Original Sin and...

[_subgenius]

Death is an effect of the first sin as well.

this is actual the crux of my inquiry...the atonement should have removed this consequence of sin from mankind...if we inherited death from Adam then it should have been removed upon the atonement. That is to say the obvious, we should have inherited eternal life from Christ...but we did not...we only inherited the opportunity...an opportunity not afforded to us with the Adam situation.

It has been noted from the beginning that we still all die. Original Sin is not something you have, it is something you don't have. Adam and Eve lived in the immediate presence of God. If they had not sinned, their posterity would have continued to live in the immediate presence of God. But they did sin, and were removed from the grace of God.

Adam = unconditional and immediate removal from the grace of God - without exception or negotiation
Christ - conditional and eventual return to the grace of God

God did not leave us to this condition of separation from Himself. Immediately, constrictions were placed on Satan, what we call the proto-gospel. From that point, God continuously worked to bring us back to Himself, Perfectly achieved in Jesus Christ. We view the work of God among men, as described in the Old Testament, as Salvation History.

Beyond that, I think the difference in our views can be best expressed as how we view the status (or role) of Satan since the Cross. We understand that Satan is defeated, now. Christ is triumphant. We are called as Christians to behave as we believe. God allows Satan to act, but as Christians we believe the only power he has is the power we give him. The central reality to us is Jesus Christ. So our hope is in Christ, not in ourselves, or our own abilities.

agreed, but that all seems to be mostly unchanged from when Adam was in Eden.

The rest of your "LDS understanding" is difficult for me to comprehend. God does not desire that you to choose sin (the disease), in order to know a cure (Christ). It is where I note, LDS have corrupted scripture. We are called to live a life free from sin.

perhaps "choosing sin" is a bit exaggerated...but the intent is that we chose to be tested, to be tried, and we chose to be fallible so that we could improve and progress...so that we could grow in Christ...and being perfect in thought and deed would have done none of that.
So, we chose to participate just as now we choose to participate...God requires that we come to Him freely.

One can believe that God forced the chains of sin upon us or that we took them upon ourselves willingly, but the work remains the same...i believe it is more consistent with the nature and character of God that all things have been, are, and will be associated with this idea of "freely".

[_madeleine]

Death is an effect of the first sin as well.

this is actual the crux of my inquiry...the atonement should have removed this consequence of sin from mankind...if we inherited death from Adam then it should have been removed upon the atonement. That is to say the obvious, we should have inherited eternal life from Christ...but we did not...we only inherited the opportunity...an opportunity not afforded to us with the Adam situation.

We die with Christ and are raised with Him.

I understand, in hindsight, LDS think there has been a given understanding from time immemorial that death isn't permanent. It was a shocker when Jesus showed up alive and well after dying horrifically on a cross. It was a new paradigm, to understand that because He is risen, so shall we. St. Paul goes so far to say, if Christ isn't risen, then our belief in our own resurrection is foolish.

Death, prior to the Cross, meant not only the death of the body, but death of the soul, in that a soul was forever separated from God. As, the death that entered the world because of Adam not only affected us physically, but also spiritually. We are reconciled to God, in Christ, and so are no longer separated from God.

Adam = unconditional and immediate removal from the grace of God - without exception or negotiation
Christ - conditional and eventual return to the grace of God

Christ died for all.

perhaps "choosing sin" is a bit exaggerated...but the intent is that we chose to be tested, to be tried, and we chose to be fallible so that we could improve and progress...so that we could grow in Christ...and being perfect in thought and deed would have done none of that.
So, we chose to participate just as now we choose to participate...God requires that we come to Him freely.

The understanding of free will is where our disagreement comes from. The LDS view is, free will means the more choices you have, means the more free will you have. Measure for measure, if you have more sinful choices, you have more free will.

The Catholic (and mainline Christian understanding) is that God gifted us with free will in order that we could love Him freely. To love God is synonymous with not sinning against God, as we can agree I think, sin separates us from God. To choose sin, over God, is an abuse of the free will that God has gifted us with, not an indication that we have more free will than we otherwise would have if we have chosen to not sin.

With that understanding firmly in place, when we look at sin, and that God continues to allow us to choose sin, it is in the understanding that God desires us to love Him freely. As love that is forced, is not love. Second, is that scripture clearly teaches that God can use sin to His own good. This does not mean that God desires us to sin.

"Sin and grace" are a cornerstone doctrine of Catholicism. Where sin occurred, in Adam, grace abounds all the more, in Christ. But as St. Paul taught, that does not mean we should sin in order to have more grace. Which, is what I see in your idea of "progression", that is, that we should sin in order to know more grace. NO!

A last thought, which I have never seen in Mormonism, is in the concept of holiness, or what I think Mormon more closely identify with an idea of perfection. For Catholics, it is possible, through grace, for a person to come to a point where sin is not seen as a choice at all, but is rejected as a non-choice. I can't see there is even room for this understanding in Mormonism, as the Mormon idea of perfection requires that sin be seen as a choice. Where we see, forsaking a sin as no choice at all, is what defines a person who is holy.

We cooperate with God's will, using our own free will, as God desires us to do. Not because we are following rules, but because we love God, and love Him freely.

One can believe that God forced the chains of sin upon us or that we took them upon ourselves willingly, but the work remains the same...i believe it is more consistent with the nature and character of God that all things have been, are, and will be associated with this idea of "freely".

As I said, it is a disordered view of "free will".

[_Bazooka]

I noticed subgenius hasn't commented on the killing of Laban, why I wonder...?

no comment necessary really...i assumed you caught the Retzach reference i gave you and the whole murder vs manslaughter example...not to mention how the consequences of an action do not necessarily determine the value.....but clearly the Laban example is being misunderstood by you, for obviously you have not yet understood the Hebrew term Retzach.

how about a little conundrum of a quote for ya...

pragmatic men of power have had no time or inclination to deal with … social morality — K. B. Clark

If only God had differentiated and said "Thou shalt not murder but manslaughter shalt be okay..."

And the subject we are talking about is "killing" rather than murder.
You agreed that all killing was bad (except for cows and vegetables) and manslaughter is killing.

If you had said at the time, "not all killing is bad, for instance manslaughter can be good" you wouldn't now appear to backtracking.

[_madeleine]

I noticed subgenius hasn't commented on the killing of Laban, why I wonder...?

If only God had differentiated and said "Thou shalt not murder but manslaughter shalt be okay..."

And the subject we are talking about is "killing" rather than murder.
You agreed that all killing was bad (except for cows and vegetables) and manslaughter is killing.

If you had said at the time, "not all killing is bad, for instance manslaughter can be good" you wouldn't now appear to backtracking.

There is also an issue with executing someone within the walls of Jerusalem. The corpse would pollute the city and its inhabitants, ie, making them unclean, as well as the executioners. Not to mention putting on the clothes of the dead! Seriously hard to believe a devout Jew would do any such thing.

Numbers 19:14 This is the law: when a man dieth in a tent, every one that cometh into the tent, and every thing that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.

[_Albion]

Madeliene, the theology of Christian holiness, entire sanctification as some Christian groups define it, features heavily in what are termed holiness churches. It includes the belief that sin as a willful expression of disobedience to God can be overcome and that willfulness eliminated. Holiness featured heavily in Wesleyan theology and is evident today in groups as diverse as The Salvation Army, Free Methodists, and Church of the Nazarene.

[_ludwigm]

There is also an issue with executing someone within the walls of Jerusalem. The corpse would pollute the city and its inhabitants, ie, making them unclean, as well as the executioners. Not to mention putting on the clothes of the dead! Seriously hard to believe a devout Jew would do any such thing.

Numbers 19:14 This is the law: when a man dieth in a tent, every one that cometh into the tent, and every thing that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.

And if your new Teint Idole Ultra 24H, which claims to provide 24-hours of 'lasting perfection,' does not in fact last a full day - and therefore, not long enough to get you through the Sabbath - sue Lancôme, and its parent company, cosmetics giant L'Oréal, for false advertising over its new '24-hour' foundation.

Exodus 20:10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exodus 31:14. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.





... a devout Jew...
Devout jews, devout catholics, devout Mormons, for Allah's sake devout muslims do stupid things in the name of their gods, scriptures or prophets.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ds-newsxml

An Orthodox Jewish woman is suing Lancôme, and its parent company, cosmetics giant L'Oréal, for false advertising over its new '24-hour' foundation.

Rorie Weisberg says Lancôme's new Teint Idole Ultra 24H, which claims to provide 24-hours of 'lasting perfection,' does not in fact last a full day - and therefore, not long enough to get her through the Sabbath.

The upstate New York-native applied the $45 foundation before sundown on Friday in order to test its 24-hour performance, but she found it had 'faded significantly' overnight.

According to Jewish law, women are prohibited from applying make-up from sundown on Friday until nightfall on Saturday.

Applying make-up is classified as 'creative work,' which women must refrain from during the Sabbath.

Mrs Weisberg, whose eldest son is having his bar mitzvah on an upcoming Saturday in June, purchased the Teint Idole Ultra 24H for its long-lasting purposes - so she could look polished while keeping to the rules of her faith.

According to the New York Post, the lawsuit claims that the product name and advertising is deceptive because: 'The 24-hour claim was central to plaintiff’s purchase decision, as a long-lasting makeup assists with her dual objectives of compliance with religious law and enhancement to her natural appearance.'

It continues: 'Specifically, plaintiff’s eldest son is having his bar mitzvah celebration in June and plaintiff was looking for a long-lasting foundation that would achieve the foregoing dual objectives over the bar mitzvah Sabbath.'

Although common sense would lead women to believe that sleeping while wearing make-up could 'significantly fade' any foundation and other products worn, such as blush, it stands to reason that '24-hours' includes time for sleep.

The filing, with Manhattan's federal-court, accuses Lancôme of violating New York business law through 'deceptive acts and practices.'

The suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of Ms Weisberg, and other customers who bought the foundation; and also requests a 'corrective advertising campaign.'

A spokeswoman for L'Oréal said in a statement: 'Lancôme strongly believes that this lawsuit has no merit and stands proudly behind our products.

'We will strenuously contest these allegations in court. Consistent with our practice and policy, however, as this matter is currently in litigation, we cannot comment further.'

by the way the woman has an echte name...

from http://jewishmag.com/18mag/humor/humor.htm :

The Captain and the First Officer

The Captain was Jewish, and the new First Officer was Taiwan Chinese. It was the first time they had flown together, and it was obvious by the silence that they didn't get along. After 30 minutes, the Captain finally spoke, "I don't like Chinese."

The F.O. replied, "Ooooh, no like Chinese? Why is that?"

The Captain said, "You bombed Pearl Harbour. That's why I don't like Chinese."

The FO said, "Nooooo, noooo ... Chinese not bomb Pearl Harbour. That JAPANESE, not Chinese."
And the Captain answered, "Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese ... it doesn't matter. They're all alike."

Another 30 minutes of silence. Finally the First Officer said, "No like Jew."

The Captain replied, "Why not? Why don't you like Jews?"
"Jews sink Titanic."

The Captain tried to correct him, "No, no. The Jews didn't sink the Titanic. It was an iceberg."

"Iceberg, Goldberg, Rosenberg .. no mattah .. all same."

[_madeleine]

There is also an issue with executing someone within the walls of Jerusalem. The corpse would pollute the city and its inhabitants, ie, making them unclean, as well as the executioners. Not to mention putting on the clothes of the dead! Seriously hard to believe a devout Jew would do any such thing.

Numbers 19:14 This is the law: when a man dieth in a tent, every one that cometh into the tent, and every thing that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.

And if your new Teint Idole Ultra 24H, which claims to provide 24-hours of 'lasting perfection,' does not in fact last a full day - and therefore, not long enough to get you through the Sabbath - sue Lancôme, and its parent company, cosmetics giant L'Oréal, for false advertising over its new '24-hour' foundation.

Exodus 20:10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exodus 31:14. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.





... a devout Jew...
Devout jews, devout catholics, devout Mormons, for Allah's sake devout muslims do stupid things in the name of their gods, scriptures or prophets.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ds-newsxml

An Orthodox Jewish woman is suing Lancôme, and its parent company, cosmetics giant L'Oréal, for false advertising over its new '24-hour' foundation.

Rorie Weisberg says Lancôme's new Teint Idole Ultra 24H, which claims to provide 24-hours of 'lasting perfection,' does not in fact last a full day - and therefore, not long enough to get her through the Sabbath.

The upstate New York-native applied the $45 foundation before sundown on Friday in order to test its 24-hour performance, but she found it had 'faded significantly' overnight.

According to Jewish law, women are prohibited from applying make-up from sundown on Friday until nightfall on Saturday.

Applying make-up is classified as 'creative work,' which women must refrain from during the Sabbath.

Mrs Weisberg, whose eldest son is having his bar mitzvah on an upcoming Saturday in June, purchased the Teint Idole Ultra 24H for its long-lasting purposes - so she could look polished while keeping to the rules of her faith.

According to the New York Post, the lawsuit claims that the product name and advertising is deceptive because: 'The 24-hour claim was central to plaintiff’s purchase decision, as a long-lasting makeup assists with her dual objectives of compliance with religious law and enhancement to her natural appearance.'

It continues: 'Specifically, plaintiff’s eldest son is having his bar mitzvah celebration in June and plaintiff was looking for a long-lasting foundation that would achieve the foregoing dual objectives over the bar mitzvah Sabbath.'

Although common sense would lead women to believe that sleeping while wearing make-up could 'significantly fade' any foundation and other products worn, such as blush, it stands to reason that '24-hours' includes time for sleep.

The filing, with Manhattan's federal-court, accuses Lancôme of violating New York business law through 'deceptive acts and practices.'

The suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of Ms Weisberg, and other customers who bought the foundation; and also requests a 'corrective advertising campaign.'

A spokeswoman for L'Oréal said in a statement: 'Lancôme strongly believes that this lawsuit has no merit and stands proudly behind our products.

'We will strenuously contest these allegations in court. Consistent with our practice and policy, however, as this matter is currently in litigation, we cannot comment further.'

by the way the woman has an echte name...

from http://jewishmag.com/18mag/humor/humor.htm :

The Captain and the First Officer

The Captain was Jewish, and the new First Officer was Taiwan Chinese. It was the first time they had flown together, and it was obvious by the silence that they didn't get along. After 30 minutes, the Captain finally spoke, "I don't like Chinese."

The F.O. replied, "Ooooh, no like Chinese? Why is that?"

The Captain said, "You bombed Pearl Harbour. That's why I don't like Chinese."

The FO said, "Nooooo, noooo ... Chinese not bomb Pearl Harbour. That JAPANESE, not Chinese."
And the Captain answered, "Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese ... it doesn't matter. They're all alike."

Another 30 minutes of silence. Finally the First Officer said, "No like Jew."

The Captain replied, "Why not? Why don't you like Jews?"
"Jews sink Titanic."

The Captain tried to correct him, "No, no. The Jews didn't sink the Titanic. It was an iceberg."

"Iceberg, Goldberg, Rosenberg .. no mattah .. all same."

:)

Maybe Laban's family could have sued their relatives for defiling their home.

[_madeleine]

Madeliene, the theology of Christian holiness, entire sanctification as some Christian groups define it, features heavily in what are termed holiness churches. It includes the belief that sin as a willful expression of disobedience to God can be overcome and that willfulness eliminated. Holiness featured heavily in Wesleyan theology and is evident today in groups as diverse as The Salvation Army, Free Methodists, and Church of the Nazarene.

:) thanks.

[_bcuzbcuz]

There really is no such thing as sin except as a construct for control by one group over another. Religious leaders who use it to make a living off other people.

There is doing things that hurt others and ourselves, which experience teach us is wrong because it is harmful.

But "sin"? No such thing.

People like you are destructive to the moral fabric of society.

Just which "moral fabric of society" are you referring to?

[_subgenius]

Just which "moral fabric of society" are you referring to?

is there more than one fabric? reality seems to dictate that there is, in fact, only one fabric.