To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 8217
8216  |  8218
Subject: 
Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:39:09 GMT
Viewed: 
592 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:

The more you describe "your morality", the more (I think) I see the
basic problem.  The Bible says that man is essentially evil and in
need of a Savior - you (I think) say man is essentially good.

<snippage for the purpose of emphasis, also because I'm coming in late, and
am (bluntly) too lazy to hunt up the argument to date and comment in a
forward-moving way>

I'm not sure about other flavours of christianity, but I know that the RC
church, at least, doesn't hold to the "man is essentially evil" view.

The RC position (IANAP) is that man *can be* evil.  Man can also be good.
Man is not inherently either, just inherently imperfect.

Man (unlike the remainder of God's creations) has free will, and for that
free will to be real (as opposed to just a perception of free will), the
options must exist independent of man's nature; ergo, man is neither good
nor evil, but has the capacity for either (or both).(1)

(I realize that's somewhat circular, but I think my premise can be infered
more easily than it can be stated catagorically.  If anyone would like a
more detailed follow through, LMK, and I'll endeavour)

James

1:That's my derivation, and not a matter of doctrine, AFAIK.



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
(...) This view is both aesthetically pleasing and consistent with much medieval doctrine. That is, man is capable of embracing salvation or damnation by his own actions. An infant starts as neither good nor evil but able to succumb to temptation (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
 
But according to others in this group, man doesn't HAVE free will - God knows everything anyone will do from cradle to grave - where is the free will in that? (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Problems with Christianity
 
(...) Interesting - I was thinking of using the same analogy. :-) Two big differences though - Murder is a crime giving death, and O.J. denied it. Christ's resurrection gives life to whomever accepts him, and not only did he "admit it" afterwards, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR