|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Original Sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: Perhaps in Judasim the law is above God, but one would be hard pressed to find any support for that in the scriptures. in the scriptures, i'm not sure. in jewish tradition? sure. but it's clearly an idea that runs through the text, if unstated directly. there are very few examples, like job, where god acts to break the contract. instead, it is always phrased as the people breaking the contract, thus being punished by god (who is no longer bound by the broken contract). really, only job argues against this idea.
I dont think it was to see if Jacob could take him in a throw down, but to teach Jacob something about Gods purposes and infinite wisdom okay. teach him what about god's purposes and infinite wisdom? because i see a very strong metaphor about death. jacob crosses the jabbok to be alone, thinking his brother esau intends to kill him and his family. the "man" he is wrestling with is his own mortality. it is god as the angel of death. that he demands,
quote: is powerful here because the blessing, thematically in genesis, is life itself. he is demanding more life from an entity that intends to kill him. moreover, this entire passage is an allegory about the israelite people that is remarkably still relevant today. caught in the middle of perceived enemies and oblivion itself, they will fight tooth and nail for their rights to exist. and they will wrestle with god himself for that blessing. this theme is continued throughout the rest of the torah, as well. the israelites don't take anything without a fight, including their own salvation from egypt.
The wrestling matches with Abraham and Jacob were for thier benifits, no to teach an omniscient God something yahweh, in the book of J, is not omniscient. that concept wasn't even devised until well after that this book was written. yahweh goes down to babel to see for himself what the people built. he sends angels to see what depravity exists in sodom, and whether there were ten righteous people there. he searches the garden for the man his wife. etc. perhaps this is because omniscience is boring from a literary standpoint. but i think it was just out of the conception of the people who wrote these books. none of these instances seemed to be for the sake of the other people in the story; they're just things that god does to find things out.
If you would simply stop projecting human wisdom on to the scriptures and look at what the totality of scripture has to say about God, you will stop coming up with silly conclusions about Gods character this may surprise you, but that is exactly what i have done. rather, it is you who has projected "human wisdom" onto the scriptures, with ideas like the classical theist tri-omni god that simply are not found at all in the "totality of scripture". these are things you have assumed it must mean, not the things it says. read it with fresh eyes, and no preconceptions, and question everything, and you will come to a very different conclusion about what the bible says about the character of god. Edited by arachnophilia, : i accidentally a word
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Modulus writes: Since there were no human Judges, it must refer to celestial beings/divine ones even if we don't suppose its true godhood. the mirroring of the verse:
quote: and
quote: is a strong indication that the word means "god". i believe a singular translation is better here as well for that reason, even though it's not part of a subject verb chain that would dictate it for sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
(plural) rulers, judges divine ones angels gods don't consult bible dictionaries. they're always biased, and give incorrect information.
elohim is most often used as a singular noun that means "god". it comes, etymologically, from the canaanites (to the north) and their head god el or elyon, and his pantheon the elohim. it was a singular council of multiple gods, and this idea is vaguely reflected in the monolatrist and henotheistic oldest texts of the bible. for instance, god calls a similar council in the book of job. the plural above, "one of us" is probably a quirk of the language and nothing more. the text says,
quote: but note that this very word, mi-menu (all the way the end on the left) is rendered singularly earlier in the chapter:
quote: same vowel points and everything. it's just something that doesn't translate well. there's no good reason to read in some kind of weird point about the plurality of god because on a single word that's just an artifact of translation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: What gets me is why some people never let Jesus in. They think they are better off being independant. We are all responsible individually for ruling over sin. We are our own doorkeepers. You sometimes claim that the gods dont care---or that they don't listen. Do you personally have any beef with Jesus?When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
It isn't about "letting Jesus in"; it's about keeping sin out. If you keep sin out, Jesus is "in" in the only real way He ever will be. ringo writes:
What gets me is why some people never let Jesus in. They think they are better off being independant. We are all responsible individually for ruling over sin. We are our own doorkeepers. And sin means what you don't do as well as what you do. If you fail to take care of the least of His brothers, you come short of the glory of God.
Phat writes:
I like Him better than Long John Silver. I respect His message more than most fundies do.
You sometimes claim that the gods dont care---or that they don't listen. Do you personally have any beef with Jesus?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Ringo writes: My innate tells me that Jesus is not automatically "in" everybody. He is with everybody in that He stands at the door knocking. Having God "in" you is not some extension of our own internal idea. It isn't about "letting Jesus in"; it's about keeping sin out. If you keep sin out, Jesus is "in" in the only real way He ever will be.When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
As I said, and you quoted:
Having God "in" you is not some extension of our own internal idea.quote:The only way to internalize Jesus is to internalize His message. You have to do it yourself. He isn't going to wear you like a Phat suit and do it for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
The only way to internalize Jesus is to internalize His message. Is His message limited to one book?(66,to be exact) Edited by Phat, : No reason given.When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Actually Jesus message is limited to only parts of four books.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Logically, this appears true. Some, however, believe that the Word was inspired by God (all 66 books). Surely these authors didn't just grab a cup of coffee and crank this stuff out like JK Rowling--so many Harry Potter stories.
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Surely these authors didn't just grab a cup of coffee and crank this stuff out like JK Rowling--so many Harry Potter stories. But that seems to be just what the evidence shows. If inspired by God then why is there no uniform and universal list of what books should be included? Why are there two flood stories just mushed together? Why two mutually exclusive creation tales? And you were talking about Jesus message which is not found anywhere but in the Gospels.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
"His" message is contained in the gospels; it could be seen as a refinement of Old Testamenr Judaism; some see Paul's message as a refinement of Jesus' message. Is His message limited to one book?(66,to be exact) But "the" message isn't confined to books. It's written on our hearts, as Paul said, in the form of conscience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
It's written on our hearts, as Paul said, in the form of conscience. You and I agree on this point. Perhaps I see it as a communion---in that part of God lives within me---whereas you see it as entirely your own conscience. Not much difference.When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo,addressing jaywill writes: Its the whole "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" argument. Let the One be in charge and quit trying to duplicate His authority.
God Himself said that Adam and Eve had become more like Him. I don't know how you can see that as a bad thing.jar writes: It all gets back to evidence-based versus faith and belief-based. The belief that you have chosen to market relies on taking the Bibles teaching and focusing on emphasis of personal responsibility rather than blessing and favor. Honestly...yes, it is more logical. Not sure that I'm ready to buy it yet. I want favor and blessing.
There is a very strong Interfaith movement within Christianity as well and there are those like myself that will readily admit that atheism and agnosticism are far more reasonable and logical positions than theism. jar writes: The fact that a God would create a Hell and fill it with Christians is just as evil of a God as one who filled it with atheists. Why not just create a Heaven with first class and coach and make the Christians live on streets of silver rather than gold. or perhaps copper?
There is no divine brotherhood that gets special consideration. That's why if there is an afterlife and heaven it will be filled with atheists and agnostics and animists and Hindus and Satanists and Buddhists and Jews and Muslems and Taoists and followers of Mencius and Confucius and hell filled with good Christians. ringo writes: It may now be my money in name, but it was his sweat that put some of it there. I would be on the street asking you for spare change were it not for my father years ago. Maybe that's also why I see God as a rescuer versus a Being who simply wants to boot me out and force me to grow up. The potential for sin dwells in all of us just like our fathers' names dwell in us. Our fathers' sins don't dwell in us any more than their money dwells in our bank accounts.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Faith writes: To clarify, we Christians can and do still sin. Perhaps you mean that we have a new nature that cannot ever be condemned by sin again. Ringo would argue that this get-out-of-hell-free card never helps us to grow up and become responsible. Comments? I suppose God could have started all over creating a new Adam, but the thing is, any Adam would be vulnerable to committing sin and eventually would give in to it. It's only by being born in sin and then saved by grace that we are guaranteed a new nature that cannot sin again.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024