Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ] |
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve -- Paul Angle, 02:01:41 02/12/02 Tue
Dear J,
I was being rather humorus in my legal assumptions of the matter. But since you wish to argue points and doctrine: The problem with your summation is that it is the Christian doctrine and claim of things has absolutely no foundation in Judaism or any other text other than its own. The doctrine of 'original sin' is a gentile Christian invention, the idea the messiah would come and disregard the Law and die for everyone's sin is also a gentile Christian invention, the entire notion the messiah as some supernatural 'as god' deity is also patently Christian. No where along any lines of Judaic teaching past or present do these ideas present themselves yet Christian's claim Jesus is the Jewish messiah, the Jews do not and for two important reasons. Jesus met and fulfilled none of the Jewish prophecies of the messiah, not one!! There is a substancial list of them used by the Jews to create the messiah ideal and have been believed and used by them since before the alleged time of Jesus. The second reason is that claiming Jesus divine or as god is a complete blasphemy to Judaic teaching and thought, it is impossible for them to remain Jews and believe in the Jesus story, it violates the very law which makes the Jews sacred to God and their covenant with him. The main tenant of Judaism is monotheism, the Torah and Prophets speak over and over of the single essence of God, 'there is none but God', 'no one beside him', 'God is alone', the messiah was just a man, a warrior, liberator promised by the prophets who despite numerous claimants never manifested in history because all of them failed to fulfill the prophecies.
Christian's have made every attempt to insist thousands of prophecies exist in the Bible pertaining to Jesus but they fail simple elementary analysis of what a prophecy is. It is the prophets and their text which created the messiah idea, not the Torah or the Psalms. The Christian's claim all the Jewish prophecies they ignore are future happenings, two problems here, these are the signs of the messiah believed by the Jews even before the time of Jesus, and the 'end of days' or 'last days' are to occur when the messiah appears. The messiah was never to come and die and, rise from the dead, appear again, and float into heaven to reappear again for a third time thousands of years later. You may try in vain to find this in any Jewish text from any source, it is a Christian invention. Christian's have attempted to use extreme tenses of metaphors to claim a passage is a prophecy concerning Jesus, as in Moses striking a rock in the desert as God commanded for water for the people and presto its about Jesus; that simply is not a prophecy, it is a bad use of metaphor.
Another claim Christian's claim is the concept of an eternal hell of punishment, this also has never been a Judaic teaching. The further problems you have is that the NT texts contradict each other on every single event, they do not tell the same story. From the geneologies offered for Jesus, to the false claim of his virgin birth, to the events in his life and his death no two accounts cooroborate, yet we are told all these things come from 'eyewitness' accounts. Jesus does not appear in historic texts as he should despite the incredible amount of editing and destruction of texts performed by the early church. Christian's are faced with emmense problems concerning their faith, no other text cooroborates their texts and their belief is the antithesis of Judaic teaching.
You state many things concerning the nature and 'plan for the Ages' of God, but no such plan exists except within the imagination of those who make that assumption. It is a claim of the Christian faith and the Christian faith alone, nothing else aligns with it yet it still claims Jewish origins. The Bible has spawned three major religions, each of them being irreconcilable with each other in their claims. It has become the grandiose assumption of all time to insist that 'God' must be aligned to this book and texts. The Bible is an ambiguous contradiction from end to end it makes no correlating, cooroborative sense. Hence, the uncountable versions and sects of Christianity throughout the world and the infinite number afforded on a personal level.
Paul
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve -- Paul Angle (Biblical passages concerning 'Orginal Sin'), 02:10:16 02/12/02 Tue
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." -Romans 3:23. "As it is written, there is none righteous, no not one." -Romans 3:10 "For there is no man that sinneth not." -1 Kings 8:46 and 2 Chron. 6:36. "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." -Mark 10:18. "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." -Eccl. 7:23
"Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." -Genesis 6:9. "And the Lord said unto Noah, 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me...." -Job 1:8 "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job, and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil." -Job1:1 "..Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and upright man..." -Job 1:8 "...there was a priest named Zacharias,...he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." -Luke 1:5-6
"For as in Adam all die" -1 Cor. 15:22. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..." -Romans 5:19. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." -Romans 5:12
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers." - Deut. 24:16. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." -Ezek. 18:20. "O ye house of israel, I will judge you every one after his ways." -Ezek. 33:20
[This is most enlightening, we can see this directly refutes the main believed tenant of Christianity in that all have sinned. This notion is often convoluted with the idea that it is the Law which makes all sinners from birth and that Jesus has undone this.]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve -- Rev Gadfly, 07:59:22 02/12/02 Tue
RevG
Joyce's position is rooted in several fallacies:
1) that "sin" actually exists.
2) that "sin" entered the world with Adam.
3) that "eternal life" actually exists.
4) that "eternal life" entered the world with Christ.
First of all, Sin and Eternal Life are anything but self-evident; as such, evidence is needed to prove that they have any foundation in reality.
Second, "Adam" is merely the Hebrew word for "man".
Third, the Adam and Eve story is a moral parable, not a historical event. One need only read Genesis to see the mythology behind it, including the idea that God needed to rest.
Fourth, "Christ" is the Gk form of the Hebrew word "Messiah"; which simply means "anointed". There were plenty of Christs/Messiahs in the Bible, including Cyrus of Persia. The name Jesus is simply a version of the name Joshua; so anyone named Joshua [or a version of that name] who was anointed, is a Jesus Christ. For example, Josephus in the Jewish War writes about a priest named Jesus; as such, that priest WAS also a Jesus Christ.
And Fifth, it wasn't with Adam, but with Eve that "sin" entered the world in the Christian myth. Joyce should read Paul, who openly accuses women of bringing "sin" into the world. So since Eve was the creator of the 'original sin' which Adam shared in; the mythology that Jesus replaces Adam is fundamentally flawed in this regard. The myth would have to be that Jesus replaces Eve.
peace
Rev Gadfly
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve -- Josh Misener, 12:36:01 02/26/02 Tue
First I would like to say that My intentions are not to attack your beliefs, but simply to have intelligent debate, and maybe have some of my own questions answered.
One thing that I see you repeating is the existence of certain things like original sin, eternal life, and even God. And that these things have no place in reality because of lack of evidence. But, if I could, I would like to turn the tables a little bit. Now I saw a quote in one of the pamphlets, and I can't remember who said it or what exactly it said, but it said something to the effect of, "Its sad that people need to believe in something that can't be proven". Now that was horribly butchered, but was the main "jist" of it. But my question to you is, what can be proven? Thanks to Descartes first meditation we can hardly even prove our own existence in this so-called "reality". So anything you believe from that point on takes some extent of faith, the very thing being ridiculed much throughout these pamphlets and discussions. The point at which we branch is that you choose to place your faith in human rationlality, and I choose to place my faith in something that I believe to be greater. Not that I don't believe, in some small extent, in human rationality, but I do believe it to be flawed, being subject to evironmental cause and effect.
Well, there is a lot more a want to write about this subject, but I would first like to hear your reply on these matters. Have a great day!
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve -- Rook Hawkins, 13:45:23 02/26/02 Tue
Josh: First I would like to say that My intentions are not to attack your beliefs, but simply to have intelligent debate, and maybe have some of my own questions answered.
Rook: Well, certainly your response to BE would be more then welcome. Fire away.
Josh: One thing that I see you repeating is the existence of certain things like original sin, eternal life, and even God. And that these things have no place in reality because of lack of evidence.
Rook: This is a problem? How are we incorrect?
Josh: But, if I could, I would like to turn the tables a little bit. Now I saw a quote in one of the pamphlets, and I can't remember who said it or what exactly it said, but it said something to the effect of, "Its sad that people need to believe in something that can't be proven". Now that was horribly butchered, but was the main "jist" of it.
Rook: First rule of BE Club: Quote things verbatim and if you can't, you can claim it as your personal opinion, but since the errancy of the Bible has nothing to do with personal opinion, it's better if you just let it go. But honestly, I don't think that is anywhere close to what the quote was. A lot of people believe in things that aren't proven. Gravity is a prime example. The original statement probably went closer to this: "It's sad that people believe things with no supporting evidence." Which would make more sense. And is 100% true.
Josh: But my question to you is, what can be proven?
Rook: Now you're being preposterous. If nothing could be proven, we'd be to afraid to get out of bed in the morning, we'd still be over in Europe because to us the world would still be flat. We'd never fly because we'd never understand the laws of aerodynamics. We'd never have even left the shores, because we would never know if things could float. Unless you're going to suggest that some mystical being is holding our ships and planes up?
Josh: Thanks to Descartes first meditation we can hardly even prove our own existence in this so-called "reality".
Rook: LOL. First of all, Descartes was not a physicist, a neurologist, nor a scientist. He was a philosopher. I could say that the earth is actually a square. That doesn't make it true. We are proven to be here. Perception and reality are two different things. Don't confuse the two and don't make such absurd statements.
Josh: So anything you believe from that point on takes some extent of faith, the very thing being ridiculed much throughout these pamphlets and discussions.
Rook: Faith is different then belief. Just as fact is different then opinion. Faith is a certain type of belief which requires no evidence. On the hand of belief, we all believe in ourselves or we also would never get out of bed. As for science, no faith is required. It is all facts and hard evidence. Try as you might, you can never argue against that rationally.
Josh: The point at which we branch is that you choose to place your faith in human rationality, and I choose to place my faith in something that I believe to be greater.
Rook: To an extent I can live with this statement. Except faith is not required at all in my case. You go on blind faith, where I go on evidence, facts, and the scientific theories that have evidence backing them. You have none of what I have. Faith to me is as ridiculous as prayer. It accomplishes nothing and proves less.
Josh: Not that I don't believe, in some small extent, in human rationality, but I do believe it to be flawed, being subject to evironmental cause and effect.
Rook: Here we go with your flawed opinions again. First of all, we are not here to discuss your philosophy. We are here to discuss Biblical Errancy. If you don't want to challenge us, then don't come into this forum. Further, OPINION is NOT fact. OPINION is not reality. Perception is different then reality.
Josh: Well, there is a lot more a want to write about this subject, but I would first like to hear your reply on these matters. Have a great day!
Rook: Now let's get back to the topic at hand. The Bible.
Rook
P.S. -- Josh, it'd be nice if you proofread your posts before you put them out.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve -- Josh Misener, 13:23:12 02/27/02 Wed
First I would like to quote what I failed to quote previously. "There is something feeble and contemptible about a person who cannot face life without the help of comfortable myths and cherished illusions." - Bertrand Russell. My point before was that regardless of what most people believe, it cannot be PROVEN that reality actually exists the way we percieve it. It can be assumed, and probably accurately assumed at that, but not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. So going through life without even questioning and acknowledging these things is just as "feeble and contemptible" as the Christian who goes to church his/her whole life without questioning the reality of what s/he does. So faith plays an important role as a foundation in each of our lives, whether it's in a personal god, impersonal god, or human rationality. Now as to whether or not I chose to be a Christian, of course, as a hard determinist I would say, "No, my environmental influences preconditioned me to make these decisions." Now that doesn't mean that I haven't doubted and questioned every point of my faith, but I would also say that you haven't really chosen either. Both of us have questioned our faith and come to different conclusions, and that's fine, it happens.
Now I would like to ask a question about original sin (finally, right:)). I don't know what kind of jewish people you have talked to, but the jews in Bible times were very factually based people. Now why would a group like this dedicate entire books and other portions of books to tracing their lineage to an allegory? It seems to me that these people wouldn't even waste their time if the story of Adam and Eve was allegory. Also isn't it very possible that the types of Jews that you have talked to have different beliefs than those of the first generation of Jews, because it is also my understanding that Jewish culture drastically changed due to the formation of different groups such as Pharisee's and Saduccee's.
Josh
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The nature of original sin, the Jewish ideal -- Paul Angle, 01:44:02 02/28/02 Thu
Josh I think I understand what you saying here. But there is also some confusion on the Jewish perspective. This has prompted me to dig into it a little more. For now I will give what I have and understand at this point concerning the Jewish teachings of original sin, I will return with more later.
The Christian's have created the claim and assumption that all men have sinned and we must be redeemed by a savior from this sin by excepting the notion that Jesus is the son of God and by that we are saved.
Problems here are many fold concerning the Jews. They do not have the notion all are born into sin by Adam and they have no notion that the messiah is a divine as god being who is mans salvation. This idea of the messiah is completely foriegn to them and amounts to blasphemy for them to believe such a thing.
This is the Christian text:
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." -Romans 3:23. "As it is written, there is none righteous, no not one." -Romans 3:10 "For there is no man that sinneth not." -1 Kings 8:46 and 2 Chron. 6:36. "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." -Mark 10:18. "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." -Eccl. 7:23
The Jewish:
"Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." -Genesis 6:9. "And the Lord said unto Noah, 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me...." -Job 1:8 "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job, and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil." -Job1:1 "..Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and upright man..." -Job 1:8 "...there was a priest named Zacharias,...he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." -Luke 1:5-6
Christian again:
"For as in Adam all die" -1 Cor. 15:22. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..." -Romans 5:19. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." -Romans 5:12
The main thrust of Judaism:
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers." - Deut. 24:16. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." -Ezek. 18:20. "O ye house of israel, I will judge you every one after his ways." -Ezek. 33:20
[This is most enlightening, we can see this directly refutes the main believed tenant of Christianity in that all have sinned. This notion is often convoluted with the idea that it is the Law which makes all sinners from birth and that Jesus has undone this.]
I will return with another post of what exactly the Adam and Eve story means to the Hebrew/Jews in their perspective and teaching.
PA
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: original sin, the Jewish ideal, follow up -- Paul Angle, 02:43:06 02/28/02 Thu
After pouring through numerous web searches looking for Jewish information, it seems one must buy a book, to get the real analysis in depth. From all I can gather on the subject of Adam and Eve:
-this story is indeed taken as allegory by the Jewish teaching. More accounts and versions of the garden story appear in the "Pseudepigrapha" a collection of historical biblical works that are considered to be fiction. Because of that stigma, these books were not included in the compilation of the Holy Bible by the Christain sources. This book is a written history of what happened in the days of Adam and Eve after they were cast out of the garden. The obvious notion its all a fiction comes to light in these texts, in one account Eve creates Adam from mud.
According to Jewish tradition, the sin of Adam and Eve was not sex. It was disobedience of God’s word. "Once they gained knowledge, Adam and Eve lost their innocence. Yet, they gained something else: the ability to achieve holiness." (Rabbi Michael Gold - 1992)
Adam's acceptance of Eve's offer is in Jewish teaching, what brought freewill and choice into the world, it did not instill the notion of the damnation of sin to every living human, it brought the notion of death, and mans choice of freewill. His ability to atone to God through his choice of righteous behavior. The Christian's magnified this view by creating the notion that the fall meant all had sinned since before birth and all were damned, that their only salvation was through Jesus. This is not how the Jews see it. A man is judged by his own actions and decisions, by his own sin and righteousness. Only God can forgive sin, only God gives salavation and atonement. The Christian's had to build the precept of Jesus by using the Jewish scriptures to support their claims, they used the Garden story but cut the Pseudepigrapha texts which it came from that showed it was an allegory teaching. Much in the same way the Christian writers ignored the specific Jewish prophecies and direct teachings concerning the messiah because they went against the Christian story of Jesus. Jesus did not meet the signs and prophecies of the Jewish messiah, not one. The notion that the messiah was a divine immortal, as god, or god, does not appear in Jewish teaching because this is a direct blasphemy to the Torah law. Judaism like Islam, is strickly and totally monotheistic there are no sons, or relatives of god, no other gods, no other like him, this is the teaching and thrust of both Judaism and Islam.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The nature of original sin, the Jewish ideal -- matthew Davidson, 20:33:48 09/08/02 Sun
I think you need to re-examine the passages in the Old testament concerning the perfect nature of Job and some others. It is true that Job was a highly moral and spiritual man, but to say that he never sinned is to assume a lot. I think you will find that words like perfect and upright and so on are A. archaic King James words and not literal and B. Not absolute even if they are the actual words they appear to be. By the letter of the Jewish law and ordinances, if a person offended even in one point, he/she was guilty of all. This means if I steal a penny, I am a murderer and an adulterer and a blasphemer because I have fallen short of the perfect and absolute holy nature of God. God is holy and perfect, therefore He can not allow even the smallest sin to enter heaven, that is why mankind needs a redeemer. The redeemer must be God because God says He will not share His glory with another and because only a perfect sinless being would be sufficient to "heal us by His stripes." Also remember, the Messiah will be someone who is the Everlasting Father, or God (in Isaiah), and the modern Jewish belief that the mesiah is somehow Israel is inplausable, since the Messiah is someone who Isaih says will be punnished for the sins of "my people", and Israel was Isaiah's people, so Israel is not the messiah.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve -- Rev Gadfly, 12:51:46 02/28/02 Thu
RevG
Hello Josh, I am quoting your points here and replying accoringly:
Josh
"Now I would like to ask a question about original sin (finally, right:)). I don't know what kind of jewish people you have talked to, but the jews in Bible times were very factually based people."
RevG
They were also an extremely supstitious people who amazing accomplished nothing compared to the Egyptians, Romans, Babylonians, Greeks; it is like they were a bunch of underachievers who compensated with fantasies of their importance. The Jews I spoke to were practicing Jews of the reform viewpoint.
Josh
"Now why would a group like this dedicate entire books and other portions of books to tracing their lineage to an allegory?
RevG
This is not uncommon in the ancient world; every people had fictional family trees, some were desended from gods, others from monsters. The Greeks had an extensive library of similar stories.
Josh
" It seems to me that these people wouldn't even
waste their time if the story of Adam and Eve was allegory."
RevG
Judaism teaches through allegory; it is a fundamental tool of the rabbi. Also, Adam means 'man' in Hebrew, and Eve means 'life'. The allegory is that man abandoned YHWH in pursuit of his own life. You are assuming that allegory is useless, in reality, it is the basis of many of the stories of many religions; only Christians and Muslims are simple minded about these stories, for both reject the rational for the irrational. Even the Church father Eusebius admits as much:
From his Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31, we get:
"'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' ... "You would
find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew
scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or
falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach."
Although I hold Eusebius in contempt, he is proving that even as early as the 4th century, Christians recognized that allegory was at work in these stories.
Josh
"Also isn't it very possible that the types of Jews that you have talked to have different beliefs than those of the first generation of Jews,"
RevG
The Jews as a people developed over centuries, for more information, read "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts."
Josh
"because it is also my understanding that Jewish
culture drastically changed due to the formation of different groups such as Pharisee's and Saduccee's."
RevG
Not really, Jewish culture was constantly in a state of flux, afterall, they were influenced by the peoples around them. I strongly suspect that the character of Samson was simply the Jewish version of Heracles: they suffer from the same vices. Today, there is no Jewish culture as such, but there are many Jewish cultures linked by a common religion; not unlike the idea of Christian culture.
peace
Rev Gadfly
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve -- Rev Gadfly, 09:16:07 02/27/02 Wed
J.M.
"First I would like to say that My intentions are not to attack your beliefs, but simply to have intelligent debate, and maybe have some of my own questions answered."
RevG
I always enjoy intelligent debate; and since my 'beliefs' are for the most part not public knowledge, it would be very difficult for anyone to attack them. But for the sake of being clear, I am a Deist, not an Atheist. As a Deist, I follow the call of Thomas Paine made long ago:
"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible." -- Thomas Paine
J.M.
"One thing that I see you repeating is the existence of certain things like original sin, eternal life, and even God. And that these things have no place in reality because of lack of evidence."
RevG
I reject the first two as unfounded priestly assertions; but have no problem with the idea of an impersonal, detached, god-concept. IMHO, we just don't know enough about reality to dismiss an impersonal god; a personal god can be dismissed because his supposed 'revelations' just don't add up.
I will reserve comment on the quoted material. Please quote it correctly and in full.
J.M.
"Thanks to Descartes first meditation we can hardly even
prove our own existence in this so-called "reality". So anything you believe from that point on takes some extent of faith, the very thing being ridiculed much throughout these pamphlets and discussions."
RevG
There is a very great difference between my existence in reality and the existence of a personal god; the former can experience reality to some degree and be experienced by others; the latter is not experienced in any way or form, he is based on the idea that some Jewish and Greek myths have a basis in reality. For example, if the Bible was only found tomorrow in the sands of Egypt, no one would take the stories within as 'real'.
J.M.
"The point at which we branch is that you choose to place your faith in human rationlality, and I choose to
place my faith in something that I believe to be greater. Not that I don't believe, in some small extent, in human rationality, but I do believe it to be flawed, being subject to evironmental cause and effect."
RevG
Here is the key. Choice. Did you CHOOSE, or was the choice to be a Christian made by your parents, family, community? As such, you are merely the product of an indoctrination process. I was once a victim of the same process, but fortunately, woke up. I will leave you for now with a quote by Voltaire:
"We hold the Jews in horror, and we insist that all which has been written by them, and collected by us, bears the stamp of Divinity. There never was so palpable a contradiction."
peace
Rev Gadfly
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve -- ALAN, 03:47:34 02/13/02 Wed
RevG wrote: First of all, Sin and Eternal Life are anything but self-evident; as such, evidence is needed to prove that they have any foundation in reality.
ALAN: I too would like to see some evidence.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: The nature of original sin....souls, ghosts, eternal life -- Paul Angle, 04:15:08 02/13/02 Wed
I strongly suspect the creation of the idea of a soul or spirit came about from the phenomonon many have seen which we call 'ghosts', or 'shades'. Likewise this phenomonon became an immortal idea because it seemed to be timeless. When we also began to see apparitions of 'ghost ships', 'ghost buildings and places' and 'ghost airplanes' being seen by hundreds we must give up the notion these things are 'disembodied spirits', they are obviously something else, what they exactly are we do not know. As with many things we can through negation surmise what something is NOT even though we may not know what it exactly IS.
The idea of souls, ghosts, and spirits, has existed within humanities cultures for as long as religions have existed. Eternal life, it would seem, defies the very nature of the universe itself, even stars die, what form of energy can sustain itself indefinitely? Even if God existed as a consciousness or energy form it must still be able to take in energy rather than only expend it, other wise the laws and function of the universe are compromised and that indicates supernatural effect, something which enters the realm of belief rather than reality. Still to this day we cannot give the slightest reality to any of it through our vast medical and scientific knowledge, not the slightest notion of a soul can be pointed to. No invisable realms of existence, no parallel realities for all these souls, gods, devils, heavens and hells to exist in. If anything, quantum physics has shown when you go small enough matter ceases to exist and there is nothing here. 'God' remains illusive, or perhaps in our preconcieved notions of 'God' we simply have not been looking for the right thing??? Western religions based in Biblical thought insist on 'God' being a deity, what if the concept is more transcendent and is not deity (all Eastern philosophies, Brahman, Atman, Tao, Buddha-nature). The non-locality proven aspect of quantum physics (1982 Alain Aspect's research solving the EPR paradox set forth by Einstein) has suggested the primal essence of the universe is consciousness (philosophy of monistic idealism), but as soon as you state the term 'consciousness', the anthropormorphic views of man start thinking consciousness is all man like and that it must be a entity or deity. And deity turns quickly into dualism and gods and devils are created.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve -- Rook Hawkins, 12:53:14 02/21/02 Thu
RevG wrote: First of all, Sin and Eternal Life are anything but self-evident; as such, evidence is needed to prove that they have any foundation in reality.
ALAN: I too would like to see some evidence
Rook: I have some evidence here in my pocket. RevG, Alan, you can have it if you need it. Oops, it's gone. Maybe it's in my other pants. Oh, wait...it's not there either..hmm...you know what? I think it's because the evidence is as invisable as the very water Joyce is trying to hold. But as she tries to plug the hole at the bottom of the cup, she must have missed the fact that there was no cup to begin with. Which is why there is a big puddle of water on the floor. Mop needed for cleanup in isle three!
Rook
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]