We are now at 1 John chapter five. The reader is told that everyone who believes Jesus is the christ is a child of god. Everyone who loves god, loves his children. When a person loves the children of god, he loves god and obeys his commands. More bible logic.
All the children of god overcome the world by their faith that Jesus is the son of god. The victory is theirs. (Where is the battle?) Jesus came by water and blood. Whatever that means. How can anyone know this? The spirit testifies, and the spirit is the truth. The author says so. The spirit is not the only witness, The water and blood are witnesses as well. The three of them agree. This is almost funny.
The reason there is a mention of three witnesses is because the law required at least two witnesses to verify something in a court of law. The author next states that "We accept man's testimony, but god's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of god." There ought be classes on bible logic. The reader is told that God gave the testimony about his son. Anyone who believes in the son has the testimony of god. Round and round the circular logic we go. It's enough to make me dizzy.
What about the people who do not believe the "testimony" about Jesus? They do not believe god. That's as good as calling god a liar. This is god's testimony: "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his son. He who has the son has life; he who does not have the son of god does not have life." Harsh. Not only that, god speaks of himself in the third person.
The author is writing all this stuff so the reader can know he has eternal life, if he believes in the name of the son of god. That should give them confidence to ask god for anything...according to his will. (Always a caveat). God will hear the believer, if they know god will hear them. If god hears, they can know that he will deliver whatever they ask for. Doubt is probably doomed to fail. Does that mean failure to receive what you ask for is a tell?
The next passage is about sins. All wrong doing is sin. Apparently there are two kinds of sin, the kinds that don't lead to death and those that do. They are not defined, so I am left wondering which are which. A believer can pray about the sins that don't lead to death and god will give him life. The life he already had to begin with. A person shouldn't pray about sins that lead to death. He's toast.
The children of god don't keep on sinning, Jesus keeps them safe and the "evil one" can't get them. The whole world is under the control of the evil one. Never fear, more bible logic to the rescue. The son of god came and gave them understanding to know who is true. Guess who is true? Jesus! He is true because he says he is. Not only that, "He is the true god and eternal life." The son of god is god. How does that work? Don't break your brain trying to figure it out.
The letter ends with a single admonition "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols." After all, they've just been told who is the true god.
Showing posts with label sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sin. Show all posts
Thursday, July 18, 2019
Sunday, July 7, 2019
1 John part three
We are at 1 John 2:23. The reader has been told that only the people who acknowledge the son (Jesus) have the father (god). If the reader keeps remembering what he has heard from the beginning (whatever that was), he will remain in the son and the father. Plus, he will have eternal life.
The author says he is writing about people who will try to lead the readers astray, aka anti-christs. The readers received an anointing from Jesus (what the heck is that?), so they don't need anyone to teach them. The anointing teaches them to remain in Jesus, and it is not a fake. (Then why does the author need to write this letter?) They are to continue in Jesus so they won't be ashamed when he comes back.( Just when is that? ) If they know that he is righteous, they know "that everyone who does what is right has been born of him." What about the christ deniers who do right? Or is denying christ one of the things on the naughty list? Does one bad mark cancel out all the good?
We are now in chapter three. The author is in raptures over the love of god the father. Aren't they so lucky to be his children! They don't know what their eternal form will be like, but they know it will be like god's. Yippee! When god shows up, they will get to see him. Everyone who wants to do this purifies himself, just like god is pure. Sure, set an impossible standard for mere mortals.
Here we go: "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness." How does he define sin? Lawlessness. What law is he talking about? The law of Moses? This person doesn't write like a Jewish believer in the law. He says that Jesus appeared to take away their sins. Anyone who lives in him doesn't keep on sinning. In fact, anyone "who continues to sin has neither seen him or known him." But what about back in chapter one, when we were told that everyone sins and if we just confess, Jesus will forgive.
We now have this circular argument: When you sin, you break the law. When you break the law you are lawless. When you are lawless, you are a sinner. Here comes another: When you do what is right, you are righteous. Jesus is righteous (therefore Jesus must be right.) Here is another argument: When you sin, you are of the devil. The devil is a sinner. Sinners are children of the devil, not the children of god. The children of god do not sin.
Why doesn't the child of god sin? "Because god's seed remains in him.....he has been born of god." What is god's seed? Well, "seed" usually refers to physical children. In the ancient view, a male human "plants his seed" in the female human, like a sower sows seed in the ground. The female is either barren or fertile ground. At that time there was no knowledge of the female contribution of an egg to be fertilized. Of course the author is using this as a metaphor. God's seed here is Jesus. When Jesus is in a person that person becomes born of god. It's a bit squicky to think about and doesn't actually work as a metaphor either. The person being implanted with the seed is also the person being born. A bit confusing, don't you think?
The passage ends with "Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of god, nor is anyone who does not love his brother." This compounds the confusion in my mind. Who is responsible for the "seed of god" here? It doesn't seem like god is taking responsibility for how well his seed produces offspring. Instead, he is saying that anyone who isn't like him, must not be his child, but someone else's, namely the devil's. He doesn't even allow for the possibility that his seed could be bad and produce birth defects.
Till next time.
The author says he is writing about people who will try to lead the readers astray, aka anti-christs. The readers received an anointing from Jesus (what the heck is that?), so they don't need anyone to teach them. The anointing teaches them to remain in Jesus, and it is not a fake. (Then why does the author need to write this letter?) They are to continue in Jesus so they won't be ashamed when he comes back.( Just when is that? ) If they know that he is righteous, they know "that everyone who does what is right has been born of him." What about the christ deniers who do right? Or is denying christ one of the things on the naughty list? Does one bad mark cancel out all the good?
We are now in chapter three. The author is in raptures over the love of god the father. Aren't they so lucky to be his children! They don't know what their eternal form will be like, but they know it will be like god's. Yippee! When god shows up, they will get to see him. Everyone who wants to do this purifies himself, just like god is pure. Sure, set an impossible standard for mere mortals.
Here we go: "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness." How does he define sin? Lawlessness. What law is he talking about? The law of Moses? This person doesn't write like a Jewish believer in the law. He says that Jesus appeared to take away their sins. Anyone who lives in him doesn't keep on sinning. In fact, anyone "who continues to sin has neither seen him or known him." But what about back in chapter one, when we were told that everyone sins and if we just confess, Jesus will forgive.
We now have this circular argument: When you sin, you break the law. When you break the law you are lawless. When you are lawless, you are a sinner. Here comes another: When you do what is right, you are righteous. Jesus is righteous (therefore Jesus must be right.) Here is another argument: When you sin, you are of the devil. The devil is a sinner. Sinners are children of the devil, not the children of god. The children of god do not sin.
Why doesn't the child of god sin? "Because god's seed remains in him.....he has been born of god." What is god's seed? Well, "seed" usually refers to physical children. In the ancient view, a male human "plants his seed" in the female human, like a sower sows seed in the ground. The female is either barren or fertile ground. At that time there was no knowledge of the female contribution of an egg to be fertilized. Of course the author is using this as a metaphor. God's seed here is Jesus. When Jesus is in a person that person becomes born of god. It's a bit squicky to think about and doesn't actually work as a metaphor either. The person being implanted with the seed is also the person being born. A bit confusing, don't you think?
The passage ends with "Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of god, nor is anyone who does not love his brother." This compounds the confusion in my mind. Who is responsible for the "seed of god" here? It doesn't seem like god is taking responsibility for how well his seed produces offspring. Instead, he is saying that anyone who isn't like him, must not be his child, but someone else's, namely the devil's. He doesn't even allow for the possibility that his seed could be bad and produce birth defects.
Till next time.
Saturday, June 29, 2019
Introduction to 1 John
Hello,
I've decided to focus on 1st John next, because I've already gone through 2nd and 3rd John. As a reminder, I'm using an NIV study bible and doing a plain reading of the text. If a god wanted everyone to understand the bible as his word, it should be easily interpreted by the common person, right? I do a lot of paraphrasing, but I put direct quotes in quotation marks. All opinions and thoughts are my own, unless stated otherwise. I provide links or name of a reference when I get information from another site. However, no one forms opinions in a vacuum and I have acquired some personal knowledge to draw on. My style is gently sarcastic at times. If you enjoy reading my posts, please share my site with a friend.
Now let's look at 1 John. The author is traditionally assumed to be the same author of the gospel of John and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John. There are some similarities and some differences, as noted in the Wikipedia article. To be clear, no authorship is claimed by name in any of those bible books.
1 John does not begin as a typical letter with an introduction, it leaps right into theology. The author refers to Jesus as "the word of life." He appears to claim he has seen Jesus with his eyes and touched him with his hands, and that he was actually alive, but the language is very poetic and uses the collective pronoun "we," indicating others with him. Neither the author or the others are named. The author is proclaiming what the collective has seen and heard to the readers, so that they can have fellowship with this unknown group. The group's fellowship is with god the father and his son, Jesus.
Next, the author claims to have heard a message from Jesus, and this is it : "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." Jesus is not recorded as saying that in any of the gospel accounts, nor is that exact phrase found anywhere else in the rest of the bible. The author continues on to say that anyone who "walks in darkness" yet claims to have fellowship with god, is a liar. (He does not say what walking in darkness consists of.) If anyone walks in light with god (again, what does that mean?), those people have fellowship with the mystery group, and the blood of Jesus cleans all the sin off all of them.
They mustn't claim to be without sin. They wouldn't be telling the truth. They just need to confess their sins, then Jesus will forgive them and purify them. If they say they do not sin, they are calling Jesus a liar. Lesson: No Matter what, you won't be believed if you say you haven't sinned. Sin makes you dirty. You can only be made clean if you tell what your sins are. Hmm. What constitutes sin? Who do you confess to?How could that go wrong?
Till next time.
I've decided to focus on 1st John next, because I've already gone through 2nd and 3rd John. As a reminder, I'm using an NIV study bible and doing a plain reading of the text. If a god wanted everyone to understand the bible as his word, it should be easily interpreted by the common person, right? I do a lot of paraphrasing, but I put direct quotes in quotation marks. All opinions and thoughts are my own, unless stated otherwise. I provide links or name of a reference when I get information from another site. However, no one forms opinions in a vacuum and I have acquired some personal knowledge to draw on. My style is gently sarcastic at times. If you enjoy reading my posts, please share my site with a friend.
Now let's look at 1 John. The author is traditionally assumed to be the same author of the gospel of John and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John. There are some similarities and some differences, as noted in the Wikipedia article. To be clear, no authorship is claimed by name in any of those bible books.
1 John does not begin as a typical letter with an introduction, it leaps right into theology. The author refers to Jesus as "the word of life." He appears to claim he has seen Jesus with his eyes and touched him with his hands, and that he was actually alive, but the language is very poetic and uses the collective pronoun "we," indicating others with him. Neither the author or the others are named. The author is proclaiming what the collective has seen and heard to the readers, so that they can have fellowship with this unknown group. The group's fellowship is with god the father and his son, Jesus.
Next, the author claims to have heard a message from Jesus, and this is it : "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." Jesus is not recorded as saying that in any of the gospel accounts, nor is that exact phrase found anywhere else in the rest of the bible. The author continues on to say that anyone who "walks in darkness" yet claims to have fellowship with god, is a liar. (He does not say what walking in darkness consists of.) If anyone walks in light with god (again, what does that mean?), those people have fellowship with the mystery group, and the blood of Jesus cleans all the sin off all of them.
They mustn't claim to be without sin. They wouldn't be telling the truth. They just need to confess their sins, then Jesus will forgive them and purify them. If they say they do not sin, they are calling Jesus a liar. Lesson: No Matter what, you won't be believed if you say you haven't sinned. Sin makes you dirty. You can only be made clean if you tell what your sins are. Hmm. What constitutes sin? Who do you confess to?How could that go wrong?
Till next time.
Saturday, July 21, 2018
Introduction to Colossians And part one
Hello. Our next study will be wading through the book called Paul's letter to the Colossians. Also take a look at the area called Colossae. The letter is traditionally accepted as genuine, with objections cropping up in the modern era. Because of certain references, it is thought that Paul wrote this letter from prison in Rome. However, the exact location is actually unknown.
The letter starts off with a greeting from Paul, who calls himself an apostle, and Timothy "our brother." It is to "the holy and faithful brothers in christ at Colosse." Here we have a definite identification of the sender and receiver of the letter, not like in 3 John. We also have the brotherhood language, but the type of brotherhood is clearly identified. Everyone is a believer in Christ.
The body of the letter begins with effusive compliments on the reputation of recipients' faith and love. They have hope stored in heaven that they heard about in the word of truth, aka the gospel. The gospel is spreading throughout the world. The Colossians learned it from a fellow named Epaphras, who works for and with Paul in spreading the word. We find out later, in Colossians 4:12, that Epaphrus is a Colossian, and he is currently travelling and working with Paul. He is also mentioned in the book of Philemon as a co-prisoner with Paul.
Since Epaphras has told Paul about the Colossians' love, he prays for them to be filled with the knowledge of God's will, so they can live a life worthy of the lord. He uses a lot of words to tell them how much he prays for them. That prayer description sounds a lot like a sermon. I don't understand how anyone being prayed for by Paul could possibly go wrong. He claims to know the will of god. If someone else didn't, I'm sure he was willing to tell them what god's will was.
Paul starts theologizing around verse 12. Where we learn that the Colossians "share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light." How? He rescued them from the "dominion of darkness" and brought them into the kingdom of the son he loves. Where is the dominion of darkness? Where is the kingdom of light? Your guess is as good as any body's. Paul says it is in the son of god that the Colossians have redemption and the forgiveness of sins. Redemption from what? Where does the idea of sins come from? I'm guessing Paul borrowed his notion of sin from Judaism.
Did the gentiles (Greeks/Romans) have a theology of sin? Let's see what Encylopedia Brittanica says about sin here. It seems obvious that Greeks and Romans would not have had the same concept or theology of sin as Jews and Christians. For one thing, the Greeks and Romans were not concerned with breaking the law of Moses or offending Yahweh. They also did not subscribe to the teachings of Jesus. They had their own gods and their own famous teachers. The Greek and Roman gods weren't exactly paragons of virtue either. Zeus probably never threatened those who committed adultery with fire and brimstone, seeing as how he was guilty of the same many times over. In order for a Greek or Roman to be convicted of sin in the Christian manner, he would have to have been first convinced of the truth of of the existence and supremacy of Yahweh, the authority of the scriptures, and that Jesus's death on the cross was a necessary remedy for sin.
More to come.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Galatians chapter 6 part 1
*Now that the Galatians know what the acts of the sinful nature are, Paul tells them "if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently." This brings many questions to my mind. Are there spiritual and non spiritual christians? Can a christian lose their spirituality? Is a christian who has lost their spirituality still a christian? How do you get spirituality back, if you have lost it? What if the person can't be restored gently? How do they "carry each others burdens?"
*Next Paul issues warnings to the Galatians to be on guard, lest they are also tempted. They musn't think themselves immune from the sinful nature, just because they are spiritual. Constant vigilance of ones own actions is necessary. "Each one should carry his own load."
*That's quite a load these christians had to carry around, each other's burdens plus their own load. How wearisome and paralyzing that must have been. Surely Paul meant that and wasn't contradicting himself in the same paragraph. Why do I envision a group of people continuously watching each other to see who will slip up first, all the while taking care not to do anything that might draw attention to themselves.
*Next Paul says "anyone who recieves instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor." Let's see, who has just shared instruction in the word? Why you have, Paul. Could it be that you are hinting for a handout?
*Paul goes on to imply that God's no fool, noone can take advantage of hm, people get what they deserve. They "reap what they sow." If someone sows to please the sinful nature, he will reap destruction. If someone sows to please the spirit (like Paul), he will reap eternal life. They shouldn't get tired of doing the right thing (bearing all those burdens), because eventually they will reap eternal life. (After they are dead)
Therefore (it naturally follows), as we have opportunity (like right now), we should do good to all people ( Even the Judiaizing teachers?), especially those who belong to the family of believers (like Paul.) After all, everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Eternal life is a curious concept. I wonder if those who desire it actually think about what they are getting. What will there be to do for never ending time? Certainly not any acts of the sinful nature. What will be the use of self control in eternity, if there is nothing to control oneself from doing? Will there be a need for love, kindness, or goodness if no one needs anything? What is the benefit, where is the pleasure, in pure existence?
*Next Paul issues warnings to the Galatians to be on guard, lest they are also tempted. They musn't think themselves immune from the sinful nature, just because they are spiritual. Constant vigilance of ones own actions is necessary. "Each one should carry his own load."
*That's quite a load these christians had to carry around, each other's burdens plus their own load. How wearisome and paralyzing that must have been. Surely Paul meant that and wasn't contradicting himself in the same paragraph. Why do I envision a group of people continuously watching each other to see who will slip up first, all the while taking care not to do anything that might draw attention to themselves.
*Next Paul says "anyone who recieves instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor." Let's see, who has just shared instruction in the word? Why you have, Paul. Could it be that you are hinting for a handout?
*Paul goes on to imply that God's no fool, noone can take advantage of hm, people get what they deserve. They "reap what they sow." If someone sows to please the sinful nature, he will reap destruction. If someone sows to please the spirit (like Paul), he will reap eternal life. They shouldn't get tired of doing the right thing (bearing all those burdens), because eventually they will reap eternal life. (After they are dead)
Therefore (it naturally follows), as we have opportunity (like right now), we should do good to all people ( Even the Judiaizing teachers?), especially those who belong to the family of believers (like Paul.) After all, everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Eternal life is a curious concept. I wonder if those who desire it actually think about what they are getting. What will there be to do for never ending time? Certainly not any acts of the sinful nature. What will be the use of self control in eternity, if there is nothing to control oneself from doing? Will there be a need for love, kindness, or goodness if no one needs anything? What is the benefit, where is the pleasure, in pure existence?
Saturday, April 22, 2017
Galatians chapter 5 part 3
We are still looking at the "acts of the sinful nature."
6. Discord: I think this means "does not play well with others," the opposite of being in accord. Discord has to do with whether someone is in agreement or at least has pleasant attitude toward the people they interact with. Of course a person can be in discord with mean people. In that case they would be in the right, unless they are acting just like them. Causing discord can also refer to causing confusion.
7. Jealousy: admittedly an often unhealthy emotion. Wanting what you don't or can't have can lead to harmful behaviors, such as theft, murder, and destruction of other's property. It can lead to your own psychological harm as well, undermining your self esteem, if you place importance on the number, quality, or size of your posessions compared to others. Being possessive of people in your life is another form of jealousy that can do harm to relationships. It's wierd that the bible spends a lot of time saying god is a jealous god. Does god have a sinful nature?
8.Dissensions and factions: these seem to be very similar to causing discord, but in groups or cliques. There are many legitimate reasons to dissent, as we are seeing in the current political climate.
9. Envy: See jealousy.
10. Drunkenness: Surely we all know drunkenness has the potential to do great harm, to one's self and others. Personally, I prize my brain cells too highly to risk destroying any of them. I'm also not fond of feeling nauseated or not in control of my faculties. I don't understand why others might enjoy getting drunk. I missed that part of the "sin nature." However, as long as a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and precautions against harming others, what can anyone say, except to express their own opinion. Notice this passage does not say don't drink at all.
11. Orgies: this is a subject I know very little about and am not particularly interested in. I'm certainly not going to google it. I would think any thing that can be said has already been mentioned in the last post under Sexual immorality.
I think it's strange that Paul does not mention things like lying, theft, murder, rape, abuse, libel, slander, genocide, slavery, and other crimes against humanity. Maybe he thinks his list covers all the important things in a round about way. He does say that the people who live according to this "sinful nature" will not inherit the kingdom of god. What exactly is the kingdom of god?
The idea of the sinful nature is predicated on the existance of a god who makes rules and has wishes about how things should be done. Ignoring those wishes means getting out of god's grace. Since I don't believe in any gods, I also don't believe in sinning against them. But I think we can sin against our fellow humans, by being hurtful or destructive in a large number of ways. I think we can sin against our selves in a way by self harm or unhealthy behaviors. To some extent that is our own business, untill it affects the well being of others, like second hand cigarette smoke. However, consequences arise naturally, and depend on the circumstances. Life just happens and people behave in ways that people have behaved for millenia. Some people have better luck, some people have better genes, some people have better self control, some people learn how to change the behaviors they want to change.
I'm not sure I covered this topic adequately but we will move on to the "fruit of the spirit" tomorrow.
6. Discord: I think this means "does not play well with others," the opposite of being in accord. Discord has to do with whether someone is in agreement or at least has pleasant attitude toward the people they interact with. Of course a person can be in discord with mean people. In that case they would be in the right, unless they are acting just like them. Causing discord can also refer to causing confusion.
7. Jealousy: admittedly an often unhealthy emotion. Wanting what you don't or can't have can lead to harmful behaviors, such as theft, murder, and destruction of other's property. It can lead to your own psychological harm as well, undermining your self esteem, if you place importance on the number, quality, or size of your posessions compared to others. Being possessive of people in your life is another form of jealousy that can do harm to relationships. It's wierd that the bible spends a lot of time saying god is a jealous god. Does god have a sinful nature?
8.Dissensions and factions: these seem to be very similar to causing discord, but in groups or cliques. There are many legitimate reasons to dissent, as we are seeing in the current political climate.
9. Envy: See jealousy.
10. Drunkenness: Surely we all know drunkenness has the potential to do great harm, to one's self and others. Personally, I prize my brain cells too highly to risk destroying any of them. I'm also not fond of feeling nauseated or not in control of my faculties. I don't understand why others might enjoy getting drunk. I missed that part of the "sin nature." However, as long as a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and precautions against harming others, what can anyone say, except to express their own opinion. Notice this passage does not say don't drink at all.
11. Orgies: this is a subject I know very little about and am not particularly interested in. I'm certainly not going to google it. I would think any thing that can be said has already been mentioned in the last post under Sexual immorality.
I think it's strange that Paul does not mention things like lying, theft, murder, rape, abuse, libel, slander, genocide, slavery, and other crimes against humanity. Maybe he thinks his list covers all the important things in a round about way. He does say that the people who live according to this "sinful nature" will not inherit the kingdom of god. What exactly is the kingdom of god?
The idea of the sinful nature is predicated on the existance of a god who makes rules and has wishes about how things should be done. Ignoring those wishes means getting out of god's grace. Since I don't believe in any gods, I also don't believe in sinning against them. But I think we can sin against our fellow humans, by being hurtful or destructive in a large number of ways. I think we can sin against our selves in a way by self harm or unhealthy behaviors. To some extent that is our own business, untill it affects the well being of others, like second hand cigarette smoke. However, consequences arise naturally, and depend on the circumstances. Life just happens and people behave in ways that people have behaved for millenia. Some people have better luck, some people have better genes, some people have better self control, some people learn how to change the behaviors they want to change.
I'm not sure I covered this topic adequately but we will move on to the "fruit of the spirit" tomorrow.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Galatians chapter 5 part 2
*So, Paul says, "live by the spirit." Define this spirit for us Paul. Is this the holy spirit? According to Paul, we have this thing called a "sinful nature" that desires what is contrary to the spirit. The sinful nature amd the spirit are in conflict with each other and keep you from doing what you want. This is kind of confusing. Do we want to do good things and are stopped by our sinful nature? Or does the sinful nature make us want to do bad things and we are stopped by the spirit? Paul says if the Galatians are led by this mysterious spirit, they are not under law. Well, Paul, they weren't under law to begin with. They were Gentiles! Me thinks Paul spends a lot of time projecting.
*Next, Paul lists "the acts of the sinful nature:"
1.Sexual immorality: Is this not following the sexual mores laid out by god in the biblical law, or not following the sexual mores laid out in culture? Those were/are often two very different things. How were the Galatians to know what Paul considered sexual immorality? Surely not by the law of moses, which he rejects? Sexual mores are complicated, even today. Humanists have tried to come up with a priciple that could work across cultures. It is the basic idea that whatever happens between consenting adults, and does not cause unwanted harm is their own business. The key words being consenting and adult.
2.Impurity: What is impurity anyway? Is that the same thing as uncleanness? Is it defined by the law? If it is, why should we worry about it?
3. Debauchery: According to Google, this means excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures. Maybe addictions to drugs, food, drink, sex? I would venture to say that it is unhealthy to excessively indulge in sensual pleasure, but part of the "sinful nature" in us? Not every one is susceptible to that kind of thing. Does that mean some of us don't have sinful natures? The only thing I am personally prone to over indulge in is chocolate. Blast those Aztecs! Actually, today, science has found that this kind of thing is a result of chemicals working in our brain to make us feel good. Everything that makes us feel good is a result of evolutionary biology. Man found ways to harness and concentrate those chemicals even before he knew that's what he was doing. When life is harsh and unpleasant, feel good remedies become something to live for, for some people. Some people seem to have biologically addictive natures, others don't. There are ways to deal with addictions that don't shame by calling the person sinful. Of course, those who are destructive or harmful because of their addictions must be restrained by society in some way, for the safety of the rest of us. But care must be taken to treat them humanely.
4. Idolatry and witchcraft: make believe and nonsense. The harm these do is all in how they make their adherents treat other people. If the adherents do no bodily or psychological harm to people or property, there is no reason to care what they practice. Many of the modern versions are quite harmless and even pleasantly benevolent. It can be quite pleasant to think of the world and the way things work as though they are magical in some way, but it can also be quite scary. Sinful nature though? How can something that must be learned or imagined be part of our nature?
5. Hatred: hatred is such an all encompassing word for feelings of ill will toward others. I believe it must be learned and is not part of our nature. For much of my life, I could not understand hatred. I guess that shows how lucky I have been in my life. I didn't know if it was possible for me to hate until about a decade ago when I was watching "It's a Wonderful Life" at Christmas time. I felt such a burning disgust at the mean character Mr. Potter that it overwhelmed me. I realized that was hatred. I can't watch that movie any more. I know now that I am capable of hatred, especially in the presence of injustice. Is that a bad thing? I hear christians saying they hate the devil, but that appears to be acceptable hatred. In fact they seem to be permitted to hate the "acts of the sinful nature" in this list as well. Funny. It appears that hate may be complicated. Maybe we should measure its harm by how destructive it is. Some hatreds may have the power to cause people to act for the betterment of humanity. Some obviously do not. I think all hatred is based in fear, justified or not.
To be continued:
*Next, Paul lists "the acts of the sinful nature:"
1.Sexual immorality: Is this not following the sexual mores laid out by god in the biblical law, or not following the sexual mores laid out in culture? Those were/are often two very different things. How were the Galatians to know what Paul considered sexual immorality? Surely not by the law of moses, which he rejects? Sexual mores are complicated, even today. Humanists have tried to come up with a priciple that could work across cultures. It is the basic idea that whatever happens between consenting adults, and does not cause unwanted harm is their own business. The key words being consenting and adult.
2.Impurity: What is impurity anyway? Is that the same thing as uncleanness? Is it defined by the law? If it is, why should we worry about it?
3. Debauchery: According to Google, this means excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures. Maybe addictions to drugs, food, drink, sex? I would venture to say that it is unhealthy to excessively indulge in sensual pleasure, but part of the "sinful nature" in us? Not every one is susceptible to that kind of thing. Does that mean some of us don't have sinful natures? The only thing I am personally prone to over indulge in is chocolate. Blast those Aztecs! Actually, today, science has found that this kind of thing is a result of chemicals working in our brain to make us feel good. Everything that makes us feel good is a result of evolutionary biology. Man found ways to harness and concentrate those chemicals even before he knew that's what he was doing. When life is harsh and unpleasant, feel good remedies become something to live for, for some people. Some people seem to have biologically addictive natures, others don't. There are ways to deal with addictions that don't shame by calling the person sinful. Of course, those who are destructive or harmful because of their addictions must be restrained by society in some way, for the safety of the rest of us. But care must be taken to treat them humanely.
4. Idolatry and witchcraft: make believe and nonsense. The harm these do is all in how they make their adherents treat other people. If the adherents do no bodily or psychological harm to people or property, there is no reason to care what they practice. Many of the modern versions are quite harmless and even pleasantly benevolent. It can be quite pleasant to think of the world and the way things work as though they are magical in some way, but it can also be quite scary. Sinful nature though? How can something that must be learned or imagined be part of our nature?
5. Hatred: hatred is such an all encompassing word for feelings of ill will toward others. I believe it must be learned and is not part of our nature. For much of my life, I could not understand hatred. I guess that shows how lucky I have been in my life. I didn't know if it was possible for me to hate until about a decade ago when I was watching "It's a Wonderful Life" at Christmas time. I felt such a burning disgust at the mean character Mr. Potter that it overwhelmed me. I realized that was hatred. I can't watch that movie any more. I know now that I am capable of hatred, especially in the presence of injustice. Is that a bad thing? I hear christians saying they hate the devil, but that appears to be acceptable hatred. In fact they seem to be permitted to hate the "acts of the sinful nature" in this list as well. Funny. It appears that hate may be complicated. Maybe we should measure its harm by how destructive it is. Some hatreds may have the power to cause people to act for the betterment of humanity. Some obviously do not. I think all hatred is based in fear, justified or not.
To be continued:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)