Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Importance of Original Sin
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 226 of 1198 (638397)
10-21-2011 10:59 PM


CHECK MATE.
Original Sin is a failed, lost case. Check with your local sherrif, your local judge or any bona fide judiciary institution if in doubt. You will find that:
ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH [COMMITS A CRIME] IT SHALL PAY - THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER.
The insanity persists despite millions of innocent souls being burnt at the stake, giving legitimacy to the greatest crimes within humanity.

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by jaywill, posted 10-22-2011 6:39 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 227 of 1198 (638433)
10-22-2011 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by IamJoseph
10-21-2011 10:59 PM


Re: CHECK MATE.
Original Sin is a failed, lost case.
If we are talking about what Adam did, and how it effected mankind in the rest of the Bible, both OT and NT, it is not a lost case.
Your grandstanding really doesn't end the matter, as I hope to show below.
Check with your local sherrif, your local judge or any bona fide judiciary institution if in doubt. You will find that:
ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH [COMMITS A CRIME] IT SHALL PAY - THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER.
The problem here is that the final Judge of all the world is not simply the local sheriff or any human institution. The ultimate Judge is God.
Both the OT and the NT portray men as sinners in need of reconciliation to God.
Why is he that way ? What has happened that the man created in the beginning as "very good" is a chronic transgressor of God's laws ?
Solomon writes:
"See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Ecclesiates 7:29)
But if God MADE man "UPRIGHT" what has happened to man that he now is so devious ?
If man guiltless before God for his deviousness, crookedness, and bent towards deceit ? Or is man guilty and in need of forgiveness ?
These are questions we have to solve by going back into the Bible to see. God made man upright. Something has changed in man. What ?
If God made man upright and pronounced that all creation and man was "very good" (Genesis 1:31) why now does David confess:
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5)
David the king was a "Darling" to God; a man after God's own heart !! So much faith, courage, bravery, and uprightnesss before God and man.
Yet in the matter of Bethsheba and her husband Uriah the Hittitite David got to know how badly he could fail. David got to realize how deeply he was flawed. He was capable of stealing a man's wife and murdering the husband.
David was brought utterely low to realize the terrible depths of his sinning ability:
"For I do know my transgressions, And my sin is before me continually. Against You and You alone have I sinned, And I have done what is evil in Your sight.
Therefore You are righteous when You speak; You are clear when You judge. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin did my mother conceive me.
Behold, You delight in truth in the inward parts; And in the hidden part You would make known wisdom to me." (Psa. 51:3-6)
David did not excuse himself one bit. He didn't blame his failure on anyone. David deeply realized that in the deepest innermost part of his heart he had been self deceived. God desires TRUTH in the innermost recesses of his moral heart. He had souoght out schemes. He had not walked uprightly in regards to the woman and her husband.
How did the man after God's own heart become this way ?
I am not particular cheerleader to the phrase "Original Sin". But something has happened to the created human being. We may argue of what to call this something. But something went wrong with God's created man.
And from the guilt and power of sin man needs God's salvation.
The insanity persists despite millions of innocent souls being burnt at the stake, giving legitimacy to the greatest crimes within humanity.
I suppose that this sentence has something to do with saying religious hypocrisy is evidence that Original Sin should not be believed.
But the question remains - What on earth happened to the "very good" man that God created so that all are now transgressors and sinners ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 10-21-2011 10:59 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 7:33 AM jaywill has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 228 of 1198 (638436)
10-22-2011 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by jaywill
10-21-2011 2:06 PM


Re: Right Relationship
quote:
It may be true that God's covenant with the seed of Abraham starts with Abraham. However, it is arguable that one should insist nothing pre-dating Abraham can be vitally related to Judiams. After all the God in Judaism is the Creator of the world. And some backround is necessary TO Judaism in order to establish that Yahweh is the Creator and the only God.
The foundational myths would continue whether they were in the Bible or not. My point is that removing the A&E story from the Bible, or deeming it fiction would not change the fundamentals of Judaism. You haven't shown me that it would.
I also stated that removing the A&E story from the Bible or deeming the A&E story to be fiction would not change the messages presented by Jesus or Paul. You haven't shown me that it would.
The original sin doctrine is a later creation influenced by Platonism. Message 25
quote:
It is obvious that Paul considered the story of Adam and Eve to be crucial facts to the history of the world. I would say that Paul considered Adam as historical a figure as he considered Jesus Christ as a historical figure.
No you can't tell from his writings if he personally felt the A&E story was fact or fiction.
Paul used Adam as an example of disobedience contrasted with Christ's obedience. As I showed in Message 16, it is not uncommon for people to use fictional characters to make a point. Adam represented disobedience. As I presented to you in Message 44, the A&E story is not the foundation of Paul's argument. His argument would be the same whether he mentioned Adam or not. If you disagree, explain how Paul's message would change without the use of Adam to make his point.
quote:
This sounds planatery in scope to me:
For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them and rested on the seventh day; therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it." (Exo. 20:11)
This reference to "heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them" conveys the whole world in any modern vanacular understanding.
Except that the writers weren't today's modern man. They were men who lived in a time when the planet wasn't known. We have to understand what they were saying to their audience. Their audience would not have visualized a planet with those words.
If you want to argue about whether the words referred to a planet or just the local area, go to the thread entitled Not The Planet. Show me there that the authors had a planetary understanding. Even if one feels that God dictated the story, God would be using a word that had no meaning to the people of the day. If today's translators wanted us to understand that the writers were talking about the planet, they would use the word planet or capitalize the world Earth to signify the planet. In modern vernacular, that is what tells us that it is the planet.
I still don't see what the planetary issue has to do with the positions I've presented concerning the A&E story and the original sin doctrine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by jaywill, posted 10-21-2011 2:06 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by jaywill, posted 10-22-2011 12:13 PM purpledawn has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 229 of 1198 (638441)
10-22-2011 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by jaywill
10-22-2011 6:39 AM


Re: CHECK MATE.
quote:
But the question remains - What on earth happened to the "very good" man that God created so that all are now transgressors and sinners ?
Its the eternal question, and I do not see it resolved with the born in sin doctrine. I also don't read the psalm verse quoted as you do. Why do bad things happen to good people? My take:
The factor of choice is given only to humans; the seemingly random bad is the balancing counter to free choice. Where there is no choice - there is no sin - and no merit! Here, the thing which we disdain becomes the only path of salvation. A decent one is greater than an innocent one:
'Where a repentant sinner stands - the most rightious cannot'.
All have and will sin - this includes the greatest human of all - no, its Moses! Its only what we do thereafter which counts. Therefore, I honestly and sincerely reject born in sin; I do see both positive [good] and negative [bad] being condoned and factored in the equation; I do not accept the notion of satan - none can stand unless the One condones it; I don't accept intermediaries or transit agents: why buy retail when you can get it direct from the manufacturer?
In the end, all religions are at best a testings: this means one can be inculcated to believe another is bad - but that is only a testing to see how one turns. I respond to your verse hurling with this counter:
Abraham to God, when called upon in a particularly hot desert day while he was assisting some wayward travellers afflicted by the heat:
"Sorry, I cannot attend to you now - some people here need my help"
And God waited upon Abraham.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by jaywill, posted 10-22-2011 6:39 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 230 of 1198 (638455)
10-22-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by purpledawn
10-22-2011 7:23 AM


Re: Right Relationship
The foundational myths would continue whether they were in the Bible or not.
I am not sure how you are defining "myth". But you are a priori assuming that early Genesis is that.
Not agreeing, I can only shrug and read on. I suppose a thread could be dedicated to you demonstrating what is so unmythic about God appearing and talking to Abraham.
It seems that when you get to Genesis 12 you suddenly step down from this mythic realm to regard the events more seriously as historical roots of Judaism.
But the sudden shift appears arbitrary to me. Do you just decide "I am going to accept the testimony of Genesis from THIS point but not from THAT point" ?
Why is pre-Genesis 12 mythic and post Genesis 12 not ?
My point is that removing the A&E story from the Bible, or deeming it fiction would not change the fundamentals of Judaism. You haven't shown me that it would.
You may have a point that personal piety in a framework of Judaism is not damaged much. But I the overall historic relevance of God's move with the Jews is greatly weakened by your decision to amputate pre-Genesis 12 from serious historic consideration.
Maybe you can say, "I can be a good pious Hebrew without early Genesis." But I think something beyond personal piety is intended in the whole account of the book of Genesis.
I also stated that removing the A&E story from the Bible or deeming the A&E story to be fiction would not change the messages presented by Jesus or Paul. You haven't shown me that it would.
What I said above applies in this case also.
Sure, one can argue that he can go off and "do good things" and be pious without Genesis 1 - 11.
The whole historical backround of the need of mankind for salvation is weakened.
That is all I can participate right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2011 7:23 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2011 6:24 PM jaywill has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 1198 (638459)
10-22-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by IamJoseph
10-21-2011 3:03 AM


Re: Right Relationship
quote:
What is the importance of Original Sin to you and your particular brand of faith? I suppose that the accuracies of these particular books of the Bible are important to the discussion, but we should be getting somewhere...
There is no such thing; its unGodly from the POV it contradicts the laws of the Hebrew bible. Period. It also contradicts all of reality and how humanity operates. The NT has posed an impossible demand which no christian or any other human can accomodate.
Well there you go, you don't think Original Sin is important at all.
The underlying reason that christians pose this impossible demand, is so that you will be convinced that you really need what they are selling. You just can't do it without what they have to offer. At face value, it seems dishonest, but they actually believe it themselves... they think they're helping others with it.
quote:
Do you think they’re important to Judaism? To Christianity? How an why?
All worldly accepted laws come from the Hebrew bible. The universe works on laws. Its important. Christianity's greatest claim to fame is choosing the Hebrew bible and flicking off Zeus. Uts worthy of applauding and must have been very difficult to do - thus we see numerous residual factors from helenism also in the NT baggage.
So what about the importance of Origin Sin that is important to some flavors of christianity? Where do they go wrong in identifying and employing it? How and why did it come about in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by IamJoseph, posted 10-21-2011 3:03 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 1:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 232 of 1198 (638464)
10-22-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by New Cat's Eye
10-22-2011 12:48 PM


Re: Right Relationship
quote:
The underlying reason that christians pose this impossible demand, is so that you will be convinced that you really need what they are selling. You just can't do it without what they have to offer. At face value, it seems dishonest, but they actually believe it themselves... they think they're helping others with it.
Yes, absolutely they believe it, same as other believers do. There is no issue here, and I respect the belief - it is 100% genuine, they would die and kill for it. Its like a mother-child thing. The issue is not even that if one believes it or not - the issue becomes different when they also, as an added bonus item, want to kill others to save them. This becomes problematic, and it is substantially seen in two of the biggest religious groups. Islam is an emulation of medevial Europe.
Isabela: "Better to destroy their bodies and save their souls"
Gee thanks! That is the problem, Otherwise it makes no dif if they believed in pink zebras.
quote:
So what about the importance of Origin Sin that is important to some flavors of christianity? Where do they go wrong in identifying and employing it? How and why did it come about in the first place?
Its always flabbergasted me, to be honest, how they pounce on the Jews with the charge of 'chosen' people. Here, I must admit such a premise is in contradiction of every just laws and appears ungdly. We have already seen, before the law was given in Moses' time, that Jacob was seen as commiting a wrong thing in favoring one of his 12 children - his brothers perpetrated the act of murder as its consequence. So how can this be attributed to the Hebrew God, who commanded laws of equality and equal justice for all?
In reality, Christianity got it wriong, as did the Muslims. The Hebrew chosen is a dolled up postman with funny uniforms; its the others who are the VIPS. The chosen is also explained as by example only, not by enforced conversion, not by disdaining others ['Be a light unto the nations'; 'Do not cheat or fool the stranger'; 'Love the stranger'].
So lets examine the real bad mode of chosen. How about exclusive kingdom keys, and woe to any who disagree? How about its a blessing to kill the infidels? There is chosen - and there is CHOSEN. Choose one.
I do not understand how the most powerful religion, one assigned to be the world's teacher and educator - could also accept such a provision. That it is wrong can be seen in Islam today, also believing the same with equal determination. But the issue is far deeper and very mysterious. Both Christianity and Islam would fall off an abyss if they negated these core doctrines. This makes it very problematic - primarilly for the Jews [everyone hates Jews!] - and then for all humanity itself. The position of the Jews were horrific: they get bashed which ever one they sided with - and worse if they stood neutral and remained as they always were.
The answer is blowing in the winds: humanity must operate by majestic laws - not majestic names. This is the only future for humanity, aside from self destruction. This is the message from the greatest recorded event in the universe: Mount Sinai. All that tumbled down were laws.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-22-2011 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 233 of 1198 (638486)
10-22-2011 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by jaywill
10-22-2011 12:13 PM


Re: Right Relationship
quote:
I am not sure how you are defining "myth". But you are a priori assuming that early Genesis is that.
I use the definition in the dictionary. I have not made an assumption that has no evidence to back it up. If you wish to discuss why the Christian creation myth should be considered true over any other creation myth, then proceed to the appropriate thread. Why prefer the Biblical creation account over those of other religions?.
quote:
I suppose a thread could be dedicated to you demonstrating what is so unmythic about God appearing and talking to Abraham.
That is not my position. My position is that Judaism doesn't rest on the creation stories. It can survive without them if they disappeared or are considered fiction.
This thread is about the creation stories and the importance of original sin.
quote:
You may have a point that personal piety in a framework of Judaism is not damaged much. But I the overall historic relevance of God's move with the Jews is greatly weakened by your decision to amputate pre-Genesis 12 from serious historic consideration.
Maybe you can say, "I can be a good pious Hebrew without early Genesis." But I think something beyond personal piety is intended in the whole account of the book of Genesis.
I haven't amputated anything. The religion doesn't rely on the Adam and Eve story.
quote:
Sure, one can argue that he can go off and "do good things" and be pious without Genesis 1 - 11.
The whole historical backround of the need of mankind for salvation is weakened.
Show me how it is weakened. If the religion wasn't based on the A&E story, how can its absence or viewing it as fiction weaken the religion?
Even with Jesus and Paul, the idea of original sin is a later concept. They didn't present it so how can their message be weakened when their messages didn't rely on the story anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by jaywill, posted 10-22-2011 12:13 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 9:40 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 237 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2011 6:05 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 238 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2011 6:48 PM purpledawn has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 234 of 1198 (638505)
10-22-2011 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by purpledawn
10-22-2011 6:24 PM


DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.
quote:
Even with Jesus and Paul, the idea of original sin is a later concept. They didn't present it so how can their message be weakened when their messages didn't rely on the story anyway?
Before you attribute origin sin to a Jew from Judea, you need a shred of proof. Paul does not cut it - he never met Jesus and was a third generation Helenist unceremoniously expelled by the Nazerites. I would better describe original sin as original crime, and it predates Christianity - check some Roman and Greek archives sometime. As we speak, a friend sent this article to me today. I am wondering why these guys are roaming free whistling:
quote:
The new-old Jew hatred
Current-day anti-Semitism obsessed with concept of Jews as the chosen people
Giulio Meotti
Published: 10.22.11, 13:00
The malignant use of the expression chosen Jews is recurring in the latest attacks on Israel made by secular intellectuals, archbishops, mainstream journalists and European politicians.
Such vilification inspired historical waves of violence, like the pogroms, the expulsion of the Spanish Jews and Martin Luther’s demonology (the founder of Protestantism argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people but instead the Devil’s people.)
Magazine
The churches against Israel / Giulio Meotti
Christian blood libels revived, with Israel being painted as evil, having no right to exist
Full story
Modern-day Jews are not God’s chosen people, the head of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church, Pope Shenouda III, declared recently in a meeting with former US President Jimmy Carter. Do not believe their claims that they are God’s chosen people, because it is not true.
It is no longer only Syria that aired a movie against the Chosen Jews or the former prime minister of Malaysia, Mohammad Mahathir, who warned that the Jews must never think they are the chosen people. The obsession for this issue now widely appears in the latest indictments of Israel as an apartheid state and in the legal campaigns against the Law of Return.
Recently, Stephen Sizer, a leading British theologian, released a declaration to support the UN Palestinian bid: The New Testament insists the promises God made to Abraham are fulfilled not in the Jewish people but in Jesus and those who acknowledge him. According to Sizer, the Jewish covenant with God is rubbish.
Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, a cleric chosen by Pope Benedict XVI to draft the conclusions of the synod on the Middle East, declared that there is no longer a Jewish chosen people, resurrecting the ancient calumny that the Jews are damned for all time as cosmic exiles. Elias Chacour, the Vatican-approved Catholic Archbishop of Israel, says that we do not believe anymore that the Jews are the Chosen People.
Many anti-Semitic comments are based on the concept of Jews as the chosen people. All Jews share a particular gene, that makes them different from other peoples, recently declared German central bank executive Thilo Sarrazin. Christina Patterson attacked the Jews in a column for The Independent: I didn’t realize that a purchase by a goy was a crime to be punished with monosyllabic terseness, or that bus seats were a potential source of contamination, or that road signs, and parking restrictions, were for people who hadn’t been chosen by God.
'We call it racism'
Meanwhile, acclaimed Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis told an interviewer that today it is possible to say that this small nation is the root of all evil; it is full of self-importance and evil stubbornness. Asked by his interlocutor, what is it that holds us Jews together? Theodorakis replied, It is the feeling that you are the children of God. That you are the chosen.
Elsewhere, European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, a former Belgian foreign minister, recently blamed the Jewish lobby and said that there is indeed a belief - it’s difficult to describe it otherwise - among most Jews that they are right. De Gucht’s target was the Jews, not Israeli policies.
Jostein Gaarder, author of the literary bestseller Sophie’s World, published an op-ed titled God’s chosen people in the Aftenposten, one of Norway’s major newspapers, in which he declared that Israel has lost its right to exist: We no longer recognize the state of Israel.We don’t believe in the idea of God’s chosen people.To present oneself as God’s chosen people is not just stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism.
Jos Saramago, the Portuguese writer and Nobel Prize laureate, described the Jews in perfervid terms as contaminated by the monstrous and rooted ‘certitude’ that in this catastrophic and absurd world there exists a people chosen by God and that, consequently, all the actions of an obsessive, psychological, and pathological exclusivist racism are justified.
The plot of celebrated British playwright Caryl Churchill’s Seven Jewish Children, which got much acclaim at London’s Royal Court Theater, is built on the Jewish obsession. Churchill’s short play unfolds over seven scenes, beginning, dimly, sometime during the Holocaust and concluding with Israel’s wars. Characters appear as parents of an offstage child, and the dialogue revolves around what the girl should or should not know about her political circumstances as they unfold over the decades.
Tell her, says one of the play’s Zionist elders, I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out . . . tell her we’re better haters, tell her we’re chosen people.
This is the same delusional lexicon of medieval Jew-hatred. Taken to its logical end, this language suggests that there is only one price the Jews can pay for being accepted by the world: Israel’s elimination. Indeed, this worldwide condemns the Jews to homelessness and humiliation, chosen to walk the earth alone until the end of the days.
Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism
The new-old Jew hatred
Unless I'm not understanding some heavy duty deep psychosis embedded in two of the biggest religions, what those guys are saying is they want their own versions of CHOSEN as the best chosen, and in the process they also disregard that there is historical rights attached to a group having a place to park - Israel is not a result of some theology - it represents a place were Jews come from and were born and incepted there as a nation. I blame the majority, not the radicals, for such insanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2011 6:24 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2011 10:10 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 235 of 1198 (638508)
10-22-2011 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by IamJoseph
10-22-2011 9:40 PM


Re: DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.
Please stick to the topic. If you want to discuss current events or politics, please go to the Coffee House or Free for All.
Please stick to the point of this thread and the positions actually presented by participants.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 9:40 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 10:20 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 236 of 1198 (638509)
10-22-2011 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by purpledawn
10-22-2011 10:10 PM


Re: DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.
So actual in our face events have no impact on the importance of original sin - the theoretical rules its actuality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2011 10:10 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 237 of 1198 (639555)
11-01-2011 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by purpledawn
10-22-2011 6:24 PM


Re: Right Relationship
I use the definition in the dictionary. I have not made an assumption that has no evidence to back it up. If you wish to discuss why the Christian creation myth should be considered true over any other creation myth, then proceed to the appropriate thread. Why prefer the Biblical creation account over those of other religions?.
You are acting like a moderator and presuming to direct me where to go to post. I'll post right here for now, thankyou.
I think you have just made an arbitrary preferencial choice of what is important to Judaism. And there are a few forms of Judaism from what I have heard - Ultraorthodox, Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Hasidic ...
I suppose in the Judaism of your prefernece you entertain a concept like the following:
God speaks with Adam - not to be taken in Genesis as historical.
God speaks with Abraham - to be taken in Genesis as historical.
Judiasm can "survive" without the first account.
Judiasm needs the second account to "survive."
Maybe, depending on what flavor of Judaism you are refering to.
I am not sure what the "survival" of Judaism means to you.
The Sabbath is an important tenet of Judaism. And the reference to it in Exodus 20:11 refers back to Genesis chapter one.
Where else would the writer get the vital information - "For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it."
Moses took it seriously obviously.
That is not my position. My position is that Judaism doesn't rest on the creation stories. It can survive without them if they disappeared or are considered fiction.
I guess that depends on what kind of Judaism you are refering to.
What does your Judaism not "surviving" look like ?
What tenet of your Judaism would for you cause it not to "survive" ?
This thread is about the creation stories and the importance of original sin.
Exodus 20:11 obviously regards the creation account to be fundamental to God's demand that the practioners of Judaism keep the Sabbath.
The Levitical offerings such as the sin offering, the trespass offering, the peace offering, the consecration offering, at least reveal that the Jews' problem with the propensity to transgress the law were at least very deep rooted.
Many offerings for atonement were required because man's propensity to transgress was so prevalent. You may object to the term Original Sin. That is OK with me.
But I think you would be still pressed to explain WHY man in general and the Jews were in such constant need for an atoning expiation to be reconciled to God.
The expiatory sacrifices and offerings revealed a deep seated problem in the worshippers which landed them repeatedly in trouble with a holy and righteous God.
Why should there be this distance between them and God to begin with ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2011 6:24 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by purpledawn, posted 11-02-2011 6:54 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 238 of 1198 (639556)
11-01-2011 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by purpledawn
10-22-2011 6:24 PM


Re: Right Relationship
Show me how it is weakened. If the religion wasn't based on the A&E story, how can its absence or viewing it as fiction weaken the religion?
I suppose the more modernistic Humanist flavor of Judaism could function without regard to Genesis.
Then again such a Judaism might well regard the who backround of the Exodus as a fictional myth.
Even with Jesus and Paul, the idea of original sin is a later concept. They didn't present it so how can their message be weakened when their messages didn't rely on the story anyway?
The oldest book in the Bible - Job, seems to regard sin as a deeply rooted problem in man from his BIRTH (Job 5:7).
I mean Job offered regularly offerings to God to atone for the presumed secret failures of his children.
" ... Job would send word and sanctify them; and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all [his children]; for Job said, Perhaps my children have sinned and have cursed God in their heart.
Job did this continually" (Job 1:5b)
Latter development, you say? Here in the oldest biblical book you have a man scared to death that his children have possibly sinned against God.
Why such a propensity of the children to transgress against God ?
"Man is born to trouble just as sparks fly upward" (Job 5:7)
The question remains WHY is man so prone to find himself in turmoils and troubles ?
Forget about a "latter development". In this oldest book of the Bible we see man is OFF, out of normal touch with God, prone to error and transgression.
Something has happend from the time God made man and said all was "very good" (Gen. 1:31) and when he became one who is BORN to trouble as naturally as fire sparks fly upward.
Do you have any idea from the Hebrew Bible what happened to damage the "very good" situation of man and creation ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2011 6:24 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by purpledawn, posted 11-02-2011 6:29 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 239 of 1198 (639558)
11-01-2011 7:33 PM


In Genesis we see MAN dies because of Adam's sin.
In the Psalms we see that MAN needs a redemption from this death that he should continue to live forever. And no one can provide it that he should not die.
"None can by any means redeem [his] brother or give to God a ransom for him.
(For the redemption of their soul is costly and must be given up forever),
That he would yet live always and not see corruption." (Psalm 49:7-9)
Passasges like this in the Hebrew Bible surely indicate that the entrance of death into man's world is somehow a deviation from what was suppose to be. And the rectification of the problem requires a redemptive expiation to God.
" ... give to GOD the ransom for him ... that he would yet live always ..."
Sin and death entering into the world and the need for redemption from them TO God, was definitely not the invention of Paul.

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 11-01-2011 7:52 PM jaywill has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 240 of 1198 (639559)
11-01-2011 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by jaywill
11-01-2011 7:33 PM


Sorry but that is simply nonsense.
Man does not die because of Adam's sin, in fact there is not even any evidence that Adam sinned in Genesis.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2011 7:33 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2011 9:55 AM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024