User Tag List

First 6789 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 90

Thread: original sin

  1. #71
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    So then this would relate again to detachment from desires, I suppose, and desires being the root of suffering, leading to unwise choices, leading to sin.

    Christ is certainly an example of a good person, but not exactly an example of how everyone should live in every way. If everyone gave away all their money, there would be no money because no one would have any use for it (though this wouldn't be bad thing). If everyone was celibate, there would be no more babies. If everyone was completely nonviolent, no one would defend themselves when attacked by animals, no one would hunt animals, and so people would be killed and starve. Plus, just restricting nonviolence to humans, it would only work if everyone followed the rules. Otherwise people would attack people and no one would defend them. If you always turned the other cheek and never defended yourself, you would likely keep getting bullied and might be in real danger. So in short, Christ showed an example of how a person could transcend a physical body, but not fully embrace it. Christ was relatively detached from his body. I don't think asceticism is the ideal. (And this of course is not a criticism exclusively aimed at Christianity. Many religions have asceticism, it's just that good ones in my book embrace the physical as much as the transcendent. Christianity has a history of rejecting it.)

    Why would God want a relationship with something less than itself though? Why not just different but equal, like a male aspect and a female aspect?
    Firstly there are times when christ is aggressive. Expelling money changers from the temple. Also while there no evidence he wasn't a vegetarian, the disciples did eat me eat specifically I think Peter was commanded in a visions to eat the non-kosher foods including shell fish. (Thought It was a metaphor for Gentiles so perhaps this one guy got a special pass). Jesus also did not teach against sex (though strongly against adultery). Yes he was celibate but think about it everyone he met was his child.

    Secondly jesus taught that the reason you wouldn't be concerned with money is because go would provide for you. Something like "god provides for birds and you are more than a bird"

    I think you have to keep in mind the idea of an enteral life after death to understand imitating christ. Worldy concern are important but not when compared against an eternal relationship with all that is good in the universe. I think christ was very connected to his body other wise his perfection and death wouldn't be so important.

    Perfection doesn't mean totally rejection o the physical, you can still experience sex, food, sleep, the environment animals, music, art ect. There is a theological idea that the purpose of a human is to live out their authentic self fully as they were made by god. That includes you body but it doesn't mean you over indulge in the sensual parts of life. You are your body but also more. You body has a purpose in this world but soul has a purpose in other world so you need to care for them both.



    I'm not the authority but I think one theory for an imperfect creation is that it underscores the perfection of god. Basically how can you fully experience glory with nothing else o compare it to. Introducing imperfectio to allow for the appreciation of perfection and then sending jesus as a way to reconnect the imperfect to the perfect after "proving the point"


    I would think the reason that god would do this rather than great a female/male dual system is that it's sort of an arbitrary separation of parts of an all encompassing being. Gender is a human physical quality not applicable to a universal "force". Just think, we accept that humans have male/female attributes so really it's just a pointless division if qualities.

  2. #72
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Perhaps in the Gnostic gospels, where Christ is a phantom in human form. This is not so in the Synoptic Gospels, where the concept of Christ being fully human and fully divine is strongly emphasized, being the basis for the Christian concept of the Incarnation.
    This may be, but there aren't many details, and Christ was still ascetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Actually Christianity is far less otherworldly than many other religions, especially compared to Gnosticism or Neo-Platonism.
    Oh I wouldn't say many other religions. And of course it would depend on which version of Christianity; the most liberal form would be, but the most conservative would certainly not be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Even the Puritans were far more worldly than the common caricature presumes (for example they embraced sexuality as a gift from God, and in connection with Calvinist teachings thought worldly success indicated Divine favor). GK Chesterton once noted that having a cross as a symbol indicates the connection between this world and the next(and it was on the cross from which Christ entered the other world).
    Really?? Evidence? Examples? I find this hard to believe. Perhaps there were a couple of other religious traditions out of hundreds compared to which Puritans "embraced sexuality." But being not all the way on the extreme end of something does not in any way entail being on the other end. Did they embrace it as more than procreation? Were women supposed to enjoy it? Were people encouraged to pleasure themselves and do sexual acts other than missionary position intercourse?
    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Why does a parent want a relationship with his child? Remember, we are his children, his creation, made in his image.
    Because children grow into adults, and so attain a level of eventual equality. This is not the case with God.

  3. #73
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    Firstly there are times when christ is aggressive. Expelling money changers from the temple. Also while there no evidence he wasn't a vegetarian, the disciples did eat me eat specifically I think Peter was commanded in a visions to eat the non-kosher foods including shell fish. (Thought It was a metaphor for Gentiles so perhaps this one guy got a special pass). Jesus also did not teach against sex (though strongly against adultery). Yes he was celibate but think about it everyone he met was his child.
    Haha I hadn't thought of that! Good point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    Secondly jesus taught that the reason you wouldn't be concerned with money is because go would provide for you. Something like "god provides for birds and you are more than a bird"

    I think you have to keep in mind the idea of an enteral life after death to understand imitating christ. Worldy concern are important but not when compared against an eternal relationship with all that is good in the universe. I think christ was very connected to his body other wise his perfection and death wouldn't be so important.

    Perfection doesn't mean totally rejection o the physical, you can still experience sex, food, sleep, the environment animals, music, art ect. There is a theological idea that the purpose of a human is to live out their authentic self fully as they were made by god. That includes you body but it doesn't mean you over indulge in the sensual parts of life. You are your body but also more. You body has a purpose in this world but soul has a purpose in other world so you need to care for them both.



    I'm not the authority but I think one theory for an imperfect creation is that it underscores the perfection of god. Basically how can you fully experience glory with nothing else o compare it to. Introducing imperfectio to allow for the appreciation of perfection and then sending jesus as a way to reconnect the imperfect to the perfect after "proving the point"
    Ok, all that sounds reasonable. Not exactly what I prefer, but no big criticisms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    I would think the reason that god would do this rather than great a female/male dual system is that it's sort of an arbitrary separation of parts of an all encompassing being. Gender is a human physical quality not applicable to a universal "force". Just think, we accept that humans have male/female attributes so really it's just a pointless division if qualities.
    I don't really understand this. I don't think of it as arbitrary; if we can have harmony between male and female individuals, why not a God and Goddess? I do believe it all reduces to a neutral force. But then the force wouldn't be a being, and so would have no purpose for creation or relationship.

  4. #74
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    This may be, but there aren't many details, and Christ was still ascetic.
    Yes he was an ascetic, so what? I already addressed the issue of asceticism before. It's not based on a rejection of the body, but rather renouncing certain goods for higher goods.

    Oh I wouldn't say many other religions. And of course it would depend on which version of Christianity; the most liberal form would be, but the most conservative would certainly not be.
    Depends on what one means by "Liberal" and "Conservative"; also taking into effect that such terms mean little unless one is only talking about post-19th century theology, and even then within a Protestant context. For example Catholicism before the 1960s was often criticized for being too lax on sexual matters. This could even be dated back to the Reformation when the Reformers criticised the Church's relative tolerance of prostitution(going by St. Thomas Aquinas's analogy of it to a sewer removing waste). Catholic cultures have been very well known for their embrace of sensuality even to this day, abeit in more secularized form. Most of our impressions of the hardline puritanical Catholics usually come from the experience of the Irish as a result of the Potato Famine; although within the American Church this often led to clashes with the Italians for example(that's another story).

    Really?? Evidence? Examples? I find this hard to believe.
    It's commonly known to most people who study early colonial America. To provide one source summarizing this:
    Contrary to much popular thinking, the Puritans were not sexual prudes. Although they strongly condemned sexual relations outside of marriage--levying fines or even whipping those who fornicated, committed adultery or sodomy, or bore children outside of wedlock--they attached a high value to the marital tie. Nor did Puritans abstain from alcohol; even though they objected to drunkenness, they did not believe alcohol as sinful in itself. They were not opposed to artistic beauty; although they were suspicious of the theater and the visual arts, the Puritans valued poetry. Indeed, John Milton (1603-1674), one of England's greatest poets, was a Puritan. Even the association of the Puritans with drab colors is wrong. They especially liked the colors red and blue.

    http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/act...itans_menu.cfm
    Did they embrace it as more than procreation? Were women supposed to enjoy it?
    Yes. Sexual pleasure was seen positively, cause the more pleasurable it was the most often you'd have sex, and thus the more you'd procreate. This was not uncommon among the Reformers, since Martin Luther often said that a wife should long for her husband to return to the bed chamber.

    Were people encouraged to pleasure themselves and do sexual acts other than missionary position intercourse?
    No masturbation is a sin. As for specific positions, I don't know and that's quite irrelevant in any case. How well the Puritans measure up to modern day sensibilities about sex is not the issue, and nor is it appropriate for historical analysis.

    Because children grow into adults, and so attain a level of eventual equality. This is not the case with God.
    Of course we don't have equality with God, that would be silly to assert. Equality is often ego-centric, and transcending one's ego to unite with God is a major facet of the spiritual path. We do have fraternity with God through the I-Thou relationship.

  5. #75
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I don't really understand this. I don't think of it as arbitrary; if we can have harmony between male and female individuals, why not a God and Goddess? I do believe it all reduces to a neutral force. But then the force wouldn't be a being, and so would have no purpose for creation or relationship.

    Ok, to be clearer. My thoughts were

    1.) How do you separate perfection into male and female versions of perfection? Where would things like wisdom, justice, compassion, perseverance (pretty much every trait actually) fall. There's is nothing distinctly masculine or feminine in them to create meaningful separation. Especially qualities like goodness, how would you separate goodness between male/female.

    Also, since God in supposed to be wholly perfect and separation would make the resulting forces not a perfect God, but a relation of two imperfect beings. He can't split himself and retain his nature. Basically I feel like it points back to adam and eve. The complimenting attributes of men and women highlighting the non-division and wholeness of Gods qualities.

    2.) There is the idea of the Trinity. A three part relation God to himself. Each member has different attributes, but they are still all perfect so they don't provide any contrast "goodness" wise if they are all in a vacuum together.



    3.) As to the idea that a force doesn't need a relationship because it is not a being: My understanding is that God did not create us to keep him company for his benefit. He created us for the benefit of the universe to experience him. Sounds egotistical BUT! remember that if God is not a being then it's not about someone asking you to worship their personality its about asking you to worship everything that is good (which happens to be them). Mercy, Kindness, Justice, goodness, charity, joy, love and existence itself all wrapped into the idea of Goodness and our existence is to showcase and then experience that goodness.



    pheeeew, out of breath.........finger breath




    as a side note to your discussion with @Peguy, I don't really understand the assertion that parents want relationships with their children because the children eventually will become their equals. If we just wanted beings equal to us We would just interact with other adults rather than waiting around for our children's brains to get done cooking. Obviously motivations for having children are different, and beings able to determine the exact motivation is elusive to me, I don't think most peoples answer would me "To recreate myself".

  6. #76
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    The concept of sacred masculinity/femininity is largely metaphor and symbolic. Speaking within a Christian context: there is God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Mother of God. Also the Church is referred to as "the Bride of Christ". So the harmony of male/female is represented within the Christian context.

  7. #77
    facettes de la petite mor Words of Ivory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Original sin is more or less a concept fabricated by the Christian church to promote guilt, and nothing more. By claiming that people will always be guilty of sin, they will always have to answer to the church to be worthy of their faith.

    It's definition has changed over time, with no real straight answer.

    It didn't even exist in the bible until The New Testament. Which should be all you need to know. Nowhere does the concept appear in the Book of Genesis, which is a pretty telling fact right there. Original Sin is also completely absent in the teachings of Judaism, the precursor to the entire Christian faith.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "Life calls out the meaning of pure jubilance,
    if you'll only take the time to hear it."
    ~ Words of Ivory ~

  8. #78
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Words of Ivory View Post
    It didn't even exist in the bible until The New Testament. Which should be all you need to know. Nowhere does the concept appear in the Book of Genesis, which is a pretty telling fact right there. Original Sin is also completely absent in the teachings of Judaism, the precursor to the entire Christian faith.
    that's is and isn't true... i mean, the story is there, but the original sin interpretation and the big shananigan around it isn't.
    i still find it sort of weird, because jewdaism is huge on guilt in every other aspect of life: every family obligation from childhood to marriage to parenting, every economic duty from charity to work to taxes to employe employer relations, social obligations from forgiveness to respecting the sorrows of others... it's all laced with guilt... and yet somehow, sexuality slipped between the cracks (pun intended). with a thousand and one sins, you'd expect at least one of them to be considered original :-p

  9. #79
    Senior Member tinker683's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,659

    Default

    While I don't attach any weight to the original sin story much at all, my INxx ex-girlfriend did present an idea to me that I think is worth mentioning: That the genesis story isn't meant to be read literally but rather symbolically and that it's more of an allegory to the idea that humanity may have been "perfect" or "blissful" at some point in time but as a result of some unspecified chain of events, humanity devolved in some way that removed them from "God" and resulted in the humans that we are today.

    My own objections to the above idea aside, it sounds far more likely than a talking snake and an overly brutal punishment for eating an ill-placed bit of produce

    But that's me
    "The man who is swimming against the stream knows the strength of it."
    ― Woodrow Wilson

  10. #80
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    The original sin was creating the universe.

Similar Threads

  1. Original sin?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 02-21-2017, 03:20 PM
  2. Seven Deadly Sin Quiz
    By Kiddo in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-05-2010, 02:53 PM
  3. Original Sin
    By Into It in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 08:37 PM
  4. Problems with Original Sin (Genesis)
    By Didums in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-18-2008, 04:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO