Sentences with phrase «on human sin»

Sometimes, there has been such heavy emphasis on human sin and wrongdoing that it has produced too negative a view of human life.

It is to the credit of the social gospel movement in American liberal Christianity that the need of changing social structures has been persistently stressed, and however far it may be necessary to go beyond it to a deeper emphasis on human sin, this must never be lost sight of.

The Cross» where the incarnate Word takes on human sin in its depth and purifies it» is about overcoming and even sanctifying death.

Modern American evangelicalism emerged in the late 19th century, built around biblical literalism and an emphasis on human sin and redemption.

Not exact matches

Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe that God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins.

First, he would have to have existed, then be reborn as a human, then killed as a human to pay some ransom price he set on our heads for the sin of eating his fruit from the tree he happened to plant right next to the hungry humans he just made.

if the first pair would nothave sinned they would still be here and all human kind would know is the ways of almighty God and existing on a paradise earth — wich still is comming.the reason he didn't destroy Satan immediately is because he posed a Question as to almighty Gods right to sovereignty..

This was premised on the notion that standards of morality are objective and unchanging (therefore, «hate the sin»), but that human beings are weak and often fail to live up to those standards (therefore, «love the sinner»).

In sharp contrast to feeling better, we are forced to confront the reality that sin has infected everyone and everything on this planet and that if anything is true of the human condition, it's that it is not something that should make us «feel better.»

On Overcoming the Sin of Human Respect through the Fear of the Lord, Archdiocese of Washington Blog (Msgr. Charles Pope)

What, that god sent himself in human form to earth to live and die, so that he could live again and then rejoin himself in heaven, so that the creations, who apparently have original sin because a talking snake convinced a rib lady to eat an apple thousands of years ago, could choose to believe in Zombie Jesus and if they did they would go to heaven but if they didn't believe in Zombie Jesus they would fry in Hell forever, regardless of how good a life they lived on Earth?

This is great, but if you really want to see what what God's love looks like, look to Jesus dying on a cross for the sins of the world, including the sins of those who are whipping his back and legs until his skin is gone and then laying that back on a rough and splintery wooden cross to crucify him, and continuing the torture until he's unrecognizable as a human being.

The Catholic tradition — even the wise Pope Benedict — still seems to put too much stress upon caritas, virtue, justice, and good intentions, and not nearly enough on methods for defeating human sin in all its devious and persistent forms.

Most Western Christians, especially fundamentalists, define what it means to be human by the Original Sin, not the Original Blessing — which is not only unbiblical, but puts the emphasis on the human rather than Divine action.

Generally, they include the following in their gospel definition: - human sinfulness - the deity of Jesus - the death of Jesus on the cross for our sins - the resurrection of Jesus - the necessity of faith in Jesus to receive eternal life

And as Cheever's confession to Hersey makes clear, the real stress lies more on the human choice between darkness and light than on the sovereignty of God's grace — the divine goodness which must redeem not only our grosser sins but our noblest aspirations as well.

Similarly, the doctrine of Original Sin being passed on by physical generation, hence that we are all descended from the first humans who fell from grace, is indeed defined de Fide.

On question: if sin was not imputed to people living during the time from Adam to Moses, why did God destroy the entire human race by a flood in Noah's day?

Despite all this the fact remains that our stock was damaged at the beginning of human history by a real sin, and the effects of this sin are passed on to us all.

Indeed, Greenberg rejects Christianity's emphasis on the radicality of human sin.

In a somewhat different vein, Tracy and Lash, while agreeing that the anthropic principle is untenable in science, find a certain kind of anthropocentrism appropriate in theology: (1) human beings are both products of and interpreters of the evolutionary process; (2) human beings are responsible for much of our world's ills: «if we are the «center» of anything, we are the center of «sin,» of the self - assertive disruption and unraveling of the process of things, at least on our small planet» (Tracy and Lash, 280).

Building on but moving beyond psychological understandings of guilt, and excavating the reality of wrong «being that underlies our wrong» doing, Pieper brings the wisdom tradition of Plato, Augustine, and Aquinas into conversation with moderns, both Christian and anti-Christian, who try to make sense of sin and evil in the human condition.

i think refusing to see another human as an equal is a sin, refusing to acknowledge that children are small versions of adults and have a lot of insight on things is a sin... but loving another of the same gender isn't a sin, it's love.

The result of that decision has been explained by St. Thomas as a collective sin of «the whole human race in Adam, as one body of one man» (De Malo 4,1), following on St Paul's teaching that in Adam all die (1 Cor.

When talking about the identity of Jesus as God (before sin and the Cross) it is important to have a much bigger emphasis on the fact of the true human nature of Christ.

Another way to say it would be to observe that my story testifies to the truth of the position the Christian church has held with almost total unanimity throughout the centuries — namely, that homosexuality was not God's original creative intention for humanity, that it is, on the contrary, a tragic sign of human nature and relationships being fractured by sin, and therefore that homosexual practice goes against God's express will for all human beings, especially those who trust in Christ.»

Both in the secular world and in the church, our characteristic approach to human frailty is not chastisement and dire threats, but understanding; not calling people to repent their sins, but teaching people the gentle arts of self - acceptance; not an ethic of cross-bearing, but an ethic based on the value of self - actualization.

The crucifying impact of sin on the whole human race will inevitably have a devastating impact upon the sacred humanity of Christ precisely because he is - by right, vocation and very ontology - ourfinal and plenary union with God.

Redemption from sin and undoing the effects of the fall are only possible for man because human identity already «hinges» on Christ through the flesh.

Even though the two scholars represent opposite ends of the evangelical spectrum on salvation, both made essentially the same allegation: the wording seems, at best, theologically careless and, at worst, represents a heretical understanding of sin, human nature, and the human will.

This amounts to sin by imitation and does not accept that sin can be passed on, nor face up to the problem of the genesis of sin or the question of human responsibility.

Oh, the Calvinists could make perfect sense of it all with a wave of a hand and a swift, confident explanation about how Zarmina had been born in sin and likely predestined to spend eternity in hell to the glory of an angry God (they called her a «vessel of destruction»); about how I should just be thankful to be spared the same fate since it's what I deserve anyway; about how the Asian tsunami was just another one of God's temper tantrums sent to remind us all of His rage at our sin; about how I need not worry because «there is not one maverick molecule in the universe» so every hurricane, every earthquake, every war, every execution, every transaction in the slave trade, every rape of a child is part of God's sovereign plan, even God's idea; about how my objections to this paradigm represented unrepentant pride and a capitulation to humanism that placed too much inherent value on my fellow human beings; about how my intuitive sense of love and morality and right and wrong is so corrupted by my sin nature I can not trust it.

I'll focus on your problem with the word evil (as for the eastern stuff, I'm aware that try see it as a sickness, but there is also an acknowledgement of human sin and evil.

Also, we normally focus on the eternal penalties of sin, because they are the most important, but Scripture indicates temporal penalties are real and go back to the first sin humans committed: «To the woman he said, «I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children (Gen. 3:16).

SEAN do you know death came into the world because of one mans sin (ADAM) SEAN thats why JESUS had to come to earth in human form and die on the cross for our sin so that we could be reconciled back to GOD.

He rooted this realism in the writings of St. Augustine on the observable presence of sin wherever men live and act — even in the courts of law, even in marriage, to name two of the better human institutions.

The proliferation of religion or religious denomination is brought about the discontent on all religion or religious denimination because it is being run by humans capable of sins.

Resistance to religion is based on an ineluctable fact of human psychology to which he returns again and again: No one sins without making some excuse to himself for sinning.

The theories of the Atonement so far mentioned are all sometimes called «objective», which is to say that Jesus» death on the cross made an objective factual difference to sin and to human beings» relationship to God.

God doesn't create us in sin; He creates us in the curse, that is, frail and human and (in Pauline terms) «of the flesh» (cf. Rom 7 - 8) but we then act on this frailty and break God's holy law, which, once again, renders us sinful.

If you hold that no human death came before sinfulness, then it depends on what you call human (there is a gradation of forms leading up to the modern human skeleton in the fossil record, as well as the overwhelming genetic evidence that we arose through an evolutionary process) and what you consider sin (i.e. when did we become accountable to God for our actions?).

On the other side, the summoned «believe in some form of original sin or the impossibility of human perfection, and therefore tend to be skeptical of the empirical attainability of any final solution to the deepest human problems» (p. 153).

What Jesus experienced on the cross was the punishment for the sins of more than 100 billion humans.

Because humans are flawed, some more than others, depending on what has been learned and experienced though out life; also the kinds of sin and wounds we have been exposed to, which determine gateways that give access for evil to dwell in us.

By observing of the world stage on God's timeline, with all the man's advancements in tech and science, yet such corruption of human character, it only points to the fact that the time for the «man of sin» is at hand and his army is being prepared, for time of his arrival.

The experienced fact of human sinfulness and the promise of salvation through the unmerited forgiveness of sin have placed much emphasis on divine judgment in traditional Christian thinking.

It was only when He took our sin upon Himself on the cross, it was only when the crushing despair of being separated from God came upon Him, that He finally felt what we humans have lived with since we were born.

It would be unnecessary to labor this point except that sin is often conceived too narrowly either as something to be settled with God only, or on the other hand as merely calling for reform in human relations.

On page 15 of «The Interpreters Bible», Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the «truth» of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person - hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as «the Christ» in human history.

It seems the most likely scenario is that he married his sister or less likely his niece.The reasoning is that Adam and Eve lived alot longer and continued to have sons and daughters GEN5: 4 aCTS 17:26 Paul tells us that the God who made the world hath made of one blood all nations of man to dwell on all the face of the earth.Cain did nt marry to another tribe or nation as every man and women was a relative and of the same bloodline of Adam and Eve.The importance of this is that sin entered through one man Adam and is past through the bloodline so redemption is only possible through the same bloodline.So for the formula to work the human genome had to stay the same no other tribes or nations just the descendents of Adam and Eve.It also solves another riddle in that satan at various times prior to the flood and after the flood tried to contaminate the bloodline by his angels having sexual relations with the women this created a type of alien in essence and would have not been able to have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus as it wasnt fully human.This is where the giants came from and why God wanted to destroy them as they had the potential to destroy the human race as they couldnt be redeemed by the blood of Jesus.Interesting?