Christianity, really?

Sure.
(Proverbs 22:15) . . .Foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; . . .
(Genesis 8:21) . . .the inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up;. . .
(Genesis 6:5) . . .that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time.

 

None of these points to inherent badness or foolishness.
Point 1... tied up with the heart of a boy, not born into an infant.
Point 2... from youth up, not infancy.
Point 3... was abundant in the earth, not inherent of man.

Unless we become as these we shall not enter. Does this mean we must become like inherently sinful children before we can enter?

 

CHRISTIANITY:

If adam eats from a tree that god put in the garden, it messes things up for all of man kind for THOUSANDS of years.

um, god, why would you put the tree within walking distance? i mean, you had the whole earth!

if god created everything, god created satan, and he knew satan would convince eve and he let it happen.

how about the fact that a snake convinced eve. lol cmon.

olderwaterbro if this makes sense in your head, your crazier than the people in the psychedelic forum!

 

If God had put the tree say on the other side of the Earth they wouldn't know which one it was and even if God gave them a way to know which one it was Adam and Eve would live forever and eventually they would find the tree and be with in walking distance. So the same situation would occur eventually and they would still have to decide for themselves whether to eat from the tree or not.

Yes God originally created everything but also gave some of his creations free will, which means they had the possibility of making wrong decisions as well as right ones, so even though God created the being that chose to be Satan that being was not Satan when he was created.

The snake, according to the Bible, did not convince Eve but deceived her. And if you are saying that a snake could not do it, a snake didn't do it. Satan used the snake to do it, much like a ventriloquist uses a dummy.

So, what you said does not make sense to me, because what you said has little or no resemblance to what the Bible actually says.

 

No need to become inherently sinful, because we already are including children. Jesus was saying we should become like children in being humble and teachable.

Care to try your hand at some more scriptures?
(Psalm 51:5) Look! With error I was brought forth with birth pains, And in sin my mother conceived me.
(1 John 1:8-2:1) (Romans 5:12) (Proverbs 20:9)

 

This seems to affirm the very statement I made that you suggested contradicts the Bible.

She was not convinced, not convicted by God but deceived in sin. Because we are deceived in sin we know not what we do. Because we are deceived in sin, we do not know what we are looking at when we look upon the world. We do not witness the world as God created it, nor do we know ourselves as God knows us, nor have we seen our brother as God created him.

 

To be teachable is to be trusting and children are Holy So.
Humility, as well as pride are members of the same vain club.
A child of God cannot be other than God created him but a child of God can be deceived in sin, in error.

Deceived in sin, I see myself born of man.

And it is in error that my mother beget me. Call no man your father. Who is my mother?

Saying we have no sin is not the same as saying we are not inherently sinful.

A child is not a man, and again does not make a case for inherent sin.

Again does not champion Inherent sinfulness.

 

Waterbrother what about matt. 18.10

Seriously, matt. 18.5-6

 

In Herod's time they were all sinners. They understood that the community was organized to an easy following by Legal obedience; they also were bribing officials and the Clever enough as opposed to the vulgar and angry, could follow the Law according the material explanations that even Greed could not make sense to; so, was it such a sin to frown on the institutions and review matter to it's natural detail for the welfare of the tax collector and the soothsayer.

 

What about them? At least the scriptures I mentioned talk about the subject under discussion; whereas I see no discussion of sin, inherited or not, in these scriptures.

 

matt. 18.5-6 whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin..
I tell you children are innocent and you are saying they are guilty. Which statement causes these to sin, supports sin, hangs the judgment of sin around their necks.
18.10 See that you do not despise one of these little ones..... their angels, (their minds), always behold the face of my father.

 

A person who is a sinner can sin again, so the statement in Matt 18:5-6 is not saying the "little ones" are sinless but is only saying do not cause them to sin.

Why do children die if they are sinless? (Romans 5:12; Romans 6:23)

Once again, you can say what you want, but the Bible indicates that every one is guilty of sin and thus you are in disagreement with the Bible.

Also where do you get the idea that their Angels are their minds? I'd like to see the scriptures that back that up?

 

You left out the part why.

Why does any physical body die?

Jesus then is guilty of sin.

I don't hear the bible disagreeing with me I hear you disagreeing with me.

Sight is a sense and it is sensory perception, qualities of mind. Let the mind be in you that is in Christ.

 

"Once again, you can say what you want, but the Bible indicates that every one is guilty of sin."

Did I understand that right? Did you say 'everyone'? Of causing Sin, OR of the consequences of sin? Thank God for the mind aptitude separate of the corporeal aptitude. But the consequences of Sin are greater than both of these. (??)

I must be in threat of understanding that Climate Change is going to devour us all, because it is for a leap of Faith the next stage of Evolution.

In practice there is no need to resort to evolution for a theory of major consent for the cooperation of mankind towards the dealing upon the physical breakdown of the planet. Is the next stage of Evolution impractical, OR is it just not a believable Sin for mankind's innocent, naively trusting, non-naively guilty of the distinguished Theory and Practice: we cannot agree tp disagree. the disagreement is cast from the Past Age of Enlightenment.

____________________________________________________________

Man's Purpose is dual: irreconcilable between man and Nature; between what we merely Observe for theory and cooperate to Practice.

God's purpose has NOW deceived us for Sinners, the sinners they are not.

 

Really, what scripture did you have in mind?

For humans, it's sin.

Okay you caught me, everyone is guilty of sin but Jesus who did not have a man but God as a father. Sorry, I thought that was understood.

How can you hear me and not the Bible when it speaks to you?

Yeah, this really proves that mind and angels are the same thing.

 

The one you are quoting from.

I understand we are to call no man our father and I'm sorry that you don't understand much.

I can hear both loud and clear.

Thank you.

 

Olderwater, this is kind of off topic, but what is john 1:1-18 talking about if Jesus isn't a form of god?

 

It's your thread so if you want to detour a bit I guess it's okay.

This isn't Sanctuary so I'll try to keep Scripture quoting to a minimum.

First, John 1:1 has been argued ad nauseam and so let's say that it could read that the word was God or the word was a god or divine. So what does John 1:2-18 say about the word that can help us to understand John 1:1.

Now verse 2 right away seems to indicate that the word was with God so that seems to say that there were two separate entities.

but verse 3 says All things came into existence through the word which gives the impression once again that the word could be God.

Let's skip down to verse 14 where it says the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father. I would say that this is saying that Jesus was the first of God's creations, which would agree with Colossians 1:14-16 where it says Jesus was the firstborn of all creation and says that by means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth; which would also explain John 1:2. So what we seem to be seeing is that Jesus or the Word was the first of God's creations and then God used the Word or Jesus to make every thing else.

Then verse 18 says; No man has seen God at any time but people have seen Jesus, which seems contradictory if Jesus was God.

So to me, these verses seem to be saying that Jesus is God's Son, not God and that Jesus was the first of God's creations and thus Jesus was with God from the beginning and that God used Jesus to make everything else.

 

Would you at least agree that Jesus is "the word"

 

Light was the first of God's creations. Jesus the light of the world, or Christ the true awareness or anointed authority.