The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[Living Stones]

Ezekiel 18:20 tells us "CEB

Only the one who sins will die. A child won’t bear a parent’s guilt, and a parent won’t bear a child’s guilt. Those who do right will be declared innocent, and the wicked will be declared guilty."

There are many other translations here: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Ezekiel%2018%3A20

To me, this undercuts the doctrine of original sin. Surely that doctrine says that a child WILL bear a parent's guilt? But Ezekiel says otherwise.

Not necessarily. "Original sin" can also be interpreted to be a tendency to sin we inherited from Adam & Eve. This is why Jesus can say "out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnessings, evil speakings..." (Mat. 15:19) on one hand & say of little children "of such is the reign of the heavens" (Mat. 19:14) on the other w/o being contradictory. Although a tendancy towards evil is present from birth, we do not become personally responsible for sin until we reach an age at which we are fully cognizant of sin.

[Living Stones]

I don't see how you can consider yourself a conservative and a protestant, given that Protestantism and Reformation is literally a liberal idea. An old liberal idea for sure, but liberal regardless.

They're inconsistent, and the most extreme examples violate sola scriptura, but protestants who claim to be conservative and very liberal protestants are totally different breeds, so it makes sense to make a distinction. I like to use the terms "fundamentalist" and "liberal" because not all anti-liberals are conservatives and it applies.

And not all conservatives are fundamentalist.

[Val Halla]

Which is ultimately what makes me reluctant to follow any specific religion. If someone believes something that's God's word because someone said it was... It just seems kinda sketchy to me. That someone can put down their own words claiming they are that of God.

And that sort of thinking is motivation for me to become a deist...

It's not criticising other's beliefs, understand. It just seems, to me at least, that anyone could make their own message as God's just to meet their agendas, as opposed to actual sin. I honestly think that God would certainly not look fondly on people using His name to meet their agendas.

[Menassa]

Ezekiel 18:20 tells us "CEB

Only the one who sins will die. A child won’t bear a parent’s guilt, and a parent won’t bear a child’s guilt. Those who do right will be declared innocent, and the wicked will be declared guilty."

There are many other translations here: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Ezekiel%2018%3A20

To me, this undercuts the doctrine of original sin. Surely that doctrine says that a child WILL bear a parent's guilt? But Ezekiel says otherwise.

Not necessarily. "Original sin" can also be interpreted to be a tendency to sin we inherited from Adam & Eve. This is why Jesus can say "out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnessings, evil speakings..." (Mat. 15:19) on one hand & say of little children "of such is the reign of the heavens" (Mat. 19:14) on the other w/o being contradictory. Although a tendancy towards evil is present from birth, we do not become personally responsible for sin until we reach an age at which we are fully cognizant of sin.

How does that play into the salvation nature of Jesus's sacrifice?

[Conscentia]

Ezekiel 18:20 tells us "CEB
Only the one who sins will die. A child won’t bear a parent’s guilt, and a parent won’t bear a child’s guilt. Those who do right will be declared innocent, and the wicked will be declared guilty."
There are many other translations here: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Ezekiel%2018%3A20
To me, this undercuts the doctrine of original sin. Surely that doctrine says that a child WILL bear a parent's guilt? But Ezekiel says otherwise.

Not necessarily. "Original sin" can also be interpreted to be a tendency to sin we inherited from Adam & Eve. This is why Jesus can say "out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnessings, evil speakings..." (Mat. 15:19) on one hand & say of little children "of such is the reign of the heavens" (Mat. 19:14) on the other w/o being contradictory. Although a tendancy towards evil is present from birth, we do not become personally responsible for sin until we reach an age at which we are fully cognizant of sin.

Sin is disobedience of God, right? Adam and Eve must've already had the tendency in order to disobedy God and eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Else they wouldn't have wanted to. This implies they were created with it.

[The Alexanderians]

Not necessarily. "Original sin" can also be interpreted to be a tendency to sin we inherited from Adam & Eve. This is why Jesus can say "out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnessings, evil speakings..." (Mat. 15:19) on one hand & say of little children "of such is the reign of the heavens" (Mat. 19:14) on the other w/o being contradictory. Although a tendancy towards evil is present from birth, we do not become personally responsible for sin until we reach an age at which we are fully cognizant of sin.

Sin is disobedience of God, right? Adam and Eve must've already had the tendency in order to disobedy God and eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Else they wouldn't have wanted to. This implies they were created with it.

Wouldn't disobedience require willful and informed choices? I remember heaing a kidnapping that involved someone trying to get a kid to follow them the kid said "I'm only supposed to get in cars with my parents, aunts and uncles". The kidnapper came back with "but I am one of your uncles" and the kid went with him thinking he was obeying his parents.

[United Marxist Nations]

Five-hundred and three pages. Every page, we stray further from the correct path.

[The Alexanderians]

Five-hundred and three pages. Every page, we stray further from the correct path.

(Image)

[Diopolis]

Might I suggest that we declare these dogmatic assertions that Christian doctrine is inherently "hateful" to transgenders one of those topics that risks dominating the thread?

But it is hateful. If God really is willing to have one thrown into a lake of fire simply for gender-nonconformity than he is inherently transphobic. If God is willing to have gay couples thrown into a lake of fire simply for not conforming to traditional sex than he is inherently homophobic. Otherwise, he's not transphobic or homophobic.

Persons suffering from gender dysphoria or homosexuality are free not to commit sins. So no, God is not transphobic or homophobic, any more than He is, say, incest-phobic. Or any other sin, for that matter. Furthermore, the Ephraim-like dogmatic spamming of your opinion really isn't helpful not the discourse on this thread.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Lets go rogue, and see what happens.

[Menassa]

Five-hundred and three pages. Every page, we stray further from the correct path.

(Image)

All have fallen short.

[United Marxist Nations]

Five-hundred and three pages. Every page, we stray further from the correct path.

(Image)

You went past 500 pages. So what's the next step in your master plan?

Crashing this server... with no survivors!

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

You went past 500 pages. So what's the next step in your master plan?

Crashing this server... with no survivors!

To cause the apocalypse of course.

[The Alexanderians]

You went past 500 pages. So what's the next step in your master plan?

Crashing this server... with no survivors!

No, we return this thread to the post of old. IT's what our Christian ancestors would want.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

You went past 500 pages. So what's the next step in your master plan?

Crashing this server... with no survivors!

No, we return this thread to the post of old. IT's what our Christian ancestors would want.

Impossible our very posting is an act of defiance itself.

[The Alexanderians]

But seriously do we stay on point and keep discussion going or do we just waste time until the thread gets locked? This is kind of an odd situation.

Eh I'll keep the discussion going. What about the two hierarches that got captured in Syria?

[Diopolis]

But seriously do we stay on point and keep discussion going or do we just waste time until the thread gets locked? This is kind of an odd situation.

Eh I'll keep the discussion going. What about the two hierarches that got captured in Syria?

I'm just hoping it was someone other than daesh who captured them.

[Sanctissima]

But seriously do we stay on point and keep discussion going or do we just waste time until the thread gets locked? This is kind of an odd situation.

Eh I'll keep the discussion going. What about the two hierarches that got captured in Syria?

I'm just hoping it was someone other than daesh who captured them.

Yeah, even being captured by Al-Nusra would be preferable. At least they'd be willing to ransom them.

[Diopolis]

But seriously do we stay on point and keep discussion going or do we just waste time until the thread gets locked? This is kind of an odd situation.

Eh I'll keep the discussion going. What about the two hierarches that got captured in Syria?

I'm just hoping it was someone other than daesh who captured them.

[The Alexanderians]

I'm just hoping it was someone other than daesh who captured them.

Yeah, even being captured by Al-Nusra would be preferable. At least they'd be willing to ransom them.

I don't think that's all that much better, but you're right they might ransom them off.

[The Flutterlands]

But it is hateful. If God really is willing to have one thrown into a lake of fire simply for gender-nonconformity than he is inherently transphobic. If God is willing to have gay couples thrown into a lake of fire simply for not conforming to traditional sex than he is inherently homophobic. Otherwise, he's not transphobic or homophobic.

Persons suffering from gender dysphoria or homosexuality are free not to commit sins. So no, God is not transphobic or homophobic, any more than He is, say, incest-phobic. Or any other sin, for that matter. Furthermore, the Ephraim-like dogmatic spamming of your opinion really isn't helpful not the discourse on this thread.

1.) Don't compare transgenderism and homosexuality to incest. 2.) He's ether transphobic and homophobic or he's not. If he's not, then he would allow homosexual couples who have sex and gender-nonconforming people into the kingdom of heaven. Since he doesn't, according to Christianity, he clearly is a homophobe and transphobe. God basically seeing men having sex together as an abomination is in itself homophobic.

[Conscentia]

Reminder for whoever makes the next thread (The Archregimancy in particular)...

At the end of CDT IV I advised the following poll options for CDT V, but my suggestions were not accepted:
Roman Catholic
Eastern Orthodox
Non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, etc.)
Anglican/Episcopalian
Lutheran or Reformed (including Calvinist, Presbyterian, etc.)
Baptist
Other Protestant
Restorationist (LDS Movement, Jehovah's Witness, etc.)
Messianic Jew
Other Christian

I honestly don't remember that; but I'm not sure I'd be inclined to give Efraim his only poll category, however vocal he gets sometimes.

But by all means remind me when this thread gets close to its limit; I'm always open to potentially refining/improving the poll.

The above posts were a response to a post pointing out a flaw in the current poll:

Not sure why non-denominational is under evanglical in the poll... as a non-denominational Christian, I had to put myself as 'other' because I am by no means an evangelist.

Also in response to the "but I'm not sure I'd be inclined to give Efraim his only poll category, however vocal he gets sometimes" comment I suggested the following...

I honestly don't remember that; but I'm not sure I'd be inclined to give Efraim his only poll category, however vocal he gets sometimes.
But by all means remind me when this thread gets close to its limit; I'm always open to potentially refining/improving the poll.

I suppose we don't really get that many Messianic Jews.

Do you think an option for 'cultural Christians' would be worth considering? I don't know if you could consider them a 'denomination' exactly, but it could be interesting... maybe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian

[The Alexanderians]

Persons suffering from gender dysphoria or homosexuality are free not to commit sins. So no, God is not transphobic or homophobic, any more than He is, say, incest-phobic. Or any other sin, for that matter. Furthermore, the Ephraim-like dogmatic spamming of your opinion really isn't helpful not the discourse on this thread.

1.) Don't compare transgenderism and homosexuality to incest.

Well to be fair I've seen people looking to legalize all three compare them, in a completely secular setting.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

1.) Don't compare transgenderism and homosexuality to incest.

Well to be fair I've seen people looking to legalize all three compare them, in a completely secular setting.

I mean there are certain Zoroastrians still clinging on to sacred marriage so I could see that working.

[Uxupox]

Well to be fair I've seen people looking to legalize all three compare them, in a completely secular setting.

I mean their are certain Zoroastrians still clinging on to sacred marriage so I could see that working.

Zoroastrians in India?