection of the tribunal stands. Second; The punishment fits the crime, taken from the proper perspective, and the chance of an unjust verdict from an infinitely just Judge would lead to a logical contradiction. Finally; God's love does not mitigate His justice, or oblige His grace. A clear choice has been presented to you. God has sent His Son to be a substitutionary sacrifice for your sins. The question that you must answer is the same as Pilate, "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called the Christ?" I look forward to hearing from you. Have a good day. Greg