How can we get rid of our sinfulness?

[sanctus]

Repentance can only come by a change of mind. Meaning, a new understanding of the differences of what is good and not good, and choosing the good.
The old creature is: all that the flesh desires verses the new creature : which is, all that our hearts desire of God.
Jesus gives us the "new way" and with it gives us the two great commandments:



Peace>>>AJ

The issue with most people is in defintion of just what the "good" is. Most people do not want to conform to what God teaches, so instead come up with that all famous line "I think..." The minute anyone begins a faith comment with these two words, you can almost bet what follows will be more secular-humanist opinions then actual Scriptural fact.

 

[sanctus]

I still think the crux of the issue is getting oneself to the point where they can just avoid doing harmful things by exercising a little self-discipline. It really isn't hard, even for a practical joker like me.
". :roll: )

Yet, it is very difficult for most people to have this inner sense of right and wrong. Most people prefer to cater to their own selfish desires, even above the benefit of others.

 

[sanctus]

Go run into someone's car or steal their christmas lights or something and ask them if they feel better that you asked your deity for forgiveness instead of them. "Oh, I shot your kid, but everything is ok cuz I repented to Yahweh and I won't do it again, I promise". :roll: )

Even if one were to do such things, one would require a sense of honest contrition to rectify their state of one-ness with God. Doing so is healthy and necessary for the man/woman to achieve self-actualization through Christ

 

[MikeyDB]

Contrition: Sorrow for sin arising from fear of damnation.

If a perfect being created the possibility, the concept of damnation....which seems to follow from the choice to grant free-will to imperfect beings....since it is only out of perfection that imperfection arises...it seems entirely logical that we face a connundrum wherein all things exist within a perfect being...including imperfection.

Now of course this "reasoning" could be all wrong and the creator owns no responsibility for the creation of beings who've chosen of their own free-will to "sin", and the quality character and nature of "sin" arrives to awareness from some source other than the creator....

But that would imply that something exists that was not created by the creator....

And if we accept that the creator imbued mankind with the choice to eat of the forbidden fruit....

Seems all rather circular to me...

Rather like a shell game in character, with anyone prepared to play the game identifying themselves as a "mark" to whomever's running the caper and of course with everyone else playing the game...

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... to achieve self-actualization through Christ

I sure wish I knew what that means. No disrespect intended here Sanctus, in fact most days I envy you your faith (which I've been told is also a sin) and wish I could share it, it'd answer a lot of questions and simplify a lot of issues I have. But I just can't buy it. Everything I know about how the cosmos works--I was trained as a physicist at university and I've kept up with it--precludes such belief. No plausible mechanism, no good evidence, just hearsay and testimony from the committed, which no scientist can accept as legitimate evidence. It just doesn't work for me. I wish it did, but wishing won't make it so. I'll never close the door fully on it either, because I'm not so arrogant as to think I understand everything, but what I know *now* leaves no room for it. But as I said in another thread, I'm a work in progress, as are we all, and I'm glad there are people like you here at CC to poke and prod me into examining what I believe.

 

[MikeyDB]

Dexter

Ever read Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics"?

I picked up the durn thing and ended up having to study Quantum Theory to make heads or tails of it!

Good read according to scentists far more familiar with the idea than I, but you have to grant a hefty latitude to the corespondences Capra arrives at....

 

[talloola]

The issue with most people is in defintion of just what the "good" is. Most people do not want to conform to what God teaches, so instead come up with that all famous line "I think..." The minute anyone begins a faith comment with these two words, you can almost bet what follows will be more secular-humanist opinions then actual Scriptural fact.

We have been born with "great" brains, we can invent, learn, be curious, and I think that is wonderful.
I don't believe, to "think" is going in the wrong direction. That is our strength, we should use it. I
would never be a slave to anyone, or anything or "not" use my brain to think" and just follow the
teachings of others. My goodness is in me, it came from my parents, and theirs, none of us were ever
religious, if others want to be, that is their business, but, they are no better, no more good, or anything
more successful than I or anyone else who chooses to "not" believe in God.

 

[L Gilbert]

LOL For me it's not a choice to believe in deities and superstitions or not. I just can't believe it; I don't have the capacity to accept something that has no evidence to support its existence.

 

[sanctus]

more successful than I or anyone else who chooses to "not" believe in God.

You misunderstand the context I write about the two most silly words in religious discussions, which are "I think..."

Let's put it another way. No one would dispute, in general, the educated opinions of a medical professional. We would all realize that their education and training would enable them to have a firm grasp of the subject matter.

But when it comes to religious beliefs, people somehow dismiss the educated opinions of the experts. In other words, they seem to feel that the Church and/or its clergy, who have been trained in this field let's not forget, must somehow not be taken seriously on questions of faith and morals.

The fact is, most laypeople do not have the capacity or knowledge in which to faithfully question the teachings of the Church. Instead, they rely on the old "I think..." As shocking as it may be, personal observation and or "feelings" have nothing to do with the Christian faith and its teachings. Like all disciplines of thought, the faith just is and those best suited to teach this are the clergy/theologians of the Church.

Now, each individual certainly has the right to dismiss the teachings in their own lives, that is part of free will. But to assume they are qualified to offer theological opinions based on their feelings is incorrect.

"I think...", in theological discussions, is usually the first sign of the individual's lack of knowledge on the topic. They instead would rather rely on what they feel, which is not necessarily a logical place to begin a discussion on this topic.

In essence, there are no grey areas in Church doctrine. It is what it is, regardless of what anyone "thinks".

 

[sanctus]

I sure wish I knew what that means. No disrespect intended here Sanctus, in fact most days I envy you your faith (which I've been told is also a sin) and wish I could share it, it'd answer a lot of questions and simplify a lot of issues I have. But I just can't buy it. Everything I know about how the cosmos works--I was trained as a physicist at university and I've kept up with it--precludes such belief. No plausible mechanism, no good evidence, just hearsay and testimony from the committed, which no scientist can accept as legitimate evidence. It just doesn't work for me. I wish it did, but wishing won't make it so. I'll never close the door fully on it either, because I'm not so arrogant as to think I understand everything, but what I know *now* leaves no room for it. But as I said in another thread, I'm a work in progress, as are we all, and I'm glad there are people like you here at CC to poke and prod me into examining what I believe.

Thank you for your kind comments. I also appreciate those that disagree with what I write here as it has the same effect on me, makes me think, even when it hurts my head

But you see, faith is taking the step beyond what you wrote. In other words, acknowleding what you wrote, but realizing all things emanate from God, even science

 

[BitWhys]

I still think the crux of the issue is getting oneself to the point where they can just avoid doing harmful things by exercising a little self-discipline. It really isn't hard, even for a practical joker like me.
If one doesn't commit offenses, one doesn't have to repent (and I repent to the person I harm anyway, not some affectation with dubious qualities. Go run into someone's car or steal their christmas lights or something and ask them if they feel better that you asked your deity for forgiveness instead of them. "Oh, I shot your kid, but everything is ok cuz I repented to Yahweh and I won't do it again, I promise". )

Yet, it is very difficult for most people to have this inner sense of right and wrong. Most people prefer to cater to their own selfish desires, even above the benefit of others.

No disrespect to either party but I'd like to expand on those points.

Sanctus, IMO your observation that developing a proper conscience is difficult doesn't go far enough. For me the truth of the matter is, in that as creatures (“Inter faeces et urinam nascimur.”) we can never escape being victims of our own points of view, that its ultimately impossible. That aspect of the human condition makes for a pragmatic relativism of sorts, but not one necessarily void of an absolute ethic to strive towards. It seems to me the whole point of the exercise is to be able to present ourselves to the throne not as children free of sin, but as lightly burdened as possible.

Gilbert, insular righteousness severely limits the potential of the social contract and fails to address the real need to participate, for better or for worse, in the ongoing struggles over the balance of power endemic in all societies.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Dexter

Ever read Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics"?

Yes, seems like a hundred years ago now though. My memory of it is that he did a decent job of explaining the physics and the religions, but sank into stupidity and mystic nonsense when he tried to put them together.

 

[MikeyDB]

Sanctus: “But when it comes to religious beliefs, people somehow dismiss the educated opinions of the experts. In other words, they seem to feel that the Church and/or its clergy, who have been trained in this field let's not forget, must somehow not be taken seriously on questions of faith and morals.”

The “education” of “experts” “trained in this field” isn’t education without assumption; is based entirely on an unsubstantiated proposition and is as prone to subjective interpretation as any other “opinion”.

If I ask the “expert” from Tehran or Saudi Arabia, if I asked the “expert” educated in a Roman Catholic belief, or an Anglican belief or a Unitarian belief….there’s a good chance I’d get different answers to the same question.

You’re attempting to suggest that there is some legitimacy to this stuff….

Something greater than “opinion” BECAUSE you’ve attended specialized training that includes requirement of proselytism as claim of expertise.

Consider: One plus one equals two (1+1=2). Now I understand that the concept of “one” and “plus” are delivered to reason/consciousness through language symbols…i.e. ‘words’. We could use other words to convey the meaning and the outcome…i.e. the result the answer, the “sum” would be exactly the same if the symbols were Greek, Spanish or Urdu… We English speaking folk use Arabic symbols to illustrate this relationship without the need for and the possible confusion that could happen through translating from a spoken or written language.

There is no corollary in ‘religious-speak’… There is no prima facie, non-interpreted, self-evident substantiation to any of it….PERIOD.

I’m not addressing the subscription anyone is free to undertake with respect to spirituality.

These experts haven’t been to “heaven” so their “opinion” is just that, opinion built on a foundation as entirely gossamer as fairy dust and unicorn horns. You keep selling this notion like it’s demonstrated its worth and yet after thousands of years of practice, the effectiveness and the changes wrought to the human condition through “belief” are readily apparent through divisiveness prejudices and discord produced as the product of “belief” as opposed to what one might reasonably expect from the power of an omnipotent omnipresent all-loving all-caring “being”.

You believe the interpretation you’ve been taught and fervently embrace this interpretation on the basis of “faith”. Not fact, not evidence. NO Evidence that would satisfy anyone available to the idea that a test of some kind exists that could be readily grasped and integrated into the thinking of the average human being. Falsifiability is a seminal credo for the scientist and without the structured examination and testing of some particular theory, that theory remains a theory…just as the theory of god the holy spirit and the holy trinity ought to remain….

I’ve avoided participating in the philosophy and “religion” threads here at Canadian Content because I appreciate that anyone voluntarily embracing (never mind attending seminary) the popular credos philosophies, belief-construct… and of course their attendant value and moral structures/frameworks….simply isn’t available to any other world-view.

Constructs like the ‘ego’ the ‘id’, ‘sub-consciousness’ and a boatload more serve as reference points under the aegis of a theory of ‘personality’, the human ‘psyche’, and the theory of human personality and the human psyche are always open to review and re-consideration because…there is no substantive component or element that can be reliably tested and determined as universally applicable.

The language of science that speaks to the factual content emerging through apprehension comprehension and internalization of direct experience is fact. It is fact not because we wish to “believe” it to be fact but because within the essence of a thing exists its unique quantifiable ‘nature’.

As quantified by the measurable and observable elements/components of which that ‘thing’ is comprised.

Expertise in the imaginary is undoubtedly useful but should be kept to its own domain….or at least flagged when not.

 

[MikeyDB]

Yes, seems like a hundred years ago now though. My memory of it is that he did a decent job of explaining the physics and the religions, but sank into stupidity and mystic nonsense when he tried to put them together.

I concur however I found the necessity to explore quantum mechanics very rewarding.

 

[talloola]

You misunderstand the context I write about the two most silly words in religious discussions, which are "I think..."
.

But to assume they are qualified to offer theological opinions based on their feelings is incorrect.

In my opinion the "theological people" offer their opinion on what they feel, from what they read, and
then, believe, which is their right.

"I think...", in theological discussions, is usually the first sign of the individual's lack of knowledge on the topic. They instead would rather rely on what they feel, which is not necessarily a logical place to begin a discussion on this topic.

Well, from my vantage point "logic" doesn't belong in religion, it is all "belief" and "feelings" and
"obedience"

Why is it more acceptable for theological person to say "I think" than the ordinary "so called" lay person like myself, according to you, say "I think", why am I not given the same respect for my opinions that
they are.

In essence, there are no grey areas in Church doctrine. It is what it is, regardless of what anyone "thinks

I agree "it is what it is", but that is just their opinions and feelings of "what it is", and my thoughts about life just comes from a totally different direction, and that is what I believe and feel, and think is logical.

 

[MikeyDB]

Talloola

Precisely.

Conviction of "belief" is entirely predicated on feelings and emotions, not rendering them "false" or unworthy of consideration, but hardly permitting them as demonstrable within the realm of fact. The domain of emotions, feelings and convicitons arising from an immersion in any "belief" construct, ideology, philosophy or doctrine is valuable within that paradigm, and that paradigm only. Because "experts" in the ineffable translate their judgments into codes of behavior, scales of morality and ethics and social expectations, the differences in interpretation and perspective give us the radical believer eschewing any idea percieved as counter intuitive to the constructs fundamental "nature". It gives us virgins awaiting the martyr of a "holy jihad", it provides a proposition regarding the "correct" perspective on everything from homosexual behavior to marriage, it endows the prejudiced with divine justification and assurance that all but the "informed" are incapable of intuiting or even comprehending truth.

Calvinism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, the greater majority of all western religious beliefs have supplied the taboos and stratification of rights according to gender, to social correctness...marriage is reseved for a man and a woman...or depending on the interpretation, one man and several women....,barriers that have been errected to preserve the edifice of some "higher" authority traditionally kept and maintained by males exlusively. These notions have 'fixed' within societies and cultures the rationalizations for everything from slavery to oppression disguised as "freedom" to securing the realm of the 'holy' from intrusion by the laws of man that have been created to protect both women and children from prejudice abuse and mistreatment, used under the argument that an "expert" regarding the dynamic of abuse and mistreatment practiced by adherents is beyond the pale of human law and consequently hidden and denied exposure. If there were a preponderance of evidence clearly establishing the usefulness and unassailable propriety of behavior predicated on these beliefs, it is entirely reasonable to expect that we would be have a clearly differentiated code of "practice", with respect to the behavior of the believer as opposed to the non-believer. That historically hasn't been the case and today we are all confronted by the willingness (once again) of a belief-construct to indulge in mayhem and slaughter in the name of god...

There's some basic problems with surrendering one's thinking to so fluid and malleable a concept as the interpreted "meaning" of beliefs by "experts" from many religions that can be identified more often than not through the hypocrisy and exclusivity of "knowledge" deemed the baliwick of the informed...

 

[talloola]

Talloola

Precisely.

Conviction of "belief" is entirely predicated on feelings and emotions, not rendering them "false" or
There's some basic problems with surrendering one's thinking to so fluid and malleable a concept as the interpreted "meaning" of beliefs by "experts" from many religions that can be identified more often than not through the hypocrisy and exclusivity of "knowledge" deemed the baliwick of the informed...

I feel vey comfortable with my inner thoughts of how/why/and for what purpose we are here. I don't have to prove my beliefs to anyone, they are there, they make perfect sense to me. I have a very logical
mind, and believe in the "scientific village" and their continual progress through time, which constantly
amazes me, and I have the utmost respect for them.

I truly resent people telling me that I shouldn't think for myself when it comes to "beliefs" but be
obedient to "what"?, something I don't have any belief in at all, how absurd, I would be defying
myself. That would be wrong.

I read every word you wrote, and I agree with you, I just can't say it that well.

 

[sanctus]

In my opinion the "theological people" offer their opinion on what they feel, from what they read, and[/I]
then, believe, which is their right.

"Well, from my vantage point "logic" doesn't belong in religion, it is all "belief" and "feelings" and
"obedience"

Why is it more acceptable for theological person to say "I think" than the ordinary "so called" lay person like myself, according to you, say "I think", why am I not given the same respect for my opinions that
they are.

I would be quite surprised to read an educated exegesis, for example, that began with "I think". Laypeople are certainly free to not believe in what they wish, but are they qualified, for example, to give opinions on doctrines of the Church? No, they are not. If I take my car into a garage, i am not qualified to help the mechanic fix it. I can offer an opinion, but in the end I must succomb to his education and training to fix my automobile.

It is the same in theology. If you do not have the educational background to, for example, discuss the Scriptures, what you are left with is your opinion only.

That is one of the biggest issues the Church has with protestant sects. Lacking the wisdom of the Church, the leadership of the various protestant denominations uses "I think" styled approaches to determining their doctrines, hence the millions of different protestant sects that exist.

 

[sanctus]

No disrespect to either party but I'd like to expand on those points.

Sanctus, IMO your observation that developing a proper conscience is difficult doesn't go far enough. For me the truth of the matter is, in that as creatures (“Inter faeces et urinam nascimur.”) we can never escape being victims of our own points of view, that its ultimately impossible. That aspect of the human condition makes for a pragmatic relativism of sorts, but not one necessarily void of an absolute ethic to strive towards. It seems to me the whole point of the exercise is to be able to present ourselves to the throne not as children free of sin, but as lightly burdened as possible.
.

I agree. I would have developed that same train of thought if I had taken greater time to do so. The fact is, we are always subject to our own points of view, but in applying ourselves to the faith, we often have to submit our interior points of view to the wisdom of the Church and its teachings. This is also part of the walk with Christ, to faithfully pray for the wisdom to understand the teachings of the Church He founded.

 

[look3467]

You all have very good points in this discussion. Points of view are definitely varied based on the point of reference.

If we look at the Old Testament thinking, and call it the old man in us, and then look at the New Testament thinking and call it the New Creature, we see that there is a departure from one form to another.

Why is this? It is call Repentance.

Repentance is defined as: regret, sorrow, remorse, penitence, shame and or contrition.
What binds all those words together is “an experienced condition”.

And an experienced condition can only be felt in the physical when the Old Man (Sin) in us is exposed.
Adam and Eve were perfect until “sin” exposed them and were found naked.

Likewise, we arrive at that condition when the Holy Spirit touches us and exposes sin in us .

When we are touched (Reference to the heart of our souls) sin is exposed in us and we find ourselves naked before God.

Based on that condition then, a change of mind (from one form to another) becomes a matter of choice.
Will we shed the old man thinking and put on the new repented form (New creature) new thinking?

Now, notice that I did not mention a word of any organized religion?

And that’s because we have as individuals the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us in this new creature form.

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

(A physical work)


The reason for the latter, is because it is done in the heart of our souls and not the physical.

With that, now we have a new point of reference thus affecting our new point of view.

And that point of view should be as one.

Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Perhaps that will help understand our motives to our reference points.

Peace>>>AJ