The Doctrine of Christ

[Neo]

Because most people here are some flavour of Christian and historically sin has been a Christian obsession.

I much prefer the Buddhist notion of grasping or attachment to the notion of sin as a kind of abstract force or hereditary curse that we see in Christianity and Islam. To be fair, though, I find many modern Christians, at least in the liberal and progressive streams, embrace concepts of sin that kind of lean that way, too.

"Attachment", that's the hard one. Whether it be physical attachment, emotional attachment, or mental attachment, as in ideology and isms, if we identify with the actor then that is all we become. It's our choice.

 

[Mendalla]

"Attachment", that's the hard one. Whether it be physical attachment, emotional attachment, or mental attachment, as in ideology and isms, if we identify with the actor then that is all we become. It's our choice.

Of course, one could make the argument that some schools of Christianity are "attached" to the idea of sin. Which leads to the whole obsession with sin and salvation that we see in the faith.

 

[Jaebius]

Of course, one could make the argument that some schools of Christianity are "attached" to the idea of sin. Which leads to the whole obsession with sin and salvation that we see in the faith.

I focus on grace, love, and redemption.

 

[revsdd]

Sin has been a major point of discussion in this one thread on Wonder Cafe 2, and virtually all of those participating also participate in many other threads without mention of sin. Thus, I think Neo's suggestion that "everyone here" is "obsessed with sin" is just a wee bit of an exaggeration.

 

[Neo]

Actually I did mean "this" thread and not the WCafe as a whole.

 

[revsdd]

Actually I did mean "this" thread and not the WCafe as a whole.

OK. I think if the topic of discussion in a particular thread happens to be sin - which is one of probably innumerable subjects that could be discussed and therefore inevitably will be discussed at some point - then to discuss the topic at hand is not an indication of anyone being "obsessed with sin." It's an indication of paying attention to the subject at hand.

 

[Luce NDs]

If you disseminate or disassociate the letters you get (s) and (in) ... and in my Webster's is say "S" is iconic of integration and "in" is either buried or "negative connotation" ... and thus it isn't or appears that way as manifestation!

Now if Webster's is definition by convention of learned heads ... what are wee people to say to what's missing in the lower ranks ... stuff the higher ranks enjoy immensely? That's elite, know, how ... one must rise tuit ... become a floater ... just hang out in their higher void ... the elite minds? It is a Trump Card ... perfect icon of Western Ide 'L-ism ... stomp on everything ... even an ancient concept of a Cush God ... one with soft and open heart?

Tis a hard state we live in .. no ... and by who's power did this arrive to be? Gutte Lord that's Chitty ...

 

[Neo]

OK. I think if the topic of discussion in a particular thread happens to be sin - which is one of probably innumerable subjects that could be discussed and therefore inevitably will be discussed at some point - then to discuss the topic at hand is not an indication of anyone being "obsessed with sin." It's an indication of paying attention to the subject at hand.

So would you disagree if I said that more than any other religion in the world Christians seem to struggle with the concept of sin the most? There are surely those on this thread alone who speak of it very often. Imo, I personally believe they do so because they haven't accepted or understood the concepts of karma or the idea that we as personalities are direct reflections of the Soul. The Christian religion has guilted people for centuries into believing we are born sinners instead of seeing each new life as a potential conduit for the Soul. Imo.

 

[Jaebius]

So would you disagree if I said that more than any other religion in the world Christians seem to struggle with the concept of sin the most? There are surely those on this thread alone who speak of it very often. Imo, I personally believe they do so because they haven't accepted or understood the concepts of karma or the idea that we as personalities are direct reflections of the Soul. The Christian religion has guilted people for centuries into believing we are born sinners instead of seeing each new life as a potential conduit for the Soul. Imo.

If that's been the goal of we Christians (guilting people...), then we've failed - since most people don't believe that.

 

[blackbelt1961]

So would you disagree if I said that more than any other religion in the world Christians seem to struggle with the concept of sin the most?

actually everyone struggles with it Neo, Christians and non Christians , Christians see it for what it is and others just live with it , it is mans nature

There are surely those on this thread alone who speak of it very often. Imo, I personally believe they do so because they haven't accepted or understood the concepts of karma or the idea that we as personalities are direct reflections of the Soul.

well its because they dont accept your dogma to be true

The Christian religion has guilted people for centuries

you dont need a religion to have a guilty conscious

 

[Luce NDs]

"you dont need a religion to have a guilty conscious"

If a person doesn't believe in a conscious psyche ... that be a logical following soul or Shadow persona ... would the Shadow depart and leave a burning ember of what was previously fue 'd for the elusive soul ... like a candle in the wind ... or echoes in the mire. Yet if you didn't expect a response from something to released to a smoked glass .. you couldn't see anything in the Kohl Kahn ... the dark place where the cookie monster resides with lesser crumbs ... under the worldly master's table ... verily sublime ... a psychosomatic condition?

God rests ...

 

[revjohn]

I focus on grace, love, and redemption.

Amen. That is my focus also.

Of course, it goes without saying that the reason why grace, love and redemption are primary themes is because of the reality of sin and its ability to gum things up.

Eventually, in discussing grace there is a need to articulate why grace is necessary or even important. The same holds true for love and redemption. If the premise of sin (as an existing event) is rejected for whatever reason then the concept of grace, love and redemption become impotent in that they are a resolution to a problem which is not believed to exist.

In those briefest of moments when we must point back to sin it is important that we keep the message tight as to what it is and what sin's effects are.

The greatest tragedy of the Church through the ages has been the willingness of individuals to wax eloquent on sin and its effect while remaining largely silent about how amazing grace actually is.

Interestingly in a discussion about the Doctrine of Christ which would either focus on the teachings of Christ or more widely Christology as a whole there is opportunity for sin (and its treatment) to hog the limelight.

 

[airclean33]

OK. I think if the topic of discussion in a particular thread happens to be sin - which is one of probably innumerable subjects that could be discussed and therefore inevitably will be discussed at some point - then to discuss the topic at hand is not an indication of anyone being "obsessed with sin." It's an indication of paying attention to the subject at hand.

-Good morning rev-
This Thread ask--
The Doctrine of Christ--
To me is Who do They" say I Am.
I believe we have been talking about it.


Romans 3:10-12
...There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. (NIV)

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (NIV)

Rom 3:24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus

Airclean--Post--
Before Christ , we were All" in sin. After Christ we who will receive Him . Died with Him"and are made new with HIM".( Who is Jesus ?) He is the One sent from GOD , He is The Messiah , The Christ, The Savior of all, who will accept that". He also I believe , is my, LORD and GOD.

 

[revjohn]

So would you disagree if I said that more than any other religion in the world Christians seem to struggle with the concept of sin the most?

I would.

If only because Christianity, as a whole, takes sin as given.

If there is any struggle at all it is in how we define sin or even how we choose to delineate sins.

The simplest thematic approach of Christianity of Creation, Fall and Redemption ensures that sin is not the last theological word and devotes volumes of material over the ages to a good creation corrupted and in need of redemption (which is assured at some level). Loosely set into a chronological awareness Christianity thinks in terms of past (Creation), present (Fall) and future (Redemption) which is chiefly stereotypical and the fixation on the here and now as evidence of sin is hard to avoid. Read a paper, listen to the news and you cannot escape evidence of inhumanity running amok.

Christianity is not monolithic in describing how we move from the now to the then. Nor is Christianity monolithic in adhering to a chronological construction of Creation (past), Fall (present) and Redemption (future). It is hard to escape that influence but it is not all powerful.

The Christian religion has guilted people for centuries into believing we are born sinners instead of seeing each new life as a potential conduit for the Soul. Imo.

Which is, all things considered, an opinion that may or may not be shared.

Personally I'm yes and no on the issue.

I'm yes, because as I shared above there are some Christians who are very skilled at painting portraits of sinfulness and less skilled at painting portraits of redemption. Those Christians do tend to use fear to keep folk on the straight and narrow. Interestingly they don't feel that their harshness qualifies as unloving. There is probably some family systems theory that could be applied but there is very little interest in understanding why they think as they do.

Interestingly your whole notion that individuals are guilted because Christians haven't accepted the concept of karma is no less an imposition of guilt than anything you accuse others of doing. Splinter and Plank stuff though right? You've just redefined what you consider sin (not accepting the concept of karma for starters).

Even with all of that at play I lean toward no because there actually is a great deal of Christian writing devoted to the subject of Redemption. While my personal library isn't proof that there is absolutely no fixation on the subject of sin it does point to the fact that there are Christian authors who do take the time to write about things like grace, love and redemption. Even the fact that you note it is only some of the Christians here who cannot help but drag sin into conversation proves that it isn't a problem for all Christians.

 

[Waterfall]

Interestingly in a discussion about the Doctrine of Christ which would either focus on the teachings of Christ or more widely Christology as a whole there is opportunity for sin (and its treatment) to hog the limelight.

 

[Luce NDs]

It is so much phun to mutter on about the light that so many people cannot see ... tis Black ah bi ... an very subtle/supple?

Thus diversity ...

If the theologians could see it they would apply avarice and convert it ... that awesome urge to control things that were not yours to control in the first place ... thus Shivas ... that sensation down the spine?