|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:26 pm
rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe Shipmaster Voro being ourselves is sinning. then you have the extra aspects like trying to do as little sin or as much sin that then is in question. but just by living you are sinning, you have sinned, and you will sin. There is no getting around that. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - If I recall, sin is the action not the state of being. So if being who we are, as YHVH created us, then how can a state of being be a sin? Wouldn't that be some sort of self-loathing complex? Wouldn't that mean by some crazy chance that YHVH must hate us if he considers a state of being or a simple attraction to be a sin? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' In Christianity there's two meanings or rather two views concerning sin. View one is sin = crime. This is typically seen in Western based Churches (catholic, protestant, mormon). The other view is sin = taboo. This is typical in eastern and more mystic oriented branches of Christianity. This is largely due in how the two division interpret Hell. Western Churches typically see Hell as an eternal separation from YHVH after death, sometimes involving some external punishment (burning in the lake of fire). Eastern Churches interpret Hell as being with YHVH when one doesn't want to be implying that the punishment is self-inflicted since one didn't make an effort to improve their relationship with YHVH before coming to him. When someone says "we live in sin", this normally means more of we are in a state away from YHVH. It's normally western Churches, usually those accepting a theological stance of Total Depravity, that take this to mean "we are born criminals". `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - Which totally goes against John Locke's Tabula Rasa. That we're born with a clean slate. Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' Yeah, I don't accept the view that we are criminals so I agree but just because we have a clean slate doesn't mean we aren't separated from God which is the whole point of why Christ is necessary to the religion in the first place. It should be noted that John Locke is English and obviously influenced by the sin = crime teachings. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - However Tabula Rasa does go with the development theories that we don't know/comprehend what good and evil are, or hell even sin when we are but wee babes. Everything is like a giant plaything to us that makes us go oooooo. Ahhhh. Hell I don't think we could even comprehend what YHVH could be, hell it could've been a ceiling fan to us .__. Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:40 pm
Shipmaster Voro rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe Shipmaster Voro being ourselves is sinning. then you have the extra aspects like trying to do as little sin or as much sin that then is in question. but just by living you are sinning, you have sinned, and you will sin. There is no getting around that. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - If I recall, sin is the action not the state of being. So if being who we are, as YHVH created us, then how can a state of being be a sin? Wouldn't that be some sort of self-loathing complex? Wouldn't that mean by some crazy chance that YHVH must hate us if he considers a state of being or a simple attraction to be a sin? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' In Christianity there's two meanings or rather two views concerning sin. View one is sin = crime. This is typically seen in Western based Churches (catholic, protestant, mormon). The other view is sin = taboo. This is typical in eastern and more mystic oriented branches of Christianity. This is largely due in how the two division interpret Hell. Western Churches typically see Hell as an eternal separation from YHVH after death, sometimes involving some external punishment (burning in the lake of fire). Eastern Churches interpret Hell as being with YHVH when one doesn't want to be implying that the punishment is self-inflicted since one didn't make an effort to improve their relationship with YHVH before coming to him. When someone says "we live in sin", this normally means more of we are in a state away from YHVH. It's normally western Churches, usually those accepting a theological stance of Total Depravity, that take this to mean "we are born criminals". `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - Which totally goes against John Locke's Tabula Rasa. That we're born with a clean slate. Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' Yeah, I don't accept the view that we are criminals so I agree but just because we have a clean slate doesn't mean we aren't separated from God which is the whole point of why Christ is necessary to the religion in the first place. It should be noted that John Locke is English and obviously influenced by the sin = crime teachings. John Locke may have said that, but our hearts are not totally innocent at birth, we carry that seed of sin in our hearts from the time we are born and it grows as we age and live our lives in this world. it is what we do to minimize or maximize that sin that matters, we sin in our hearts and minds every day. the only thing we can do is hope to do it less and ask for forgiveness. we being born into sin and having these naturally sinning thoughts is not only our faults it is the faults of the ancestors we descend from...they had the chance to be clean and happy with god, and they chose not to(referencing Adam and Eve) and ate the forbidden fruit. After god said it was against the rules he set down so he punished them and all of humanity, and said if you want to be clean of your sins you must ask for forgiveness and declare Jesus Christ as our lord and savior, because there is no way to god and heaven except through Jesus Christ. This being because Jesus Christ took on our sin and paid the price. and now we ask for the salvation and when we do we receive it. Yeah I agree but again when I hear sin I DON'T think "crime" though. I hear "missing the mark". Not desirable but nothing to feel guilty about or stress over. Why feel guilt for a state that everyone is in? Yeah I'm sinful but so is everyone else. That's not going to change until one is with the Father and that doesn't occur until after death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:07 pm
Ravynne Sidhe rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe Shipmaster Voro being ourselves is sinning. then you have the extra aspects like trying to do as little sin or as much sin that then is in question. but just by living you are sinning, you have sinned, and you will sin. There is no getting around that. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - If I recall, sin is the action not the state of being. So if being who we are, as YHVH created us, then how can a state of being be a sin? Wouldn't that be some sort of self-loathing complex? Wouldn't that mean by some crazy chance that YHVH must hate us if he considers a state of being or a simple attraction to be a sin? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' In Christianity there's two meanings or rather two views concerning sin. View one is sin = crime. This is typically seen in Western based Churches (catholic, protestant, mormon). The other view is sin = taboo. This is typical in eastern and more mystic oriented branches of Christianity. This is largely due in how the two division interpret Hell. Western Churches typically see Hell as an eternal separation from YHVH after death, sometimes involving some external punishment (burning in the lake of fire). Eastern Churches interpret Hell as being with YHVH when one doesn't want to be implying that the punishment is self-inflicted since one didn't make an effort to improve their relationship with YHVH before coming to him. When someone says "we live in sin", this normally means more of we are in a state away from YHVH. It's normally western Churches, usually those accepting a theological stance of Total Depravity, that take this to mean "we are born criminals". `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - Which totally goes against John Locke's Tabula Rasa. That we're born with a clean slate. Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' Yeah, I don't accept the view that we are criminals so I agree but just because we have a clean slate doesn't mean we aren't separated from God which is the whole point of why Christ is necessary to the religion in the first place. It should be noted that John Locke is English and obviously influenced by the sin = crime teachings. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - However Tabula Rasa does go with the development theories that we don't know/comprehend what good and evil are, or hell even sin when we are but wee babes. Everything is like a giant plaything to us that makes us go oooooo. Ahhhh. Hell I don't think we could even comprehend what YHVH could be, hell it could've been a ceiling fan to us .__. Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' Yeah but again the state of sin has to do with being separated from God, not anyone's actions. Your still assuming the sin = crime view of sin. The problem with the sin = crime view is that it creates cases where those ignorant are immune to the state of sin and if it doesn't it denies God being merciful. I agree with Tabula Rosa in that babies are immune from sinning but I can't say they don't exist in sin since that would deny the fact that babies are humans just like everybody else and reduce them to something that one idealizes to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:11 am
rmcdra Shipmaster Voro rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe rmcdra In Christianity there's two meanings or rather two views concerning sin. View one is sin = crime. This is typically seen in Western based Churches (catholic, protestant, mormon). The other view is sin = taboo. This is typical in eastern and more mystic oriented branches of Christianity. This is largely due in how the two division interpret Hell. Western Churches typically see Hell as an eternal separation from YHVH after death, sometimes involving some external punishment (burning in the lake of fire). Eastern Churches interpret Hell as being with YHVH when one doesn't want to be implying that the punishment is self-inflicted since one didn't make an effort to improve their relationship with YHVH before coming to him. When someone says "we live in sin", this normally means more of we are in a state away from YHVH. It's normally western Churches, usually those accepting a theological stance of Total Depravity, that take this to mean "we are born criminals". `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - Which totally goes against John Locke's Tabula Rasa. That we're born with a clean slate. Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' Yeah, I don't accept the view that we are criminals so I agree but just because we have a clean slate doesn't mean we aren't separated from God which is the whole point of why Christ is necessary to the religion in the first place. It should be noted that John Locke is English and obviously influenced by the sin = crime teachings. John Locke may have said that, but our hearts are not totally innocent at birth, we carry that seed of sin in our hearts from the time we are born and it grows as we age and live our lives in this world. it is what we do to minimize or maximize that sin that matters, we sin in our hearts and minds every day. the only thing we can do is hope to do it less and ask for forgiveness. we being born into sin and having these naturally sinning thoughts is not only our faults it is the faults of the ancestors we descend from...they had the chance to be clean and happy with god, and they chose not to(referencing Adam and Eve) and ate the forbidden fruit. After god said it was against the rules he set down so he punished them and all of humanity, and said if you want to be clean of your sins you must ask for forgiveness and declare Jesus Christ as our lord and savior, because there is no way to god and heaven except through Jesus Christ. This being because Jesus Christ took on our sin and paid the price. and now we ask for the salvation and when we do we receive it. Yeah I agree but again when I hear sin I DON'T think "crime" though. I hear "missing the mark". Not desirable but nothing to feel guilty about or stress over. Why feel guilt for a state that everyone is in? Yeah I'm sinful but so is everyone else. That's not going to change until one is with the Father and that doesn't occur until after death. and to us it would be missing the mark because of crime committed. crime not necessarily having to be something grand or finite. crime=wrong doing. See and that is where we humans cloud that part of the judgment...God does not say oh well you sinned more than her you are going to hell and she isnt. he sees it as you both sinned, repent and you will be everlasting or dont and go to hell. it is something we must deal with, and accepting that we are born into sin and that we sin daily, and then repenting for it, that is how it is. you are not going to commit a crime and even though YOU felt it might not be a crime, the justice system says you are guilty and in order to be free from the punishment all you have to do is say you're sorry and ask for forgiveness. If you don't repent and don't think you are wrong and fight the judge then you won't win anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:26 am
Shipmaster Voro and to us it would be missing the mark because of crime committed. crime not necessarily having to be something grand or finite. crime=wrong doing. See and that is where we humans cloud that part of the judgment...God does not say oh well you sinned more than her you are going to hell and she isnt. he sees it as you both sinned, repent and you will be everlasting or dont and go to hell. it is something we must deal with, and accepting that we are born into sin and that we sin daily, and then repenting for it, that is how it is. you are not going to commit a crime and even though YOU felt it might not be a crime, the justice system says you are guilty and in order to be free from the punishment all you have to do is say you're sorry and ask for forgiveness. If you don't repent and don't think you are wrong and fight the judge then you won't win anyway. If that is your take on the nature of sin so be it. I don't agree with the sin==crime view and have already state my views earlier why I don't. We are starting to getting off topic. If you would like to continue this discussion in another thread I would be more than willing to have it with you and I do hope others will participate in your thread as well. To get back on topic, what does this view have to do with why homosexual sex and/or homosexuality is a sin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:28 am
rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe rmcdra In Christianity there's two meanings or rather two views concerning sin. View one is sin = crime. This is typically seen in Western based Churches (catholic, protestant, mormon). The other view is sin = taboo. This is typical in eastern and more mystic oriented branches of Christianity. This is largely due in how the two division interpret Hell. Western Churches typically see Hell as an eternal separation from YHVH after death, sometimes involving some external punishment (burning in the lake of fire). Eastern Churches interpret Hell as being with YHVH when one doesn't want to be implying that the punishment is self-inflicted since one didn't make an effort to improve their relationship with YHVH before coming to him. When someone says "we live in sin", this normally means more of we are in a state away from YHVH. It's normally western Churches, usually those accepting a theological stance of Total Depravity, that take this to mean "we are born criminals". `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - Which totally goes against John Locke's Tabula Rasa. That we're born with a clean slate. Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' Yeah, I don't accept the view that we are criminals so I agree but just because we have a clean slate doesn't mean we aren't separated from God which is the whole point of why Christ is necessary to the religion in the first place. It should be noted that John Locke is English and obviously influenced by the sin = crime teachings. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - However Tabula Rasa does go with the development theories that we don't know/comprehend what good and evil are, or hell even sin when we are but wee babes. Everything is like a giant plaything to us that makes us go oooooo. Ahhhh. Hell I don't think we could even comprehend what YHVH could be, hell it could've been a ceiling fan to us .__. Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' Yeah but again the state of sin has to do with being separated from God, not anyone's actions. Your still assuming the sin = crime view of sin. The problem with the sin = crime view is that it creates cases where those ignorant are immune to the state of sin and if it doesn't it denies God being merciful. I agree with Tabula Rosa in that babies are immune from sinning but I can't say they don't exist in sin since that would deny the fact that babies are humans just like everybody else and reduce them to something that one idealizes to be. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - No, with children there really isn't any "missing the mark", it's more like exploring the world outside of them and gaining an understanding of how things work as evidenced by Jean Piaget and Erik Erikson. neutral How can a baby "miss the mark" if they don't know or understand what the mark is? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 am
Ravynne Sidhe No, with children there really isn't any "missing the mark", it's more like exploring the world outside of them and gaining an understanding of how things work as evidenced by Jean Piaget and Erik Erikson. neutral How can a baby "miss the mark" if they don't know or understand what the mark is? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' "Missing the mark" in term of being Christ-like. All fall short of this, even saints. This is nothing to feel guilty about since it's not a crime. Edit: Let's take this discussion to a new thread please. This is off topic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:00 am
rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe No, with children there really isn't any "missing the mark", it's more like exploring the world outside of them and gaining an understanding of how things work as evidenced by Jean Piaget and Erik Erikson. neutral How can a baby "miss the mark" if they don't know or understand what the mark is? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' "Missing the mark" in term of being Christ-like. All fall short of this, even saints. This is nothing to feel guilty about since it's not a crime. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - But how can they know what it means to be Christ-like when they can't comprehend what Christ did? Or even who Christ was? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:48 am
The fact that homosexuality is part of our lives and considered a sin, means that we who practice it, must ask for forgiveness and repent. Do I have a thing against Homosexuals? No. I live with three of them and have friends. Do I think it is wrong? Yes. Do I think, trying to fight them now is the way? No. I believe that if god's children cannot save one another then we have done our part as well as possible and that it is now between god and them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:58 pm
Ravynne Sidhe rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe No, with children there really isn't any "missing the mark", it's more like exploring the world outside of them and gaining an understanding of how things work as evidenced by Jean Piaget and Erik Erikson. neutral How can a baby "miss the mark" if they don't know or understand what the mark is? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' "Missing the mark" in term of being Christ-like. All fall short of this, even saints. This is nothing to feel guilty about since it's not a crime. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - But how can they know what it means to be Christ-like when they can't comprehend what Christ did? Or even who Christ was? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' You are just illustrating more why the "crime" definition of sin doesn't work. If "sin = crime" then babies would either be immune to sin, which contradicts the fact that all humans are physically separated from God, or that babies are born condemned to hell which contradicts God's mercy. To answer your question, the honest answer would be we don't know since we don't know who has God's grace. Personally, I don't think they can be denied God's grace since God is merciful and does not hold ignorance against a person. Again we are getting off topic here I would love to continue to have this conversation with you but please let's continue it in another thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:18 pm
Shipmaster Voro The fact that homosexuality is part of our lives and considered a sin, means that we who practice it, must ask for forgiveness and repent. Do I have a thing against Homosexuals? No. I live with three of them and have friends. Do I think it is wrong? Yes. Do I think, trying to fight them now is the way? No. I believe that if god's children cannot save one another then we have done our part as well as possible and that it is now between god and them.... But the practice of homosexuality as a sin is debatable at best. It relies on adherence to Abrahamic code which implies salvation by the Law which contradicts the purpose of Christ's sacrifice. It relies on the assumption that "arsenokoitai" actually means "homosexual acts" yet outside of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy we don't see this word ANYWHERE. There was already an existing word to describe homosexual sex which given Paul's vocabulary level based on his letters he would have known and given how specific he was in his writings he would have used. Finally it relies on taking Romans 1:26-28 out of context. It's unclear what "shameful lusts" or "unnatural" relations being described. Seeing as homosexual sex was considered quite natural nor shameful to Romans why would Paul be so brief and vague in this passage to them? Also why is homosexual sex derived from three verses of the entire chapter regarding learning the truth of God and rejecting it (i.e. becoming godless)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:32 pm
Shipmaster Voro The fact that homosexuality is part of our lives and considered a sin, means that we who practice it, must ask for forgiveness and repent. Do I have a thing against Homosexuals? No. I live with three of them and have friends. Do I think it is wrong? Yes. Do I think, trying to fight them now is the way? No. I believe that if god's children cannot save one another then we have done our part as well as possible and that it is now between god and them.... Save them? There are plenty of homosexual Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:37 pm
Shipmaster Voro The fact that homosexuality is part of our lives and considered a sin, means that we who practice it, must ask for forgiveness and repent. Do I have a thing against Homosexuals? No. I live with three of them and have friends. Do I think it is wrong? Yes. Do I think, trying to fight them now is the way? No. I believe that if god's children cannot save one another then we have done our part as well as possible and that it is now between god and them.... `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - Homosexuality isn't a sin though. That's like saying being German is apart of my life and considered a sin. Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:39 pm
rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe No, with children there really isn't any "missing the mark", it's more like exploring the world outside of them and gaining an understanding of how things work as evidenced by Jean Piaget and Erik Erikson. neutral How can a baby "miss the mark" if they don't know or understand what the mark is? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' "Missing the mark" in term of being Christ-like. All fall short of this, even saints. This is nothing to feel guilty about since it's not a crime. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - But how can they know what it means to be Christ-like when they can't comprehend what Christ did? Or even who Christ was? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' You are just illustrating more why the "crime" definition of sin doesn't work. If "sin = crime" then babies would either be immune to sin, which contradicts the fact that all humans are physically separated from God, or that babies are born condemned to hell which contradicts God's mercy. To answer your question, the honest answer would be we don't know since we don't know who has God's grace. Personally, I don't think they can be denied God's grace since God is merciful and does not hold ignorance against a person. Again we are getting off topic here I would love to continue to have this conversation with you but please let's continue it in another thread. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - Not really because Adam and Eve were fully fledged adults and could comprehend right from wrong whereas a baby can't. neutral
But sure we can do a new thread, you make it though. Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:50 pm
Ravynne Sidhe rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe rmcdra Ravynne Sidhe No, with children there really isn't any "missing the mark", it's more like exploring the world outside of them and gaining an understanding of how things work as evidenced by Jean Piaget and Erik Erikson. neutral How can a baby "miss the mark" if they don't know or understand what the mark is? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' "Missing the mark" in term of being Christ-like. All fall short of this, even saints. This is nothing to feel guilty about since it's not a crime. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - But how can they know what it means to be Christ-like when they can't comprehend what Christ did? Or even who Christ was? Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' You are just illustrating more why the "crime" definition of sin doesn't work. If "sin = crime" then babies would either be immune to sin, which contradicts the fact that all humans are physically separated from God, or that babies are born condemned to hell which contradicts God's mercy. To answer your question, the honest answer would be we don't know since we don't know who has God's grace. Personally, I don't think they can be denied God's grace since God is merciful and does not hold ignorance against a person. Again we are getting off topic here I would love to continue to have this conversation with you but please let's continue it in another thread. `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - Not really because Adam and Eve were fully fledged adults and could comprehend right from wrong whereas a baby can't. neutral
But sure we can do a new thread, you make it though. Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' Yes really because the state of sin is something that every person on earth has because it describes our distance from God. We seem to be on the same page but I think I'm using terminology than you are familiar with. The state of sin describes a state of separation. It's Adam and Eve's fault we are in this state. Is this a state to feel guilty about? No it's not our fault. Is it a state we have to live in? Yes because we are not with God yet. I look forward to your new thread on this topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
