I am considering responding with" yes, I did", but then I should also admit: "on purpose". And this brings me then to the point, of being negligent in mentioning it. And to that the answer is: "no". As the purpose was to indeed, not mention it for the following reason:
The root word in our Germanic language does not contain the moral connotation, as it simply means: offense, transgression. these were always considered from man to man.
Indeed, we are not perfect in relation to a proposed idea of what a man is supposed to be. Any behavior that can be considered as "sin" starts with the person contemplating such behavior. The transgression always starts with transgressing against one self, as expressed in the words: Sir, you forget yourself!
So, I am not saying, that your views are to be rejected. Far from it. It is a nice crutch to lean on. If that is what you need, I am fine with it. What I am saying, is that when we go to the nitty gritty of any transgression, this usually is a transgression against property rights, either of one self or oneself and the other.
There is even a biblical support for this notion. I belief it is somewhere in the 6th chapter Paul writes about transgressions against self. So, at the very least, the concept is acknowledged. And here I agree. My views however, deviate from Paul' s views as I look deeper into the nature of transgression.
In terms of positive and simple language, it is admissible that honoring our own and each other' s property rights is the basic idea. For instance: it is easy to see how stealing something is a transgression against the owner of that particular item, yet, the person stealing is still forgetting himself. I will come to that in a bit.
People who still need to learn what it means to honor their property rights and that of others means, indeed, such are in need of instruction by means of differentiation:
- Don' t do this.
- Don't do that.
- Do this. 4 Do that.
As Paul famously wrote:
when I was a child I spoke, thought and reasoned/estimated like a child, nephios or infant. The later Latin word means exactly what is conveys: someone unable to speak and act according to law. Nephios is not just a child or minor, but also unskilled and untaught, wheras the opposite: aner, the one being of dynamic energy (vril: viril) (Andros from aner-dros = adjective) is very capable of doing so.
Interesting, to read the excruciating nature of description as it is written: manhood (mannelijkheid: state (hood/heid) of being man-ly (ly = lijk= appearances, akin to). So, yes, in such a state as a babe, or child below the position of man, that where crutches are needed.
(Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament (over at biblegateway is a nice resource))
This stands in accordance with what Cicero in De Officiis wrote his own son, when the latter was studying Greek philosophy, he mentions: "a mind well-moulded by Nature"
And now I will be circling back to a point made earlier: "forgetting himself" in relation to 1 Cor 13:
I will know fully, just as I have been fully known.
And this is it, the center of it all.
I am considering responding with" yes, I did, but then I should also admit: on purpose. And this brings me then to the point, of being negligent in mentioning it. And to that the answer is: no. As the purpose was to indeed, not mention it for the following reason:
The root word in our Germanic language does not contain the moral connotation, as it simply means: offense, transgression. these were always considered from man to man.
Indeed, we are not perfect in relation to a proposed idea of what a man is supposed to be. Any behavior that can be considered as "sin" starts with the person contemplating such behavior. The transgression always starts with transgressing against one self, as expressed in the words: Sir, you forget yourself!
So, I am not saying, that your views are to be rejected. Far from it. It is a nice crutch to lean on. If that is what you need, I am fine with it. What I am saying, is that when we go to the nitty gritty of any transgression, this usually is a transgression against property rights, either of one self or oneself and the other.
There is even a biblical support for this notion. I belief it is somewhere in the 6th chapter Paul writes about transgressions against self. So, at the very least, the concept is acknowledged. And here I agree. My views however, deviate from Paul' s views as I look deeper into the nature of transgression.
In terms of positive and simple language, it is admissible that honoring our own and each other' s property rights is the basic idea. For instance: it is easy to see how stealing something is a transgression against the owner of that particular item, yet, the person stealing is still forgetting himself. I will come to that in a bit.
People who still need to learn what it means to honor their property rights and that of others means, indeed, such are in need of instruction by means of differentiation:
- Don' t do this.
- Don't do that.
- Do this. 4 Do that.
As Paul famously wrote:
when I was a child I spoke, thought and reasoned/estimated like a child, nephios or infant. The later Latin word means exactly what is conveys: someone unable to speak and act according to law. Nephios is not just a child or minor, but also unskilled and untaught, wheras the opposite: aner, the one being of dynamic energy (vril: viril) (Andros from aner-dros = adjective) is very capable of doing so.
Interesting, to read the excruciating nature of description as it is written: manhood (mannelijkheid: state (hood/heid) of being man-ly (ly = lijk= appearances, akin to). So, yes, in such a state as a babe, or child below the position of man, that where crutches are needed.
(Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament (over at biblegateway is a nice resource))
This stands in accordance with what Cicero in De Officiis wrote his own son, when the latter was studying Greek philosophy, he mentions: "a mind well-moulded by Nature"
And now I will be circling back to a point made earlier: "forgetting himself" in relation to 1 Cor 13:
I will know fully, just as I have been fully known.
And this is it, the center of it all.