HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » A Christian Tries Explain...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 03:23 PM

A Christian Tries Explaining the Concept of Sin

14 replies, 1466 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Christian Tries Explaining the Concept of Sin (Original post)
mr blur Aug 2012 OP
ThoughtCriminal Aug 2012 #1
dmallind Aug 2012 #3
brooklynite Aug 2012 #12
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #2
dmallind Aug 2012 #4
Igel Aug 2012 #5
dmallind Aug 2012 #6
humblebum Aug 2012 #7
dmallind Aug 2012 #8
humblebum Aug 2012 #9
dmallind Aug 2012 #10
humblebum Aug 2012 #11
2ndAmForComputers Aug 2012 #14
digonswine Aug 2012 #13

Response to mr blur (Original post)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 04:01 PM

1. Maybe Part 2

will attempt to explain atonement through the suffering of another being.

I've been scratching my head on that one for about 40 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 11:00 PM

3. I can help there

Disclaimer - this is all utter hogswash, but even asinine concepts can be explained.

You have to deal with two basic concepts: 1) The hypostatic nature of Christ that is a fully human nature subsumed in a fully divine nature. If Christ had been entirely human, his sacrifice would neither have been sufficient nor universalized. If he had been solely divine, neither sacrifice nor suffering would have been possible as the divine physis can experience neither.

2) The penal substitution theory of atonement. Basically because humans offended the honor of God by disobedience, only a human sacrifice can atone for this sin. But only a divine sacrifice can be sufficient to atone for the sinful nature of all humanity. So only a fully divine and fully human sacrifice can achieve both.

It is the unique nature of Christ as being a single prosopon with two natures that allows substitutional atonement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:52 PM

12. But what is the basis for them saying...

?

First there is the question of why a Capital Punishment is called for to substitute for lying, coveting, eating shrimp, etc.

But second, who says that a sacrifice is required? Why can't God change his mind, and/or compassionately waive the penalty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Original post)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 05:40 PM

2. actually that's the atheist pig trying to explain the notion of sin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 11:04 PM

4. Please compare and contrast a valid Christian explanation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 04:35 PM

5. Yoda.

There is no try, there is only do and not do.

There is sinner and not sinner. There is forgiven and not forgiven.

A forgiven sinner can't be punished. A forgiven non-sinner is redundant, but not punished.

An unforgiven sinner is punished. A unforgiven non-sinner isn't punished.

So if you're good, great; if you're forgiven, there's no need to be good.

That's Yoda. A nice 2 x 2 square. Yoda wasn't Xian, even though he loved binary systems.


Xians (not the once-saved/always-group, but many others) have "try". Call it the result of faith or commitment or whatever you want. They like the pizza. Doesn't matter for this argument. They stipulate that there is no 'non-sinner', so the right-hand column is gone.

A forgiven sinner can't be punished, if he tries.

A forgiven sinner can be punished, if he doesn't try. His forgiveness is revoked, but he has to take positive steps to indicate his commitment to non-trying. (Or rather, to trying God.)

An unforgiven sinner will be punished, unless he starts to try.

A nice 1 x 3 column. Xians apparently are Minbari. They like trinary systems. (And not, that's not related to the trinity.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #5)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 10:59 AM

6. Got that - none of which contradicts the pig one iota

The only possible caveat is that one must time the try wisely. Carnegie is a much lionized man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 12:08 PM

7. More like an atheist trying to explain the concept of sin.

 

I can't help but say it. The guy is a pigot. (Tongue-in-cheek)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 12:43 PM

8. Can you point out the error?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:09 PM

9. Well, in Christian theology God sets the standard and

 

anything that deviates from that standard is a sin. It is impossible for any person to meet that standard, therefore everyone is a sinner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:20 PM

10. And this contradicts the cartoon how?

Are sins not forgiven?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #10)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:29 PM

11. The cartoon is an atheist's concept of a christian's concept of sin.

 

I am not an atheist, therefore my concept does not necessarily match the cartoon concept.

But to answer your question more directly, of course sin can be forgiven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #11)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 10:35 PM

14. So, your qualm about the cartoon is who wrote it.

Got it.

Do we have an ad hominem here? I think we do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #9)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 04:55 PM

13. Thanks God!

Why set the impossible standard?
Clearly, the problem is with God and not us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread