My Gaydar just went off like general quarters on the USS Enterprise.
Posted on 11/02/2014 8:31:57 AM PST by Faith Presses On
It's interesting to note that Jesus knew his identity as the Son of God, yet he did not speak of himself with that terminology; rather, he repeatedly called himself the Son of Man...
Yet, for many believers the idea of embracing and celebrating our humanity is rejected, as if our humanity is contaminated, dirty, and sinful...
The Pharisees were quick to denounce people as sinful from birth, but Jesus did the opposite. He actually pointed to the little children as an example of the Kingdom of God. The notion Jesus thought any of us were born sinners is completely contrary to everything he taught in regards little children being our perfect example of pure citizens of heaven.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
It ignores all Jesus said about sin, as well as what He did about it.
And the liberal view of how adult humans should live is not childlike.
My Gaydar just went off like general quarters on the USS Enterprise.
Is there a reason why Mooney’s thoughts are of ANY importance to me?
So Jesus got himself crucified to redeem us from what?
I believe they are of some importance.
John Dewey, The Frankfurt School, and Saul Alinsky have had their way with us for a century and it has resulted in the exaltation of the collective over the individual. The movement these people represent holds that the individual is not culpable either for his sins or for his crimes because it is society who has failed the criminal and the siner by failing properly to educate and motivate him.
All this comes from an original source, how do we view the essential nature of man? The conservative, as an inheritor of the Judeo-Christian tradition views man as a fallen creature, a sinful creature, one who is in need of education, yes, but more importantly a creature in need of redemption. The leftist sees man as a tabula rasa, an empty field upon which society, led by elite leftists, can with proper stimulation (think of rats in a Skinner box) condition the individual into conformity with the values of the mass.
So John Dewey starts in kindergarten and eliminates merit from a list of virtues taught to children, indeed, the whole concept of good and evil, merit and the lack of it, and especially competition are systematically eradicated from the child's world. Although it comes from a leftist, the old joke about all children being above average is too revealing to be funny.
The whole thrust of the liberal criminal justice system is to eliminate the idea of guilt and culpability and substitute rehabilitation. In the process, guilt is generalized, the individual is exculpated in society is blamed.
The process of generalizing from the individual to the mass is applied by leftists across the board and we see it in spades in the workplace. It is in the interests of employers to find and fix fault and correct them to increase efficiency and profit but it is in the interest of the politician to insinuate himself into that process and distort it so that he dominates the process. So we see a plethora of rules, regulations, union influence etc. all of which tend to see the employee not as an individual but as a unit of a greater mass. The whole idea of collective bargaining is to destroy individual responsibility as it destroys the relationship between master and servant. The politician wants the employee beholden to him so he devises a system which recognizes the employee as part of the mass beholden to the politician rather than the employer. In the process individual responsibility is lost.
Dennis Prager was absolutely right when he said that your view of politics depends on your view of the nature of man.
please does the author provide a reference to the statement that the Pharisees preached Original Sin?
sounds very wrongo or at least seriously distorted. for one thing, Original Sin is a doctrine developed within the Christian tradition after the church had pretty much broken off from its parent Jewish faith affiliation... you can read the basis of Original Sin into Paul/Saul somewhat, as did St Augustine...who is generally assigned “credit” or “blame” (as you like it) for really being the chief propounder of the OS doctrine. Augustine lived 400 years after Jesus and his fellow Jews, Pharisees and all the others, were doing their thing in Israel/Judaea, and the Jewish tradition did not adopt the OS doctrine (so that this is a key distinction between our received Christian and Jewish traditions today)
anyway I’m cautious about this article,...
thanks
The author is twisting Scripture for his own purposes. In John 9 the Pharisees told a man healed by Jesus that he had been completely born in sin, but this writer is twisting that and all God’s Word. See my post 1.
I’ve committed plenty of sins. Didn’t need to be “born with sins” in order to need salvation. I got myself into a sinful mess all on my own. Sold myself into bondage and needed Jesus to come buy me back (redeem me). YMMV.
How are they important to me?
One of the most common and insidious ways of twisting Scripture is to point out that “Jesus didn’t say anything about X, Y, or Z.” E.g., abortion, or sodomy.
Of course, we don’t know absolutely everything Jesus said, or didn’t say.
What is certain is that we DO know what the authors of the New Testament believed it necessary to RECORD from the preaching of Jesus. It’s what’s in the New Testament. And it is NOT the entirety of the Christian Faith, for the simple reason that the Christian Faith encompasses the teaching of the Jewish Faith.
There is no evidence of a DOCTRINAL difference between the Pharisees and Jesus. All that Jesus brought that was new was His Divine Self.
The OLD Testament is quite emphatic about Original Sin. The argument that “Jesus didn’t say anything about Original Sin” is as jejune as “Jesus didn’t say anything about the Trinity” or “Jesus didn’t say anything about abortion” or “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality” or “Jesus didn’t say anything about wire fraud.”
I know the importance I see in it, but from your initial post, I have to say you don’t see things that way.
Thank you.
The concept of original sin has nothing to do with your personal conduct. It refers to Adam’s disobedience to God which brought Sin into the world.
Wiser heads than mine have grappled with the Mystery of the Atonement. I think Milton got close.
There are indeed some difficult concepts in the Bible, things that take some study to understand.
Paul, in his letter to the Romans, demonstrates that everyone is in need of forgiveness, because not one of us can rest on his record of law-keeping. We’re all guilty. And without some means of forgiveness, the Judge would have to render a verdict of “guilty as charged”.
Thank God that He provided that means of forgiveness, so that we can be acquitted in spite of our lawless deeds.
Thank you very much. I had not recalled that verse because it is not usually Viewed as a prescient pronouncement of an original sin doctrine for all of mankind ( but only an indication that the speaker felt that the blind man may have somehow “ deserved” his affliction, as an individual, due to some transgression in a prior life ( a variable idea for discussion yes, but not central here). The speaker apparently subscribed to either a “ prior aeon” view ( which we Can find in a number of churches today) or possibly believed it piossible the blind man somehow sinned in the womb ( which runs counter to received judeo- Christian theology but was circulating then inI. Certain Greek schools). At any event , the statement would have made no sense in an
Original Sin doctrinal sense because then we would all be born physically blind. So I dut t think of it. But yes as you say maybe the writer was giving his personal view or twist on this line in john. Thanks!
Some one telling every one what scripture proves with out producing one line of scripture is not to be trusted.
Lots of twisting, “It’s interesting to note that Jesus knew his identity as the Son of God, yet he did not speak of himself with that terminology”
Of the multitude Son of God verses in the NT here’s two:
Mat 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.