Subject:
|
Essential nature of mankind
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:58:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3486 times
|
| |
|
|
> Jeremy: "How could something inherently evil have good in it?
> Dave: "...couldn't something inherently (ie: predisposed to) evil still
make the moral choice not to commit evil?
> Jeremy: "...is a thing evil by nature or by action?... Are only a few of
us going to successfully fight our nature and become good?...what would be
the point of creating a people who are inherently evil?"
Here's what I believe, in light of the Bible. God did not create man
inherently evil. Rather, He created the first man, Adam, perfect, but He
also gave him the ability to make a moral choice. Adam then chose to sin,
and from then on, mankind has had a disposition to sin. However, man has
not lost his ability to make a moral choice. Since we can make moral
choices, we can choose to do good now and then even though our disposition
is evil. What we can't do is make our disposition totally good, like the
way God originally created man. It is because man hasn't lost his ability
to make moral choices that we are accountable to God for our actions. God
also requires that we have a perfect nature, but as I have already said, we
can't change our nature!
But God knows that we can't change our nature, so He lovingly stepped in to
do what we couldn't do. He did this through Jesus (who is God), who had no
sinful nature. Jesus died, paying the penalty for sin, and rose again,
proving His deity and the completeness of His work, so that we could be
perfect in His sight. However, everyone is not made automatically perfect
because God still leaves each individual with the moral choice to accept His
gift.
--Ryan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| (...) That's...interesting. If I were busted for aggrivated attempted shoplifting and reckless driving, would my children be responsible for my actions? Would my great-great-grandchildren, then, have the task for paying my debt to society? Or is (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| The question of whether man is inherently good or evil is a loaded question becuase the concept of good and evil is purely subjective. For instance, one culture may view cannibalism as evil, but for the cannibals it's just part of their cultural (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
| (...) Hmmm. Good point. Which raises the question: is a thing evil by nature or by action? If someone were evil by actions, then I could see the possibility of good. If someone were evil by nature, then that person has a heckuva lot of work to do to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
137 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
|
|
|
|
