ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 19:32:31 GMT 10
illustrations of law and grace:
It is the story of the young Indian lad who had never been off the Navajo reservation until Dr. Ironside brought him to Oakland. He had been a Christian only about two years. When he came to Oakland, he was taken into a group of Christian young people one Sunday night when they were discussing law and grace. He listened to them as they argued back and forth about the various aspects, and then the leader called on him to say a few words. He said something like this:
"Me been listening to you talk about law and grace, and the longer me listen, the more me think you don't know what law or grace is."
He said,
"Let me tell you what I think: When Mr. Ironside ask me to go to Oakland with him, we get on a big train down in reservation. I never been on a train before, and we ride and ride and ride all day long, and, finally, we come to Barstow out in desert."
And he said,
"Me very tired so me get off train to walk platform and stretch legs. While me walk around platform, me see sign that say, 'Do Not Spit Here.' Me look at sign, and me think, 'what strange sign white man put up -- Do Not Spit Here.'"
And then he said,
"While me look at sign, before I know what happen, me spit! I look all around platform and I see many people spit here. I think to myself, 'How Strange.' Sign say, 'Do Not Spit Here' but many people spit, and I spit."
And then he said,
"We got on train again and come long way, up to Oakland, and some friends meet us at train, and take us to beautiful home. I never been in such home. Mr. Ironside take me in and show me soft chair and excuse himself for awhile, and I left alone in room. I look around and everything is so nice -- soft, thick rug on floor, beautiful walls painted lovely color, pictures hanging on walls -- everything so nice. I walk around room and I think to myself about something, and I look all around room and all over the wall, and I try to find sign that say 'Do Not Spit Here,' but I cannot find sign. I think to myself, 'Too bad all this lovely room going to be ruined by people spitting on floor.' Then I look around on floor, and see nobody been spitting there -- and then it come to me: When the law say, 'Do Not Spit Here' it makes me want to spit, and I spit, and many people spit. But when I come into grace, and everything lovely and nice, I don't want to spit, and I do not need law to say, 'Do Not Spit Here.'"
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 20:06:32 GMT 10
quote hotty:
Moral Law “after the fall” never exist yet “liban na lang nung binigay kay Moses ang 10 commandments of GOD. “ What made Cain or Abel think that they are wrong? What made Cain and Abel think that they are right? May Karunungan na ang tao ng MABUTI AT MASAMA…God said to Cain at genesis 4: 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door: and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
ruth:
good question...ano nga ba Kuya B and linsi??
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
Post by ruth on Jun 5, 2006 20:13:14 GMT 10
nung pinatay nga naman ni Cain si Abel...wala pa namang law na Thou shall not kill? pero bakit naoofend si God nung pinatay ni Cain si Abel?
does eating the forbidden fruit really have shown them that killing is evil? and loving your brother is good?
if they already know what is good and evil...why did they still choose evil? why did Cain killed his brother?
when Abraham sired Ishmael to Sarah, di he really intended to sin?
sa tingin ko hindi,,,akala nya He is just fulfilling God's promise to him that he would give him a son...
but due to his sinful nature...pinangunahan nya ang Dyos at inanakan si Sarah...
pero at that time, wala pa naman law na Thou Shall not commit adultery...so di natin masasabi that Abraham committed adultery, which is a SIN by 10 commandments standard..
but by God's standards at that time, Abraham offended God...at ito po ay dahil na rin sa nature ni Abraham
he intended to please God, to love God, to obey God...but due to his flesh, his sinful nature..kabaliktaran ang nangyari...
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 6, 2006 16:41:57 GMT 10
Yours 1: what is the difference between a sinner and intrinsically evil? wala po ako sinabi na Man is intrinsically evil ang sabi ko Man is a sinner by nature...
Yours 2: Free will as the name suggests is without limitation, He gave us a choice to be good as He intended us to be or but we choose to be a sinner (which He did not intended to us to become)... Hi Ruth,
I have a tough schedule also...
1. When we say man is a sinner by nature it means that the being and essence of man is evil. This is the same as saying man is intrinsically evil or was created evil.
But it is different when we say that man is a slave to sin meaning man which is by nature good is weak and often tempted to sin.
2. When we I said that free will is limited, it means that Free Will is not absolute. Proof of this is even man under his "free will" is still under the Law.
For example Man could not will himself to fly - man can will all he wants but he could not fly. Another example, Man can will to commit murder - but man still has to answer under God's Law. This is what I meant why free will is limited or not absolute.
We have to realize that there is a purpose why free will was created and granted to Man. The main purpose is for man to use this free will to do good in order to serve and love God. Abuse is not an excercise of authority but rather the illuse of responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 7, 2006 7:54:15 GMT 10
From ruth
quote hotty:
Moral Law “after the fall” never exist yet “liban na lang nung binigay kay Moses ang 10 commandments of GOD. “
korek po
What made Cain or Abel think that they are wrong? What made Cain and Abel think that they are right?
first of all cain never cared, remember genesis 4:8 Now cain said to his brother abel "let's go out to the field", and while they were in the field, cain attacked his brother and killed him.
9 then the Lord said to cain, where is your brother abel? "i don't know he replied", " am i my brother's keeper?
10 then the Lord said "what have you done! listen your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground
11 now you are under a curse and driven from the ground which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
12 when you work the ground, it will no longer yield it's crops for you. You will be a relentless wanderer on earth.
ruth:
good question...ano nga ba Kuya B and linsi??
take note po
kahit wala pa ang 10 commandments nung panahon ni abel at cain, meron nang dumadaloy na sumpa.. verse 11 of genesis 4 posted above reminded cain of the curse. therefore sin and the curse existed..and the penalty for sin is DEATH, may death na ang tao..
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 7, 2006 7:55:09 GMT 10
from hotty which she quoted
What made Cain and Abel think that they are right? May Karunungan na ang tao ng MABUTI AT MASAMA…God said to Cain at genesis 4: 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door: and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
KUNG SUSUNDAN PO NATIN FROM VERSES 2,3 AND 4 yung verse 7 ang sagot ng Lord kay Cain dahil yung offerings ni abel ay mas kalugud lugod sa Lord, the Lord took cabel's offering with favor, so cain was very angry and his face downcasted. kaya tinanong siya ng Lord, yung if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
at ang opposite ay sin..."if thou does not well".. kaya ang imminent po nun ay sin and the curses.. wala pa po yung moral law but God in his knowing all things have executed justice. Paki check po ang verses 2,3,4,5,6 and 7.
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 7, 2006 7:56:37 GMT 10
From ruth
nung pinatay nga naman ni Cain si Abel...wala pa namang law na Thou shall not kill? pero bakit naoofend si God nung pinatay ni Cain si Abel?
The death of abel was a concern for God,eversince before the fall there was no aggressions, everything was in harmony, life was breathed to man, but after the fall that precious life given to man was suddenly aborted by the first murderer cain. ang sabi ng Lord kay cain, your brother's blood cries out to me..because through the ages God cares for those who suffer because of their commitment to righteousness. their sufferings is known to God and one day He will act on their behalf to render justice and destroy all evil. Hebrews 12:24
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jun 7, 2006 7:58:11 GMT 10
from ruth does eating the forbidden fruit really have shown them that killing is evil? and loving your brother is good? if they already know what is good and evil...why did they still choose evil? why did Cain killed his brother?
wheew! balik sa forbidden fruit and that would entail us into the doctrine of sin ruth, when they ate it, their eyes were opened to what is good and evil. Doctrine of sin po ito..
After the fall man's nature was corrupted, the once holy nature of adam due to his personal sin led to his fall and therefore from that time on man was inclined to sin.
From the verses above one can now know why cain murdered abel.
Doctrine of sin po ito ah..
|
|
|
Post by bangzhik101 on Jun 7, 2006 12:09:00 GMT 10
Hi Ruth,
My opinion. The "Curse" (sumpa) is a penalty or form of punishment given to man because of sin. The "curse" is not a moral arbiter or a means to define good or evil but a result when man committed a moral act (in this case sin during the fall).
I have explained that what was defined as the "curse" is actually an absence of sanctifying grace. The absence of sanctifying grace is the same as the state of sin. I do not see any explanation how the absence of sin would be able to help man distinguish between good and evil as was the case of Cain and Abel.
The only means to explain the case of Cain and Abel is that Law existed before them. In this case Natural Law wherein man through intellect (right reason, conscience, etc.) was able to discern right from wrong. I considered there is moral law then under the technical definition that God has defined what is wrong and what is right even at that time.
|
|
|
Post by hottyfecehh on Jun 7, 2006 14:04:05 GMT 10
Hi Ruth, My opinion. The "Curse" (sumpa) is a penalty or form of punishment given to man because of sin. The "curse" is not a moral arbiter or a means to define good or evil but a result when man committed a moral act (in this case sin during the fall). I have explained that what was defined as the "curse" is actually an absence of sanctifying grace. The absence of sanctifying grace is the same as the state of sin. I do not see any explanation how the absence of sin would be able to help man distinguish between good and evil as was the case of Cain and Abel. The only means to explain the case of Cain and Abel is that Law existed before them. In this case Natural Law wherein man through intellect (right reason, conscience, etc.) was able to discern right from wrong. I considered there is moral law then under the technical definition that God has defined what is wrong and what is right even at that time.Why then nung moses time nagbigay pa ng 10 commandments kung may technical definition defined na si LORD about right and wrong? isn't that enough yung right and wrong technical definition na yun para gumawa pa sya uli ng 10 commandments kuyang?
|
|
|
Post by linsi on Jul 5, 2006 2:28:56 GMT 10
From kuya banshik The only means to explain the case of Cain and Abel is that Law existed before them. In this case Natural Law wherein man through intellect (right reason, conscience, etc.) was able to discern right from wrong.
parang hindi po ito natural law...
|
|
|
Post by Always on Aug 5, 2006 12:24:03 GMT 10
Why then nung moses time nagbigay pa ng 10 commandments kung may technical definition defined na si LORD about right and wrong? isn't that enough yung right and wrong technical definition na yun para gumawa pa sya uli ng 10 commandments kuyang? [/quote] Ang moralidad ay hindi binigay ng Diyos para malito lamang ang tao kundi ang mga ito ay pinaalam sa tao para malaman na ang Diyos ay Holy and He can not tolerate evil or moral indifference na tinatawag natin na kasalanan. Therefore, if you want to please the Creator, one must act in accordance with His moral order para hindi tayo mawalay sa Kanya.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Aug 31, 2006 0:30:36 GMT 10
Ang moralidad ay hindi binigay ng Diyos para malito lamang ang tao kundi ang mga ito ay pinaalam sa tao para malaman na ang Diyos ay Holy and He can not tolerate evil or moral indifference na tinatawag natin na kasalanan. Therefore, if you want to please the Creator, one must act in accordance with His moral order para hindi tayo mawalay sa Kanya.
[/quote]
but all fall short of the glory of God therefore nobody has acted completely in accordance with God's moral law, shall we all perish because of this?
|
|
migy
Moderator
moderator in his designated rooms
Posts: 2,544
|
Post by migy on Sept 7, 2006 0:50:26 GMT 10
Hindi talaga ako makasabay nataon pang may ubo sige tuloy lang magandang topic ito.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Sept 20, 2006 23:31:41 GMT 10
Shall we all perish because we all fall short of the glory of God? If not how?
|
|
|
Post by Always on Sept 23, 2006 22:02:11 GMT 10
but all fall short of the glory of God therefore nobody has acted completely in accordance with God's moral law, shall we all perish because of this? God's moral law is a representation of absolute; and one must be perfect in order to follow them in perfection, but we are not. Are we gonna perish because of moral indifference? Of course not, but Christians must always be responsible on how to close the gap of such indifference by way of moral guidelines. Does one have to pray for his or her sin everytime one is made or does he or she have to be nice or good the next time around? [/size][/color]
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Sept 25, 2006 2:28:25 GMT 10
God's moral law is a representation of absolute; and one must be perfect in order to follow them in perfection, but we are not. Are we gonna perish because of moral indifference? Of course not, but Christians must always be responsible on how to close the gap of such indifference by way of moral guidelines. Does one have to pray for his or her sin everytime one is made or does he or she have to be nice or good the next time around? [/size][/color][/quote] If we donot perish because of moral indifference then how could one look up to the moral laws and be indifferent and not perish at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by Always on Sept 25, 2006 12:55:24 GMT 10
God's moral law is a representation of absolute; and one must be perfect in order to follow them in perfection, but we are not. Are we gonna perish because of moral indifference? Of course not, but Christians must always be responsible on how to close the gap of such indifference by way of moral guidelines. Does one have to pray for his or her sin everytime one is made or does he or she have to be nice or good the next time around? [/size][/color][/quote] If we donot perish because of moral indifference then how could one look up to the moral laws and be indifferent and not perish at the same time?
[/quote] We only look up to it as a guide just like walking through a 2 kilometer straight line and yet you can not walk straight all the way and you may have some lapses following suit. Perfection in essence as if you are doing what Jesus had told you so. Wouldl you kill someone if the Decalogue told you otherwise? There are other instances that you may do so as in self defense Will you perish? In wicked ways - yes
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Sept 26, 2006 3:33:33 GMT 10
We only look up to it as a guide just like walking through a 2 kilometer straight line and yet you can not walk straight all the way and you may have some lapses following suit. Perfection in essence as if you are doing what Jesus had told you so. Wouldl you kill someone if the Decalogue told you otherwise? There are other instances that you may do so as in self defense Will you perish? In wicked ways - yes
Looking up to it only as a guide does not fulfill what you said above “if you want to please the Creator, one must act in accordance with His moral order para hindi tayo mawalay sa Kanya, your premise declares a strict measure in order not to perish therefore it does not only signify as a guide but a compulsary framework in order not to perish.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Sept 26, 2006 3:36:34 GMT 10
God's moral law is a representation of absolute; and one must be perfect in order to follow them in perfection, but we are not. Are we gonna perish because of moral indifference? Of course not, but Christians must always be responsible on how to close the gap of such indifference by way of moral guidelines. Does one have to pray for his or her sin everytime one is made or does he or she have to be nice or good the next time around? [/size][/color][/quote] it seems quite contradictory when man could be indifferent and at the same time close the gap of such indifference
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Sept 26, 2006 3:38:59 GMT 10
God's moral law is a representation of absolute; and one must be perfect in order to follow them in perfection, but we are not. Are we gonna perish because of moral indifference? Of course not, but Christians must always be responsible on how to close the gap of such indifference by way of moral guidelines. Does one have to pray for his or her sin everytime one is made or does he or she have to be nice or good the next time around? [/size][/color][/quote] Therefore how can we follow God’s moral law which represents the absolute when we are not perfect?
|
|
|
Post by Always on Sept 26, 2006 8:19:06 GMT 10
Therefore how can we follow God’s moral law which represents the absolute when we are not perfect?
This is like saying that how can a student follow a teacher, who represents education when the student himself is not a teacher
|
|
|
Post by Always on Sept 26, 2006 8:27:05 GMT 10
God's moral law is a representation of absolute; and one must be perfect in order to follow them in perfection, but we are not. Are we gonna perish because of moral indifference? Of course not, but Christians must always be responsible on how to close the gap of such indifference by way of moral guidelines. Does one have to pray for his or her sin everytime one is made or does he or she have to be nice or good the next time around? [/size][/color][/quote] it seems quite contradictory when man could be indifferent and at the same time close the gap of such indifference
[/quote]
Indifference in the sense of sinning. If you have done something wrong to your brother, would you not be nicer to him the next time around in order to close that gap between you and him?
|
|
|
Post by Always on Sept 26, 2006 8:50:12 GMT 10
We only look up to it as a guide just like walking through a 2 kilometer straight line and yet you can not walk straight all the way and you may have some lapses following suit. Perfection in essence as if you are doing what Jesus had told you so. Wouldl you kill someone if the Decalogue told you otherwise? There are other instances that you may do so as in self defense Will you perish? In wicked ways - yes
Looking up to it only as a guide does not fulfill what you said above “if you want to please the Creator, one must act in accordance with His moral order para hindi tayo mawalay sa Kanya, your premise declares a strict measure in order not to perish therefore it does not only signify as a guide but a compulsary framework in order not to perish.
Moral laws don't describe what is; but, they prescribe what ought to be. They are not simply a description of the way how we behave, and are not known by observing what we do. If they were, your idea of morality would surely be different. Instead, moral laws tell us what we ought to do. That is why I asked you; "Would you kill someone if the Decalogue told you otherwise?".
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Sept 27, 2006 5:17:17 GMT 10
Why did it take sometime for God's moral law to be in effect? Studying the sequence of the origin of moral laws, this came to be after man committed atrocities with one another.Therefore moral law must derive its descriptions by way of observing human actions against each other.
Man adapts to what has been taught beginning from his cradle.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Sept 27, 2006 5:28:27 GMT 10
Therefore how can we follow God’s moral law which represents the absolute when we are not perfect?
This is like saying that how can a student follow a teacher, who represents education when the student himself is not a teacher
Exactly,but the end result is the teacher's reponsibility on how students could pass.How could God's moral law give a passing grade to a student who always fail?
|
|
|
Post by Always on Sept 27, 2006 9:44:57 GMT 10
Why did it take sometime for God's moral law to be in effect? Studying the sequence of the origin of moral laws, this came to be after man committed atrocities with one another.Therefore moral law must derive its descriptions by way of observing human actions against each other.
Man adapts to what has been taught beginning from his cradle.
Adapting from cradle is one's way of refusing to give credence to the religious doctrine of original sin, most recognize the folly of untempered optimism with regard to mankind. Let me ask you something as I aksed the other handle here: What is your earliest childhood memory?
As I see it, by rejecting any kind of purpose behind the existence of moral laws based from an absolute code of ethics, one necessarily finds himself rejecting any code that may exist outside of man. If they are all in sequence as you say, then all ethcis are relative to man's interpretation of them in any given situation. Your accepted morality is what Mason Olds describes as having a no single ethical theory. in the end however, the biggest problem with your ethical relativism is still basically anything can be construed as good or bad under the assumption that it is all relative to the situation in which man finds himself. Even if individuals are striving to do the right thing, they may honestly disagree about what is the right thing, since there is no absolute standard.
Do you think stupidity is just as great a sin as selfishness?
|
|
|
Post by Always on Sept 27, 2006 10:04:04 GMT 10
This is like saying that how can a student follow a teacher, who represents education when the student himself is not a teacher
Exactly,but the end result is the teacher's reponsibility on how students could pass.How could God's moral law give a passing grade to a student who always fail?
Not really Because it is mainly the responsibility of the student on how to pass his class basing from the guidelines handed to him by his teacher--take Romans 3:23 on that. In reality, of course, is that we "all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God." This is a unique aspect of the Christian Ethical System. In the Law of God, we find a law which smashes our self-righteousness
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Sept 28, 2006 1:20:56 GMT 10
Did "God" intend man to fail? When talking about” falling short” He knows man will fail. Again, you said, “moral code’ as a guide to close the gap,but in reality man cannot do that.There is an implication of putting the burden on "failures" which is unjustifiable.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Sept 28, 2006 2:19:18 GMT 10
Adapting from cradle is one's way of refusing to give credence to the religious doctrine of original sin, most recognize the folly of untempered optimism with regard to mankind. Let me ask you something as I aksed the other handle here: What is your earliest childhood memory?
As I see it, by rejecting any kind of purpose behind the existence of moral laws based from an absolute code of ethics, one necessarily finds himself rejecting any code that may exist outside of man. If they are all in sequence as you say, then all ethcis are relative to man's interpretation of them in any given situation. Your accepted morality is what Mason Olds describes as having a no single ethical theory. in the end however, the biggest problem with your ethical relativism is still basically anything can be construed as good or bad under the assumption that it is all relative to the situation in which man finds himself. Even if individuals are striving to do the right thing, they may honestly disagree about what is the right thing, since there is no absolute standard.
Do you think stupidity is just as great a sin as selfishness?
We cannot deny the fact that our beliefs are patterned from the cradle. man has the will to decide later wether he accepts other philosophies or not.
Talking about earliest childhood memory can be identified to repressed memories when one cannot express it in clear details.
I am interested in studying and learning but not overlooking reasons or logic.
Again if we agree that the source of our discussion is theism based on the “bible” you may find that moral law simply was not in effect in the beginning.
|
|