The punishments for sin aren’t always immediate or obvious, but they’re always there.
THAT SINS ARE PUNISHED ALSO BY THE EXPERIENCE OF SOMETHING PAINFUL
1 Those who sin against God are not only to be punished by their exclusion from perpetual happiness, but also by the experience of something painful. Punishment should proportionally correspond to the fault, as we said above. In the fault, however, the mind is not only turned away from the ultimate end, but is also improperly turned toward other things as ends. So, the sinner is not only to be punished by being excluded from his end, but also by feeling injury from other things.
2 Again, punishments are inflicted for faults so that men may be restrained from sins by the fear of these punishments, as we said above. But no one fears to lose what he does not desire to obtain. So, those who have their will turned away from the ultimate end do not fear to be cut off from it. Thus, they cannot be restrained from sinning simply by exclusion from the ultimate end. Therefore, another punishment must also be used for sinners, which they may fear while they are sinners.
3 Besides, if a man makes inordinate use of a means to the end, he may not only be deprived of the end, but may also incur some other injury. This is exemplified in the inordinate eating of food, which not only fails to maintain strength, but also leads to sickness. Now, the man who puts his end among created things does not use them as he should, namely, by relating them to his ultimate end. So, he should not only be punished by losing happiness, but also by experiencing some injury from them.
4 Moreover, as good things are owed to those who act rightly, so bad things are due to those who act perversely. But those who act rightly, at the end intended by them, receive perfection and joy. So, on the contrary, this punishment is due to sinners, that from those things in which they set their end they receive affliction and injury.
5 Hence, divine Scripture not only threatens sinners with exclusion from glory, but also with affliction from other things. For it is said, in Matthew (25:41): “Depart from me you cursed into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” And in the Psalm (10:7), “He shall rain snares upon sinners, fire and brimstone and storms of winds shall be the portion of their cup.”
Notes The intellectual stretches it takes to turn this into universalism are a wonder to see.
6 By this we refute the error of Al-Ghazali, who claimed that this punishment only is applied to sinners, that they are afflicted with the loss of their ultimate end.
Does he address why so many sinners seem to be *blessed* with material wealth and health? Sins being temporally punished by God is the excuse used by so many people – “You have Cancer because you must have done something to anger God”.
I imagine it’s much like the King Midas effect, or the story of the poor man who accumulated so much wealth instantaneously, all he could do was worry about it being in his possession day and night in case someone might rob him of it.
The accumulation of these things brings them no joy.
For example, like the guy working for the mob, who naturally accumulates material wealth, but is constantly paranoid about it being taken from him by other crooks on top of looking over his shoulder constantly for the police.
They get what they are seeking, but it simultaneously becomes a curse.
Hence we hear of the suicides amongst the wealthy and affluent but unhappy. Or that fact that the most wealthy and powerful men in the world never seem secure but are obsessedly always trying to accumulate more of both, because like alcoholics, the thrill for them comes not for having it, but from chasing it. Thus, this seeking of ultimate happiness in this life is never fulfillable, for only God can fill that, and thus what to people looking at form the outside seems ‘blessed’ may in fact be the complete opposite to those in there.
The world can never offer full satisfaction to anyone of any status.
As for ‘temporary punishments by God’ as an excuse, this is addressed by the example of Job, and the Cross. That the Devil, in his attempt to bring man down, by having him rebel with him and bring suffering upon himself, in the end, only further glorified man by the example of those who bearing their sufferings that had nothing to do with themselves personally, gained the reward of heroic virtue, and thus the nature of humanity was elevated, and made more beautiful by rising above their sufferings and remaining steadfast to God because of Truth and Love.
The suffering in that instance, therefore isn’t brought upon you to bring you down, but that you might step upon it and raise yourself up. And as there are punishments for sins, there are also more rewards for overcoming and surviving the fallen nature of the world.
Nate and Johnno
Jesus addressed Nate’s points in several places
The rain falls equally on the just and the unjust
Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them–do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?
What Aquinas is saying is that the greater the sin, the greater the pain — not only in the afterlife, but in the here and now as well. You all rarely sin so you might not realize that the most heinous sinners suffer enormous psychic and physical pain. The criminally insane are not happy campers. The molesters, the addicts, the enraged psychotics, those who have sold their souls to Satan, all hate their lives. Trust me on this. There is no joy in tormenting others, only agony. Turn away from grace and misery comes flooding in.
Let me rephrase. There are many (I’ll go as far as *most*) Christians today who will actively go out of their way to avoid difficult issues of ‘the rain falling on the just and unjust’, and instead imply that if you have problems – mental health, physical disease, etc. – you must have done something to deserve it. I’ve had encounters with so-called Christians who go as far as to claim that people are afflicted by God Himself due to the sins of their parents and grandparents (e.g. if your grandparent was a Jehovah’s Witness, you now have a Generational Curse given to you by God, and that’s why you are suffering)… This is of course not biblical – “The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child.”
How does one take what Aquinas has described here and use it, *at all*, in daily life, if punishment is suffering, and suffering happens to all without any sort of “fairness”. Try telling the devout parents of the 4-year old who died of brain cancer that their “Punishment should proportionally correspond to the fault”.
Aquinas seems to ignore examples like in John chapter 9:
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
Jesus then heals the man of blindness. Are we to take from this story that it was only this specific man that was blinded who was not being punished, but all others are?
My point is simply this – “the greater the sin, the greater the pain” cannot be applied to all suffering, and we are mostly ignorant of whether the source of the pain is sin or simply ‘rain falling on the just and unjust’.
I would agree with Uncle Mike and John B
However it is not true, alas, that it is only the evil ones who suffer.
If it were that clear cut, people wouldn’t be complaining.
Hence Nate’s “it’s not fair” theme. Which is something all men and women seem to say or think to themselves whilst knowing better. everybody thinks there ought to be ultimate justice. Not everybody. believes it’s true.
It isn’t just the usual suspects on the left who think life should be fair. It’s the angry right, too, as well as ordinary decent people.
John B said something about the parable of the farmer’s field on the post “an abundance of Hell”
Which speaks to that point, too.
Sin causes pain is a reworking of the notion of original sin, too.
That there is somehow and invisible entity called evil which floats ab out multiplying and infecting souls.
The evil needs a host. Just like the good.
So don’t give it house room.
Jesus said, which puzzled me at first, “do not resist evil” but it is in different translations “do not resist the evil person”. There’s some wisdom in that. Although physical resistance is sometimes necessary. Moving away from it is the first thing to do. She said…
is right, but I’ll go a stage further and say that anyone holding Aquinas teaching higher than the word of Jesus Christ WILL come up against these sorts of contradictions.
A point I made very badly a couple of years back when it suddenly dawned on me how the text is really used by so called Christians. PARTICULARLY with respect to sin and guilt and blame.
One quote from my Dad and an old school friend in conversation which I remember, they don’t.
“When it rains, it rains on everybody”. said my Dad, reassuringly,
“Yeah but money just buys you a better umbrella.”
Blaming individuals for their misfortune goes against the message in Job, too, that there is evil which is not of our own doing which can and will fall on people to suffer. Fact of life, no getting away from it.
Yeah! You’re right! (Any Aquinas apologists who want to tackle this?)
Either the post is pretty vacuous engaging in idle speculation on what comes of sin?
or are the thoughts here at best un-Biblical? or at worst un-Christian ? Rereading it
again makes me wonder if something is lost in the translation … I’m just not sure
point is … was
(By the way, I saw rainfall as a good thing…a blessing)
Joy: …anyone holding Aquinas teaching higher than the word of Jesus Christ WILL come up against these sorts of contradictions.
If I remember some debates on Reformed Theology (predestination verses free will) referenced Aquinas thoughts in line with those of Calvin
My bad … I was THINKing of Augustine and Calvinism
once you are born again you are no longer deliberate on purpose sinner, you have been saved by grace. yes people still slip up. that is where 1st John 1:9 helps but we have become new creations in the Anointing, the Christ, old things are passed away behold all things are new again. We are the righteousness of God in Christ, We are now partakers of His Divine Nature, in us He no longer imputes sin.
the people who become healthy, wealthy and wise are those who are givers and obey God’s Commandments. as stated in Deuteronomy 28:1-14. 3rd John 2, Joshua 1:8, the entire Word of God is all about His Promises for us.
People perish for lack of knowledge, they need to get into God’s Word and stay there until they realize what a loving wonderful Father we have who DOES SUPPLIES ALL OUR NEEDS in every area of life.
An old Irish saying, apparently,
“soft day, thank the lord”
or “soft day, thank God”
That’s the kind of wet rain which is just sitting in the air but not throwing it down.
I prefer throwing it down, personally. Extremes of weather but of course when you’ve got your umbrella sorted.
The kind of record rain we had here last week…stair rods.
Tomorrow we’ve got one of America’s. cast offs again. We always get your hand me down weather!
I wonder if it’s evil to like bd /extreme weather…
If I get crushed by a tree tomorrow you’ll know the answer, but the cricket was back today and he’s officially English. Just a big one.
The “carer” said, “do you want to kiss it? it could be Jimany cricket!” Unless it started talking I wasn’t going to risk it.
The Rose Beyond The Wall:
THE ROSE BEYOND THE WALL – A. L. FRINK
Near a shady wall a rose once grew,?Budded and blossomed in God’s free light,?Watered and fed by the morning dew,?Shedding its sweetness day and night.
As it grew and blossomed fair and tall,?Slowly rising to loftier height,?It came to a crevice in the wall?Through which there shone, a beam of light.
Onward it crept with added strength?With never a thought of fear or pride,?It followed the light through the crevice’s length?And unfolded itself on the other side.
The light, the dew, the broadening view?Were found the same as they were before,?And it lost itself in beauties new,?Breathing its fragrance more and more.
Shall claim of death cause us to grieve?And make our courage faint and fall??Nay! Let us faith and hope receive–?The rose still grows beyond the wall,
Scattering fragrance far and wide?Just as it did in days of yore,?Just as it did on the other side,?Just as it will forever-more.
eXcuse me: sorry.
Aquinas is primarily concerned here with tackling the claims of Al-Ghazali, that the only punishment God delivers is “exclusion from perpetual happiness”, to which Thomas says God also punishes “by the experience of something painful.” So this is primarily concerned with punishments in the afterlife after judgment (Exclusion from Heaven, and the sufferings of Hell), and not the living (Earthly happiness and suffering). So this is kind of a different topic compared to sufferings in life.
I don’t doubt that there are Christians out there who imagine that if something bad occurs to you, it might mean “you must have done something to deserve it.” This is flawed, because the Book of Job and the example of Christ’s Passion clearly refute this notion.
Generational ‘curses’ are not to be understood as some kind of ‘magic’. They exist, but in the sense of where the repercussions of a sin don’t just effect you, but ripples out and affects others for multiple generations as a cause/effect. For example, there’s the idea of ‘white privilege’ and accusations of ‘racism’ leveled at white people in general. I do believe this is grossly unfair and that this leftist movement is devoid of reason. But the fact does remain that American ancestors did own and mistreat their slaves, and the repercussions of that, regardless of how much America has changed for the better are still being felt generations later.
This is entirely Scriptural, as an example from Exodus: “You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” / and Numbers: “The LORD is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.”
So essentially a bad generation of people can screw up the lives of their children for generations to come. That’s not so odd seeing now the effects of liberalism in the West and where things stand now. These problems are accumulative. You can even see the effects of how our first parents Adam and Eve, who for their rebellions lost paradise for everyone else to come. Thus it is right to pray to God to save us from the effects of generational sins. Also, while it looks like a bad set-up, it also works in our favor, for it is not only evil that has generational consequences, but good as well. A good society passes blessings on to future generations, and likewise, just as every human being suffered due to the sin of Adam, every human being is saved through the sacrifice of the New Adam – Christ.
The fact that a 4-year-old dies of brain cancer is an effect of Adam and Eve’s sin. So we all have inherited death as a result. If that child died without proper medical care, you may see this as a consequence of the state of the nation that didn’t develop adequate healthcare because of certain choices (as an example), or because corrupt politicians and socialists ruined it, and in a chain reaction is leads to your child suffering.
That is the proper understanding of the consequences of our actions. So know that whatever decisions you are making every day, if not ordered to the good, will not just begin and end with you. The error is when Christians may fail to grasp the meaning of this idea and impute it as a direct causality of the child’s direct parents, when in fact, the child is suffering because of Adam and Eve from the 8th day onwards.
So all in all, Aquinas’ arguments here have no bearing on what you are referring to. There is no contradiction with John 9. Aquinas is discussing a specific error that after one dies and is judged by God, he is simply cut off from the eternal happiness of Heaven, but suffers nothing further.
Thanks for that.
I did notice “line 6” and probably should’ve looked into it … (but the note about universalism caught my eye at the same time
At the conclusion of Miss Marple’s Caribbean Mystery, her nephew apologized for the rain
“I missed it, you know”, she answered
“The fact that a 4-year-old dies of brain cancer is an effect of Adam and Eve’s sin. ”
No it isn’t.
The two are not connected because as aquinas says somewhere else, evil is just a lack of holiness, an absence.
Therefore it is by definition nothing and can have no operative power.
In short. It is an innocent enough looking theory until you see how people use it against others. Usually those who least NEED it, or already have faith. Those who do not are immune. That’s the irony.
Those who don’t believe also do not bare blame for brain tumours of people at any age.
Nor all the other myriad of natural evils in the world.
To try to break a faithful spirit is to do pure evil. It is achieved not only by actions but by words.
All fundamentalists need take note. Their sin is worse because they say they believe and still do it.
Errr…. yes it does… Joy…
To argue that Adam and Eve’s rebellion is not the cause of Original Sin that everyone inherits, along with the consequences for sin – suffering and death in a fallen world – is equally as stupid as claiming that Christ’s suffering and death is ‘not connected’ to our salvation.
Unless you reject Genesis and subscribe to the nonsense of Charles Darwin, it’s simple cause and effect.
Adam and Eve did not intend that a 4-year old 6000+ years later should have brain cancer. But that is the unintended consequence of their actions. Similarly we also personally may not realize how damaging our sinful actions can be to ourselves and to others, and contribute to the corporate troubles of the entire society we live in that cascades for ages to come.
This does not contradict what Aquinas said. There’s evil. There’s the direct consequence of evil to oneself and their immediate neighbours. And there’s the repercusive ripple effects of evil that extend for generations.
So evil does begin in the heart, just as it did in Eve’s where she decided for herself what looked ‘good’, disobeyed God by placing her judgement above His, and then committed to the action.
Evil may be a lack of something. But acting on evil produces long-lasting REAL WORLD consequences. So in this, Aquinas, in his placing of the origin of evil as a lack of good, only makes the individual MORE responsible, because they have made a conscious act to deprive themselves of good and then act on the potency of evil stemming that ‘nothing’ which only increases ones guilt for the consequences. Because we are knowingly willing to put aside good to commit an evil action. Because rationally nobody acts on something that philosophically doesn’t exit. They can only do so by the conscious effort of displacing and ignoring what does exist (good), so that they might do evil (from the lack of good), because nobody creates ‘nothing’, but they can choose to ignore what does exist. Usually evil is done by setting aside one aspect of ‘good’ in order to pursue another desire for ‘good,’ only illicitly, because nobody can desire what does not exist (nothing).
To be wealthy is good. To rob someone else so that you might be wealthy is wrong, because you have acted in a perverse way that has now deprived that good from another, knowing that it is a good whilst simultaneously willing to ignore that you are committing an action that simultaneously deprives someone of that good.
To have sex and have and raise children is good. To pursue sex in a perverse way for the sake of pleasure that deprives the natural procreation of children as the natural good end is bad.
A society that is based on theft of the labour of others and the pleasure of sex as an end in itself, will have long lasting consequences that will effect all the 4-years olds who are allowed to be born and who will have to suffer the consequences of the societal climate they will be raised in. The society may not have consciously intended that these children be deprived, but they will be, and it is the fault of the corporate group as a whole to suffer in this life, whereas God will judge us individually for our own personal faults after we die.
As much as that sucks, it also works in our favour –
“And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:11-21)
Contrary to your apparent assumption I haven’t just come to this debate recently. I’ve been a Christian all my life. Just not as trusting as I used to be, that certain types have it all figured out. They do not. They have to answer to God along with everybody else.
Many Christians do not believe in original sin in the Augustinian sense. Which is the sense you’re talking about.
I didn’t think it mattered and so wouldn’t have cared but now I understand why it really does matter and there’s not a lot you or I can do about that.
In my view it is arrogant to work out the mechanisms of spirit and claim it as definitive without reference to real world human experience. It doesn’t make sense when applied to the real world. You can leave Darwin in or out as you please. You brought him up.
Like I said, I’ll respond just for the record in a while when I can do so without revealing what is sacred to me for miscreants and so called Christians to trample on.
Some people are very poor judges. That’s all, it appears to have no bearing directly on intellect or should I say intellect is not sufficient beyond a very low level to be a good judge in spiritual matters.
actually there are a lot other factors involved instead rather then as well. a child might inherit the sins of the father IF we were able to trace the exact actions and feelings of the ancestors between the child directly back to Adam and Eve. BUT if just even one of them in that long line were to have and most likely were born again as a Spirit filled Christian then that curse was broken and the DNA cleansed by the Blood of the Lamb. seeing as there are definite millions of such born again ancestors between then and now the curse has definitely BEEN broken long since.
The factors since then for cancer causes are now due to other reasons also, like environment and chemicals and now most definitely processed foods. was the family smokers? did they live in contaminated areas. with new technology came new ways to screw with our foods and household products. the sin now per se is in the minds of those who have deliberately created poisoned products to harm millions for their own agenda. and people are suffering needlessly for that. Many are going back to organic herbal living and chemical free environments
STILL the promises of Healing and Protection from God’s Word take precedence over everything for those who know how to Stand on His Word and rebuke the cancer and all other forms of dis-ease like “By His stripes we ARE Healed in the Name of Jesus” ta da
Thanks all for the spirited conversation around this. I’ll add the following things:
– Generational Curses are bollocks. Ezekiel chapter 18 directly contradicts Exodus, and also directly foreshadows the advent of Christ.
“The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own.” …
“Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord God. Turn, then, and live.”
To claim a ‘Generational Curse’ is the same thing as ‘You will suffer because of things your parents did’ is confusing two very separate things. One is the state of the world as a result of previous generations’ choices. The other is God actively, temporally, *punishing* children for the sins of the parents. I’m not many folks have actually met the Generational Curse people. They handed me a document 40 pages long of a set of specific prayers that they claimed will ‘fix’ the curse brought upon my family. In that document, ‘attending a Roman Mass’ was one of the specific Generational Sins they had decided God might be punishing our family for.
– All of the excuses given for the suffering and early death of a child are just that, excuses, to rationalize suffering. The only thing I can find any solace in is seeing God as a God of Love, but not necessarily total power. ‘Making Omlettes without Breaking Eggs… etc’.
Bruce Charlton has a good post on suffering here:
Bruce has a good comment on that post: “In a sense, Christians have only themselves to blame for making ‘omnipotence’ such a central, indeed credal, requirement of being some types of Christian. And refusing to give it up despite the wreckage and havoc that the concept has caused. All too many self-identified Christians evidently prefer, in practice, a God of total power to a God of total love – this, I believe, is the historical challenge to Christians of the other great monotheism.”
Nate … seriously? … God not omnipotent? What exactly does that look like?
Haven’t you listened to the great Prophet/Theologian Huey Lewis? The Power of Love?
If God is All Loving then he IS All Powerful … All Powerful? then All Loving
Yes, if ‘omnipotence’ is CENTRAL (read ONLY) attribute of your God, you’ve got a problem
If we as humans look at all of the attributes of God, we see dilemmas and dichotomies.
We see the tension. I don’t believe God is tense
My ways are not Bruce Charlton’s ways … my thoughts are not Bruce Charlton thoughts (hint: not mine either)
Just as the heavens are higher than the earth, my thoughts and my ways are higher than yours
“If we as humans look at all of the attributes of God, we see dilemmas and dichotomies.”
there is none of that IN God whatsoever. that is screwed thinking not seeing not hearing who our Father God really is. His attributes are all about goodness and kindness and mercy to those that obey and seek HIM above all else. our personal intimate loving Abba Father.
People bring the rest upon themselves thru their own selfish disobedience. the curses come upon them by their own free will choices and actions. Deuteronmy 28:15 on.
Choose US this day whom we will serve. WE choose life or death with each decision we make so we better choose wisely.
L Ron – Yes, but they’re also not Thomas Aquinas’.
“All too many self-identified Christians evidently prefer, in practice, a God of total power to a God of total love”
and the rest of that sentence ought to be “to those who obey Him HE is our Father Abba Daddy God who is all that.”
That is the key word I have learned from God. Obedience to HIM. but we are not self identified. We are now GOD identified after. He being the soul root and purpose of our lives now. In HIM we live and move and have our being. Our blessings are stated in the first part of Deuteronomy 28:1-14. We don’t serve because of the Blessings. We because He is all love and giving to us 24/7 Our wonderful endearing delightful precious Father who fully cares and provides for us in every which what there is. Our hope in time of trouble, our refuse and deliverer.
the problem is when people do not get who He is and wants to be to we His peoples. when they have to flawed idea that He came to steal kill destroy and teach any lessons thru tragedy and suffering at all. that is what the devil does NOT God.
And fear brings problems down on ourselves as well. There is no fear when in God. only LOVE POWER AND A SOUND MIND. WE are in perfect PEACE whose minds are stayed upon HIM.
Sheila … The question was about what you say to someone obeying and seeking Him AND has a dying child?
The point was made that God can not be BOTH All Loving AND All Powerful
I simply said people have a problem with that, to those people that’s a dichotomy
I also said God does NOT have that problem (it is NOT a dichotomy not a dilemma)
Back to curses again, the man born blind did what to be ‘cursed’?
The dying child did what? My response was to Nate, you can also respond, but please verify the context of what Nate said with what I said
Nate … Aquinas’ thoughts, IF higher than ours, might be higher by a gnat’s wing compared to God
Not to say it’s not fruitful to see what he or anyone has to say about it all
It is because of the arguments interpreted by poor and selfish spiritual thinkers, that such a dichotomy seems so self evidently contradictory regarding the entire subject of the existence of God.
There is no love or truth without freedom to choose it.
Thee is a clockwork mechanical situation.
Why isn’t that obvious to every body? Why do people think they need aquinas to help them?
I’m not to sycophantically reverend about him since it’s playing into he lies and the years of misapprehension about Christianity, along with other sac red cows.
Thomas Aquinas would not be, in a modern setting on the side of those arguing for a vengeful God.
Thomas appeared to be trying to take the emotion out of the thing for clarity. Some think it never existed in the first place.
In the end ALL you’ve got is your own experience. That’s what you drive with, that’s what you leave with.
No use telling g lies about it to impress the crowd.
“That’s what you arrive with, that’s what you leave with”
Dumb predictive text.
“there is a clockwork situation”. too.
Mourning Turned to Joy
“But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD. I will put My law in their minds and inscribe it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people.
“No longer will each man teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquities and will remember their sins no more.”
The Jeremiah quote is very much appreciated and right on cue, thank you John B
Johnno, I said I would answer soft what it’s worth:
“To argue that Adam and Eve’s rebellion is not the cause of Original Sin that everyone inherits, along with the consequences for sin – suffering and death in a fallen world – is equally as stupid as claiming that Christ’s suffering and death is ‘not connected’ to our salvation.”
First, I don’t think I said what you thought I did about ‘original sin’.
“To argue that Adam and Eve’s rebellion is not the cause of Original Sin that everyone inherits, along with the consequences for sin – suffering and death in a fallen world – is ….stupid.”
The first part is not what I claimed at all so maybe read again. You are arguing for the description of what is believed by some to have happened as opposed to how it actually works or is supposed to, in reality. Those aren’t the same at all.
I believe the ‘learned’ words are the difference between epistemology and the other one…Ontology.
Of COURSE original sin in the Augustinian sense is [A] given explanation for some, or all sorts of evil including natural evil, such as medical malformation and hereditary diseases. That is still at the claim level though without anything about the argument which makes sense, or is consistent with what Jesus Christ said to the parents of the blind man. It’s also not consistent with truth in the sense we now understand causes of pathology.
“it’s stupid” isn’t an argument, is it?
I think it’s stupid to claim that brain tumours are Adam and Eve’s fault. That’s not an argument either just a statement of value.
1 That man is capable of evil is not in question, just as man has a capacity for good. The story of the garden of Eden is not necessary for that to be so.
2 Good and Evil acts beget acts in kind very often. That I also not questioned or denied. One way might be to follow an evil act with a good one, or not to act with retaliation.
3 Someone had to be first since nobody claims that Adam or Eve were any worse than any other person? or at least I didn’t think they did.
4 Do you believe in natural evil? Volcanoes? Tsunami’s being caused by Adam and Eve as well? That causes suffering and pain.
5. Suffering is a necessary part of life from the first time a baby learns to avoid pain. Earthworms do it, birds do it, bees do it. The will to survive is reliant on recognition of pain and the appropriate response to it. I believe those lessons are learned by babies at a very young age, potentially things can go wrong very early on…that’s my conjecture.
The story is an example and a lesson. That’s how I view the chapter. I know John Lennox actually believes that they existed. I don’t think it matters since there’s not likely to be any proof. If it turns out they actually did exist… the first two… I still don’t believe in original sin as it is said to operate.
It is the covering up of sin which causes suffering in people’s lives that can be avoided. Sin can be avoided just as pain can be. What is needed is understanding and knowledge of consequences.
Not all suffering can be avoided and not all suffering is the fault of someone else.