Just a few thoughts abouts death.
The process of dying and having your essence pass through to the next reality is actually pretty simple. If you take a hard drive for a computer and weigh it, it will be some weight. If you then place a very large program on it and then reweight it, it will be the same. The information does not have any mass. So for us to pass to another reality just takes God to pass our information to the next host body. Or we may sleep (stored) to be awakened later.
I have often wondered about how God decides where souls go. Since He knows everything from the beginning then He knows who will do well and also who will not take the right path. There is also scriptural support that He will only test you at the level you can handle. So He may place the strongest souls into the bodies that are tested most. He may place the strong souls into a child that will suffer and die. I do not know if this is true but it could be. I do know He picks some people before they are born to become prophets.
The existance of an extended reality is easly seen in physics. Things can be explained by using equations in 10 dimensional space. But math is math and it is not a picture. You can see evil in the world and this links directly with the spirit world. You can feel the spirit of God help you through your life. So between science and math for dimensions, your eyes to see evil, and your heart to feel God faith becomes strong.
Death/Dying
-
David Blacklock
- Valued Member
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:43 pm
- Christian: No
Re: Death/Dying
Bart wrote: The basic message of "original sin" is that love no longer takes dominance in the lives of it's people... The word "sin" is actually an old archery term meaning to miss the mark (in love)...we don't love people as I should 100% of the time (which is the sin that lives in us)... Do we feel closer to those that are truthful or hide their shortcomings to us?...saying something, then doing something to the contrary...This is the separation that the original sin confronts. A separation that was brought on by man, not God directly...Sin is in all of us whether we want to admit it or not.
Answer: The way I understand it, the idea of original sin was first developed in second-century Irenaeus' struggle against Gnosticism, but first established as one of the tenets of Christianity in the 5th century A.D., under the influence of Augustine, by the Roman Catholic church. It is at best, only a theory! (heh, heh, we've heard that before). The Augustinian theory declares that since all of mankind is descended from Adam, then on that basis the morality of Adam was transferred to his descendants, and therefore, all of mankind is intrinsically corrupt.
Many Christians, like you, believe this theory to be a Bible doctrine. I suggest the doctrine has scanty Biblical support. They reason that, since theologians and preachers teach this doctrine, then it must be true. But where, in the Bible, is it written that , "All men are guilty and condemnable for the nature with which they are born"?
The doctrine of original sin has received considerable scrutiny from contemporary Christians. The chief dispute centres over the emotional argument of whether an apparently innocent baby can be deemed subject to sin and death - distinctions between personal sin (i.e. freely willed, conscious and understood) and original sin (not the result of free will). Effectively, the Augustinian teaching says that even though the baby has not made any conscious choice, it is nevertheless personally affected by—and subject to—sin, and that God's grace is essential to give hope and salvation. Augustine believed that the human race, without God's help, was depraved - a view that some scholars believe to be (rather than an accurate edict from God) a negative view of human nature.
Original sin, from the Augustinian perspective, is not a free and individual choice by a baby; but rather the effect of the sum total of "world sin", taught analogously through the story of the sin of Adam and Eve. The Augustinian remedy for original sin is baptism; the ritual washing away of the unchosen but inevitable condition of birth sin; and a vigorous declaration by Christians that sin shall not prevail, but that God's grace can overpower it with our free cooperation.
Some individuals challenge the entire doctrine of original sin as unbiblical, reasoning that the children should not be punished for the sins of the fathers, documenting this belief with Ezekiel 18:20.
Judaism rejects the concept of the original sin altogether and stresses free will and men's responsibility of their actions rather than religious obedience or faith. Why, they ask, would God, who is, by dogma, universal unconditional Love, create sentient and sapient beings, then intentionally let them become corrupt—and then punish them from generation to generation with eternal torture for simply just being born in the world and for nothing else—and judge people not on their actions but by their faith or its lack—and then by whim save the beings from nothing else but from his very own wrath.
Christian churches that deny original sin have differing explanations for the ancient Christian practice of conferring on infants what the Nicene Creed calls the "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Several denominations (following anabaptist traditions) deny offering infant baptism altogether and insist that only persons who have reached the "age of accountability" should be baptized.
There are wide-ranging disagreements among Christian groups as to the exact understanding of the doctrine about a state of sinfulness or absence of holiness affecting all human beings, even children, with some Christian groups denying it altogether.
Then, Bart, back to your definition of sin, certainly people don't act in good faith. One of my favorite quotes, by Robert Wright says, "...humans are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse."
All the doctrinal descriptions of sin have secular parallels in the writings of psychology, especially evolutionary psychology.
DB
Answer: The way I understand it, the idea of original sin was first developed in second-century Irenaeus' struggle against Gnosticism, but first established as one of the tenets of Christianity in the 5th century A.D., under the influence of Augustine, by the Roman Catholic church. It is at best, only a theory! (heh, heh, we've heard that before). The Augustinian theory declares that since all of mankind is descended from Adam, then on that basis the morality of Adam was transferred to his descendants, and therefore, all of mankind is intrinsically corrupt.
Many Christians, like you, believe this theory to be a Bible doctrine. I suggest the doctrine has scanty Biblical support. They reason that, since theologians and preachers teach this doctrine, then it must be true. But where, in the Bible, is it written that , "All men are guilty and condemnable for the nature with which they are born"?
The doctrine of original sin has received considerable scrutiny from contemporary Christians. The chief dispute centres over the emotional argument of whether an apparently innocent baby can be deemed subject to sin and death - distinctions between personal sin (i.e. freely willed, conscious and understood) and original sin (not the result of free will). Effectively, the Augustinian teaching says that even though the baby has not made any conscious choice, it is nevertheless personally affected by—and subject to—sin, and that God's grace is essential to give hope and salvation. Augustine believed that the human race, without God's help, was depraved - a view that some scholars believe to be (rather than an accurate edict from God) a negative view of human nature.
Original sin, from the Augustinian perspective, is not a free and individual choice by a baby; but rather the effect of the sum total of "world sin", taught analogously through the story of the sin of Adam and Eve. The Augustinian remedy for original sin is baptism; the ritual washing away of the unchosen but inevitable condition of birth sin; and a vigorous declaration by Christians that sin shall not prevail, but that God's grace can overpower it with our free cooperation.
Some individuals challenge the entire doctrine of original sin as unbiblical, reasoning that the children should not be punished for the sins of the fathers, documenting this belief with Ezekiel 18:20.
Judaism rejects the concept of the original sin altogether and stresses free will and men's responsibility of their actions rather than religious obedience or faith. Why, they ask, would God, who is, by dogma, universal unconditional Love, create sentient and sapient beings, then intentionally let them become corrupt—and then punish them from generation to generation with eternal torture for simply just being born in the world and for nothing else—and judge people not on their actions but by their faith or its lack—and then by whim save the beings from nothing else but from his very own wrath.
Christian churches that deny original sin have differing explanations for the ancient Christian practice of conferring on infants what the Nicene Creed calls the "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Several denominations (following anabaptist traditions) deny offering infant baptism altogether and insist that only persons who have reached the "age of accountability" should be baptized.
There are wide-ranging disagreements among Christian groups as to the exact understanding of the doctrine about a state of sinfulness or absence of holiness affecting all human beings, even children, with some Christian groups denying it altogether.
Then, Bart, back to your definition of sin, certainly people don't act in good faith. One of my favorite quotes, by Robert Wright says, "...humans are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse."
All the doctrinal descriptions of sin have secular parallels in the writings of psychology, especially evolutionary psychology.
DB
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
Re: Death/Dying
David,
First off... Bart did not write that response, it was me... Second, it looks like this response from you (below) wasn't written by you either. You just copied and pasted it from wikipedia...
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
Nonetheless, let's address some of the issues here.
Genesis 8:21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood.
Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
Ecclesiastes 7:20 There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.
Proverbs 20:9 Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin"?
And the New Testament...
Romans 5:12-19 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
1 Corinthians 15:21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
We have our good points and our bad ones. We have the choice to either focus on the one or the other....
In the New Testamant, Individuals are not judged for Adam's sins, but for their own personal sins Revelation 20:11-15. On top of that original sin has been cured by baptism for people in both the Old and New Testaments... God always gives us an outlet. So basically it no longer exists (spiritually), even though we can still be drawn to sin.
How could the Jews understand the Old Testament without the light of the New Testament? And how could the New Testament be understood without the light of the Old Testament? They both need to breath together to get the full picture.. According to the Bible, it was Christ that fully exposed the truth of our current predicament.
John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and TRUTH came through Jesus Christ.
The New Testament says the same too... 2 Cor 13:5-6
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/p ... ation.html
First off... Bart did not write that response, it was me... Second, it looks like this response from you (below) wasn't written by you either. You just copied and pasted it from wikipedia...
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
Nonetheless, let's address some of the issues here.
Actually the understanding of the original sin (or spiritual separation from God) was popularized by Augustine, but the core beliefs came directly from the Bible as I will explain..David Blacklock wrote:Answer: The way I understand it, the idea of original sin was first developed in second-century Irenaeus' struggle against Gnosticism, but first established as one of the tenets of Christianity in the 5th century A.D., under the influence of Augustine, by the Roman Catholic church. It is at best, only a theory! (heh, heh, we've heard that before). The Augustinian theory declares that since all of mankind is descended from Adam, then on that basis the morality of Adam was transferred to his descendants, and therefore, all of mankind is intrinsically corrupt.
Not guilty, but sinful in many places... Starting with the Old Testament.David Blacklock wrote:Many Christians, like you, believe this theory to be a Bible doctrine. I suggest the doctrine has scanty Biblical support. They reason that, since theologians and preachers teach this doctrine, then it must be true. But where, in the Bible, is it written that , "All men are guilty and condemnable for the nature with which they are born"?
Genesis 8:21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood.
Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
Ecclesiastes 7:20 There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.
Proverbs 20:9 Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin"?
And the New Testament...
Romans 5:12-19 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
1 Corinthians 15:21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
So this source from wikipedia is saying that the original sin (that man created by himself by the way), puts a negative spin on human nature... What a revolting thought.. Almost like a guilt trip huh? Well sorry to ruin the party I guess... It's interesting in our culture that anything so called "negative" or involves any personal inventory is frowned upon these days. In fact I've seen some people extremely frightened by taking any personal inventory of their motives... Almost like we as humans can do no wrong... If someone wants to rob someone else, then those who confront him are now considered the adversaries for telling him that he is wrong. Such a sad world we live in... Original sin, puts every human on the same playing level. No one is above it all. We all sin, it's in our very nature.. And it is humbling to know this. Even a child could understand this.. Well hopefully anyways...David Blacklock wrote:The doctrine of original sin has received considerable scrutiny from contemporary Christians. The chief dispute centres over the emotional argument of whether an apparently innocent baby can be deemed subject to sin and death - distinctions between personal sin (i.e. freely willed, conscious and understood) and original sin (not the result of free will). Effectively, the Augustinian teaching says that even though the baby has not made any conscious choice, it is nevertheless personally affected by—and subject to—sin, and that God's grace is essential to give hope and salvation. Augustine believed that the human race, without God's help, was depraved - a view that some scholars believe to be (rather than an accurate edict from God) a negative view of human nature.
We have our good points and our bad ones. We have the choice to either focus on the one or the other....
David you are going to have to stop reading from these wikipedia sources and start reading the Bible for yourself...David Blacklock wrote:Original sin, from the Augustinian perspective, is not a free and individual choice by a baby; but rather the effect of the sum total of "world sin", taught analogously through the story of the sin of Adam and Eve. The Augustinian remedy for original sin is baptism; the ritual washing away of the unchosen but inevitable condition of birth sin; and a vigorous declaration by Christians that sin shall not prevail, but that God's grace can overpower it with our free cooperation.
Some individuals challenge the entire doctrine of original sin as unbiblical, reasoning that the children should not be punished for the sins of the fathers, documenting this belief with Ezekiel 18:20.
In the New Testamant, Individuals are not judged for Adam's sins, but for their own personal sins Revelation 20:11-15. On top of that original sin has been cured by baptism for people in both the Old and New Testaments... God always gives us an outlet. So basically it no longer exists (spiritually), even though we can still be drawn to sin.
Well then why would anyone want to stress the responsibility of their actions if they were perfect? Are they claiming they have no sin then? I don't think so...David Blacklock wrote:Judaism rejects the concept of the original sin altogether and stresses free will and men's responsibility of their actions rather than religious obedience or faith.
How could the Jews understand the Old Testament without the light of the New Testament? And how could the New Testament be understood without the light of the Old Testament? They both need to breath together to get the full picture.. According to the Bible, it was Christ that fully exposed the truth of our current predicament.
John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and TRUTH came through Jesus Christ.
The New Testament says the same too... 2 Cor 13:5-6
God didn't intentionally let people become corrupt. He warned them repeatedly not to take that which was forbidden.. I don't have time to go into this, but God did not invent robots.. I would invite you to read this article on predestination again.David Blacklock wrote:Why, they ask, would God, who is, by dogma, universal unconditional Love, create sentient and sapient beings, then intentionally let them become corrupt—and then punish them from generation to generation with eternal torture for simply just being born in the world and for nothing else—and judge people not on their actions but by their faith or its lack—and then by whim save the beings from nothing else but from his very own wrath.
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/p ... ation.html
Everyone is free to choose their own interpretation of the Bible. But the verses about original sin from the Bible (shown above) will either have to be permitted or omitted... A risk they will have to take themselves...David Blacklock wrote:Christian churches that deny original sin have differing explanations for the ancient Christian practice of conferring on infants what the Nicene Creed calls the "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Several denominations (following anabaptist traditions) deny offering infant baptism altogether and insist that only persons who have reached the "age of accountability" should be baptized.
There are wide-ranging disagreements among Christian groups as to the exact understanding of the doctrine about a state of sinfulness or absence of holiness affecting all human beings, even children, with some Christian groups denying it altogether.
No... That is NOT true... People CAN act in good faith. It's just that they or we don't act in good faith all the time. Do you know anyone that acts in good faith all the time?? If so I would like to meet this person... We all have our good points and our bad ones. Let's get real...David Blacklock wrote:Then, Bart, back to your definition of sin, certainly people don't act in good faith. One of my favorite quotes, by Robert Wright says, "...humans are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse."
Well that's good.. At least we are admitting now that it may have some validity in the secular fields...David Blacklock wrote:All the doctrinal descriptions of sin have secular parallels in the writings of psychology, especially evolutionary psychology. DB
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
David Blacklock
- Valued Member
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:43 pm
- Christian: No
Re: Death/Dying
Heh, heh....well, you caught me - but I didn't get it all from Wikipedia. I had three more sources, but most of it came from Wiki. I would like to take a stab at an answer, but I'll have to do it tomorrow. Thanx for responding.
DB
DB
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
Re: Death/Dying
Hey David, not to worry about it... As a sinner myself, I've done the same myself sometimes too.David Blacklock wrote:Heh, heh....well, you caught me - but I didn't get it all from Wikipedia. I had three more sources, but most of it came from Wiki. I would like to take a stab at an answer, but I'll have to do it tomorrow. Thanx for responding.
DB
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
Re: Death/Dying
I would like to take a stab at this original question... I believe the Bible states there are four possible reasons for death. If you want the verses from the Bible to back this up, let me know...Uncertain817 wrote:I have a question, maybe it is basic, and yet could be extremely complex.
I know people die to make room for the next generation of people, but what is the purpose of "God" taking someone's life early? Especially in a suffering-manner(I.E- Cancer, terminal disease, even murder)
Is it to teach us some sort of lesson? If so, it seems sick and cruel.
I want to hear your thoughts!
1. God can take a life.
2. Satan can take a life.
3. Our sins find us out and kill us.
4. The circumstances. (chances, cancer, car accidents, old age, etc.)
Any one of these could be possible reasons for death... As Bart stated, second guessing the cause is something we can't always know... God would ultimately know however.
Life is a test. As best explain by Rich...
Quote from Rich,
"1. God did not design this universe to be perfect, but as a temporary creation where free will beings make choices about where they want to spend eternity (in the new creation, which will be perfect).
2. We must agree in this life to give up some of our free will in the next life. Those who are unwilling to give up their own free will choices will not be forced to do so in the next life. However, they will have to be separated from the new creation, since God is unwilling to compromise His character.
3. All people will suffer at least somewhat because of bad choices that others make. In addition, because of the temporary nature of the universe, some bad things will happen to us due to "bad luck" or chance. However, these things will teach us to be more sensitive to the needs of others, and will prepare us to show God's love to others when they suffer through similar things. God want us to learn from this life, not just have a party."
Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ering.html
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
David Blacklock
- Valued Member
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:43 pm
- Christian: No
Re: Death/Dying
OK, GMan, here is my answer, but I suspect we are going to reach an impasse from the start because of the large differences we have about how to interpret the Bible. Here goes, anyway:
Wikipedia and I asked, “Where, in the Bible, is it written that, 'All men are guilty and condemnable for the nature with which they are born?'” You indeed provided some good documentation, but not good enough, IMHO.
From the Old Testament, you took from Genesis 8:21 “…Never again will I curse the ground because of man."
There is no evidence [remotely acceptable to geologists] that a worldwide deluge of that magnitude happened, although the mythology of the day had many similar stories, which explains its appearance in the Bible.
“…every inclination of [man's] heart is evil from childhood.” -and from Psalm 51:5 “…sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” -also from Psalm 58:3 “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Only the wicked? I thought it was everybody - and this complaint is a little picky, but, if you must to be literal, what kid speaks at that age?
And from Ecclesiastes 7:20 “There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.” -and from Proverbs 20:9 “Who can say, 'I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin?'”
Clearly these few verses out of that large volume which is the Old Testament do assert that Man is sinful from birth. But the elaboration of what is in these few verses to the doctrine as developed by Augustine seems a bit much. Neither do I see how your assessment — “The basic message of "original sin" is that love no longer takes dominance in the lives of it's people... - as nicely said as it is — could be so assuredly extrapolated from these few verses.
From the New Testament, you took from Romans and Corinthians. 5:12-19. Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin — I thought everybody sinned - by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come, etc.”
I admit, these verses from Paul come closer to what became church doctrine, but I don't think it's there yet. Not only that, I don't consider the Bible to be a reliable source of what happened. I pretty much follow the Documentary Hypothesis for the Old Testament and I think the New Testament was written as more of a historical fiction. That means that many stories, ideas, phrases, and verses were taken either from the Old Testament or from mythology. Others were from stories handed down about Jesus and “improved” in the process. I don't believe any New Testament writings were from eye-witnesses. Finally, much of New Testament writing was written to prove a theological point, including most of what Paul wrote. And incidentally, to me, Paul tried to change Christianity from the religion OF Jesus to a religion ABOUT Jesus.
These are just opinions, but based on a lot of reading. It's impossible to get to the bottom of historical things and the official story is usually written by the winners. There's an awful lot of dogma out there that people of all faiths strongly believe, most of it because of an accident of birth. So, no, I don't believe in the concept of sin - it carries unnecessary guilt with it.
“Very well, God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden…all for disobeying a command…But he did not stop there….He requires his children to deal justly — and gently — with offenders, and forgive them seventy-and-seven times; whereas he deals neither justly nor gently with anyone, and he did not forgive the ignorant and thoughtless first pair of juveniles even their first small offense and say, 'You may go free this time, I will give you another chance.' On the contrary! He elected to punish their children, all through the ages to the end of time, for a trifling offence committed by others before they were born…a wild nightmare of vengefulness has has possessed him ever since, and he has almost bankrupted his native ingenuities in inventing pains and miseries and humiliations and heartbreaks wherewith to embitter the brief lives of Adam's descendants.”
-stolen from Mark Twain
DB
Wikipedia and I asked, “Where, in the Bible, is it written that, 'All men are guilty and condemnable for the nature with which they are born?'” You indeed provided some good documentation, but not good enough, IMHO.
From the Old Testament, you took from Genesis 8:21 “…Never again will I curse the ground because of man."
There is no evidence [remotely acceptable to geologists] that a worldwide deluge of that magnitude happened, although the mythology of the day had many similar stories, which explains its appearance in the Bible.
“…every inclination of [man's] heart is evil from childhood.” -and from Psalm 51:5 “…sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” -also from Psalm 58:3 “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Only the wicked? I thought it was everybody - and this complaint is a little picky, but, if you must to be literal, what kid speaks at that age?
And from Ecclesiastes 7:20 “There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.” -and from Proverbs 20:9 “Who can say, 'I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin?'”
Clearly these few verses out of that large volume which is the Old Testament do assert that Man is sinful from birth. But the elaboration of what is in these few verses to the doctrine as developed by Augustine seems a bit much. Neither do I see how your assessment — “The basic message of "original sin" is that love no longer takes dominance in the lives of it's people... - as nicely said as it is — could be so assuredly extrapolated from these few verses.
From the New Testament, you took from Romans and Corinthians. 5:12-19. Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin — I thought everybody sinned - by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come, etc.”
I admit, these verses from Paul come closer to what became church doctrine, but I don't think it's there yet. Not only that, I don't consider the Bible to be a reliable source of what happened. I pretty much follow the Documentary Hypothesis for the Old Testament and I think the New Testament was written as more of a historical fiction. That means that many stories, ideas, phrases, and verses were taken either from the Old Testament or from mythology. Others were from stories handed down about Jesus and “improved” in the process. I don't believe any New Testament writings were from eye-witnesses. Finally, much of New Testament writing was written to prove a theological point, including most of what Paul wrote. And incidentally, to me, Paul tried to change Christianity from the religion OF Jesus to a religion ABOUT Jesus.
These are just opinions, but based on a lot of reading. It's impossible to get to the bottom of historical things and the official story is usually written by the winners. There's an awful lot of dogma out there that people of all faiths strongly believe, most of it because of an accident of birth. So, no, I don't believe in the concept of sin - it carries unnecessary guilt with it.
“Very well, God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden…all for disobeying a command…But he did not stop there….He requires his children to deal justly — and gently — with offenders, and forgive them seventy-and-seven times; whereas he deals neither justly nor gently with anyone, and he did not forgive the ignorant and thoughtless first pair of juveniles even their first small offense and say, 'You may go free this time, I will give you another chance.' On the contrary! He elected to punish their children, all through the ages to the end of time, for a trifling offence committed by others before they were born…a wild nightmare of vengefulness has has possessed him ever since, and he has almost bankrupted his native ingenuities in inventing pains and miseries and humiliations and heartbreaks wherewith to embitter the brief lives of Adam's descendants.”
-stolen from Mark Twain
DB
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
Re: Death/Dying
David,David Blacklock wrote:OK, GMan, here is my answer, but I suspect we are going to reach an impasse from the start because of the large differences we have about how to interpret the Bible. Here goes, anyway:
Wikipedia and I asked, “Where, in the Bible, is it written that, 'All men are guilty and condemnable for the nature with which they are born?'” You indeed provided some good documentation, but not good enough, IMHO.
No, not guilty... Imperfect in love, yes... We are born with the potential to do good and evil, but we are NOT guilty of Adam's sin (or condemned) as you and wikipedia seem to be implying.
More on that here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... l-sin.html
I'm sorry... The accusation has no scriptural bearing.
I'll agree with you here that the deluge was not worldwide... The Bible claims very clearly that Noah's flood was a local flood. More on that here.David Blacklock wrote:From the Old Testament, you took from Genesis 8:21 “…Never again will I curse the ground because of man."
There is no evidence [remotely acceptable to geologists] that a worldwide deluge of that magnitude happened, although the mythology of the day had many similar stories, which explains its appearance in the Bible.
As for the myths and similar stories of the flood that is up to debate....
No problem... You will need to examine the hebrew definitions then to get a clearer meaning. The word "wicked" or in hebrew "rasha" has the meaning of the ungodly or morally wrong as stated in the Amplified Bible.David Blacklock wrote:“…every inclination of [man's] heart is evil from childhood.” -and from Psalm 51:5 “…sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” -also from Psalm 58:3 “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Only the wicked? I thought it was everybody - and this complaint is a little picky, but, if you must to be literal, what kid speaks at that age?
Again, the meaning shows that we are imperfect. Not guilty... We are all imperfect in love aren't we? I hope you agree with me here...
Well Augustine, as you stated earlier, has his foundations more in Catholicism... I would say I may have a problem with some of the teachings myself too.David Blacklock wrote:And from Ecclesiastes 7:20 “There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.” -and from Proverbs 20:9 “Who can say, 'I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin?'”
Clearly these few verses out of that large volume which is the Old Testament do assert that Man is sinful from birth. But the elaboration of what is in these few verses to the doctrine as developed by Augustine seems a bit much.
Easy... For God is Love... When you separate yourself from God, you are separating yourself from love...David Blacklock wrote:Neither do I see how your assessment — “The basic message of "original sin" is that love no longer takes dominance in the lives of it's people... - as nicely said as it is — could be so assuredly extrapolated from these few verses.
Everyone does sin.... You are glossing over the part "even over those who did not sin by breaking a command".David Blacklock wrote:From the New Testament, you took from Romans and Corinthians. 5:12-19. Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin — I thought everybody sinned - by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come, etc.”
David, it seems that your mind is already made up then... I'm not sure then if I have the time to go on. It seems rather pointless to continue for me.David Blacklock wrote:I admit, these verses from Paul come closer to what became church doctrine, but I don't think it's there yet. Not only that, I don't consider the Bible to be a reliable source of what happened. I pretty much follow the Documentary Hypothesis for the Old Testament and I think the New Testament was written as more of a historical fiction.
Perhaps this article may help... http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rigin.htmlDavid Blacklock wrote:That means that many stories, ideas, phrases, and verses were taken either from the Old Testament or from mythology. Others were from stories handed down about Jesus and “improved” in the process. I don't believe any New Testament writings were from eye-witnesses.
I think the message is quite clear that Paul simply amplied the message of Christ... The roots of Christ were already planted. He just watered it to make it grow..David Blacklock wrote:Finally, much of New Testament writing was written to prove a theological point, including most of what Paul wrote. And incidentally, to me, Paul tried to change Christianity from the religion OF Jesus to a religion ABOUT Jesus.
Well it looks to me that Mark wasn't much of a theologian.. As I have stated before and have shown from the Bible, we are NOT guilty... We are born to do either good or bad in our lives, but we are not guilty until proven so in court.David Blacklock wrote:These are just opinions, but based on a lot of reading. It's impossible to get to the bottom of historical things and the official story is usually written by the winners. There's an awful lot of dogma out there that people of all faiths strongly believe, most of it because of an accident of birth. So, no, I don't believe in the concept of sin - it carries unnecessary guilt with it.
“Very well, God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden…all for disobeying a command…But he did not stop there….He requires his children to deal justly — and gently — with offenders, and forgive them seventy-and-seven times; whereas he deals neither justly nor gently with anyone, and he did not forgive the ignorant and thoughtless first pair of juveniles even their first small offense and say, 'You may go free this time, I will give you another chance.' On the contrary! He elected to punish their children, all through the ages to the end of time, for a trifling offence committed by others before they were born…a wild nightmare of vengefulness has has possessed him ever since, and he has almost bankrupted his native ingenuities in inventing pains and miseries and humiliations and heartbreaks wherewith to embitter the brief lives of Adam's descendants.”
-stolen from Mark Twain
DB
Our handle bars on our bikes may be crooked, but they still work with a little practice....
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
David Blacklock
- Valued Member
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:43 pm
- Christian: No
Re: Death/Dying
>>We are all imperfect in love aren't we? I hope you agree with me here...<<
I certainly do — human nature has its definite faults. If you believe in evolution, as I do, the obsessive nature of the developing human mind thrived on controversy and mind games as it evolved, ending up with the [continuing to evolve] Rube-Goldberg human anatomy, human physiology, and human nature that we have today.
>>it seems that your mind is already made up then... I'm not sure then if I have the time to go on. It seems rather pointless to continue for me<<
I change my mind all the time, but when it comes to the big strokes, it's usually more of an “adjustment.” I'll bet you can empathize with that.
>>it looks to me that Mark [Twain] wasn't much of a theologian<<
I would maintain that he WAS a theologian - an amateur like most of us, but with views on the opposite side of the continuum than the more confirmed believer. He knew the Bible quite well and studied it thoroughly. Biblical echoes abound in his works, but the fallacies he found in the Old Testament troubled him throughout his lifetime. In “The Bible According to Mark Twain” (1996), he aims his satire at favorite stories from the Old Testament. He worked on these essays for most of his life but was afraid their irreverent nature would damage his career, therefore, he just kept re-writing and re-editing them. Most of them were not published until after his death and for some this is their introduction:
Adam and Eve, in their diaries, present bittersweet divergent stories of their dysfunctional relationship. Their accounts could be prototypes from a marriage counsellor's office, or short versions of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus."
In "Captain Stormfield Goes to Heaven," the Captain has a dream about ending up in Heaven when he thought he was going to the other place. "He was deeply religious, by nature and by the training of his mother, and a fluent swearer by the training of his father." We learn all those things about heaven that were left out of the Bible - but would be included in an imaginary book, "How to experience Heaven in six weeks on $10 a day."
An "Etiquette in the Afterlife" excerpt: "Do not try to show off. St. Peter dislikes it. The simpler you are dressed, the better it will please him. Above all things, avoid overdressing. A pair of spurs and a fig-leaf is plenty...leave your dog outside. Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay outside and the dog would go in."
In Twain's masterpiece, "Letters From The Earth," Satan has been temporarily expelled from heaven and is wandering around the universe. On a lark he decides to visit earth, an insignificant little spot in an outlying galaxy where God had once played around for a few days. Satan is astounded at what he finds, and writes home.
Of course Noah makes an entertaining appearance and through it all, Mark Twain expounds on those things in the Old Testament that do not make sense to him.
Not your usual theologian, but which pastor among 50+ Christian denomination would you call usual?
DB
I certainly do — human nature has its definite faults. If you believe in evolution, as I do, the obsessive nature of the developing human mind thrived on controversy and mind games as it evolved, ending up with the [continuing to evolve] Rube-Goldberg human anatomy, human physiology, and human nature that we have today.
>>it seems that your mind is already made up then... I'm not sure then if I have the time to go on. It seems rather pointless to continue for me<<
I change my mind all the time, but when it comes to the big strokes, it's usually more of an “adjustment.” I'll bet you can empathize with that.
>>it looks to me that Mark [Twain] wasn't much of a theologian<<
I would maintain that he WAS a theologian - an amateur like most of us, but with views on the opposite side of the continuum than the more confirmed believer. He knew the Bible quite well and studied it thoroughly. Biblical echoes abound in his works, but the fallacies he found in the Old Testament troubled him throughout his lifetime. In “The Bible According to Mark Twain” (1996), he aims his satire at favorite stories from the Old Testament. He worked on these essays for most of his life but was afraid their irreverent nature would damage his career, therefore, he just kept re-writing and re-editing them. Most of them were not published until after his death and for some this is their introduction:
Adam and Eve, in their diaries, present bittersweet divergent stories of their dysfunctional relationship. Their accounts could be prototypes from a marriage counsellor's office, or short versions of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus."
In "Captain Stormfield Goes to Heaven," the Captain has a dream about ending up in Heaven when he thought he was going to the other place. "He was deeply religious, by nature and by the training of his mother, and a fluent swearer by the training of his father." We learn all those things about heaven that were left out of the Bible - but would be included in an imaginary book, "How to experience Heaven in six weeks on $10 a day."
An "Etiquette in the Afterlife" excerpt: "Do not try to show off. St. Peter dislikes it. The simpler you are dressed, the better it will please him. Above all things, avoid overdressing. A pair of spurs and a fig-leaf is plenty...leave your dog outside. Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay outside and the dog would go in."
In Twain's masterpiece, "Letters From The Earth," Satan has been temporarily expelled from heaven and is wandering around the universe. On a lark he decides to visit earth, an insignificant little spot in an outlying galaxy where God had once played around for a few days. Satan is astounded at what he finds, and writes home.
Of course Noah makes an entertaining appearance and through it all, Mark Twain expounds on those things in the Old Testament that do not make sense to him.
Not your usual theologian, but which pastor among 50+ Christian denomination would you call usual?
DB
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
Re: Death/Dying
Thanks for the confession... Well I'm not a fan of Darwinian evolution, but I get the point. My beliefs would be that we are more spiritual. As for love, it can exist or evolve not only inside us but outside us as well...David Blacklock wrote:>>We are all imperfect in love aren't we? I hope you agree with me here...<<
I certainly do — human nature has its definite faults. If you believe in evolution, as I do, the obsessive nature of the developing human mind thrived on controversy and mind games as it evolved, ending up with the [continuing to evolve] Rube-Goldberg human anatomy, human physiology, and human nature that we have today.
Ok, fair enough. I guess that leaves two of us then...David Blacklock wrote:I change my mind all the time, but when it comes to the big strokes, it's usually more of an “adjustment.” I'll bet you can empathize with that.
Well, I would admit there is some work or understanding that needs to go into the Bible. I think sometimes that we (as humans) can get into theological debates that may hit a wall. Instead of relying on our gut feelings, we tend to veer off the path... Notice I'm saying "we" here...David Blacklock wrote:>>it looks to me that Mark [Twain] wasn't much of a theologian<<
I would maintain that he WAS a theologian - an amateur like most of us, but with views on the opposite side of the continuum than the more confirmed believer. He knew the Bible quite well and studied it thoroughly. Biblical echoes abound in his works, but the fallacies he found in the Old Testament troubled him throughout his lifetime.
That is too funny... Thanks for sharing that. Maybe I'll reconsider my opinion on Twain.David Blacklock wrote:In “The Bible According to Mark Twain” (1996), he aims his satire at favorite stories from the Old Testament. He worked on these essays for most of his life but was afraid their irreverent nature would damage his career, therefore, he just kept re-writing and re-editing them. Most of them were not published until after his death and for some this is their introduction:
Adam and Eve, in their diaries, present bittersweet divergent stories of their dysfunctional relationship. Their accounts could be prototypes from a marriage counsellor's office, or short versions of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus."
In "Captain Stormfield Goes to Heaven," the Captain has a dream about ending up in Heaven when he thought he was going to the other place. "He was deeply religious, by nature and by the training of his mother, and a fluent swearer by the training of his father." We learn all those things about heaven that were left out of the Bible - but would be included in an imaginary book, "How to experience Heaven in six weeks on $10 a day."
An "Etiquette in the Afterlife" excerpt: "Do not try to show off. St. Peter dislikes it. The simpler you are dressed, the better it will please him. Above all things, avoid overdressing. A pair of spurs and a fig-leaf is plenty...leave your dog outside. Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay outside and the dog would go in."
In Twain's masterpiece, "Letters From The Earth," Satan has been temporarily expelled from heaven and is wandering around the universe. On a lark he decides to visit earth, an insignificant little spot in an outlying galaxy where God had once played around for a few days. Satan is astounded at what he finds, and writes home.
Of course Noah makes an entertaining appearance and through it all, Mark Twain expounds on those things in the Old Testament that do not make sense to him.
Not your usual theologian, but which pastor among 50+ Christian denomination would you call usual?
DB
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
David Blacklock
- Valued Member
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:43 pm
- Christian: No
Re: Death/Dying
from Gman: >>That is too funny... Thanks for sharing that. Maybe I'll reconsider my opinion on Twain<<
Good! Then I'll reproduce part of my personal favorite among Twain's Biblical parody interpretations: the argument between Huck and Tom about whether Soloman was wise:
...Harem."
"What's de harem?"
"The place where he keeps his wives. Don't you know about the harem? Solomon had one; he had about a million wives."
"Why, yes, dat's so; I -- I'd done forgot it. A harem's a bo'd'n-house, I reck'n. Mos' likely dey has rackety times in de nussery. En I reck'n de wives
quarrels considable; en dat 'crease de racket. Yit dey say Sollermun de wises' man dat ever live'. I doan' take no stock in dat. Bekase why: would a wise man want to live in de mids' er sich a blim-blammin' all de time? No -- 'deed he wouldn't. A wise man 'ud take en buil' a biler-factry; en den he could shet down de biler-factry when he want to res'."
"Well, but he was the wisest man, anyway; because the widow she told me so, her own self."
"I doan k'yer what de widder say, he warn't no wise man nuther. He had some er de dad-fetchedes' ways I ever see. Does you know 'bout dat chile dat he 'uz gwyne to chop in two?"
"Yes, the widow told me all about it."
"Well den! Warn' dat de beatenes' notion in de worl'? You jes' take en look at it a minute. Dah's de stump, dah -- dat's one er de women; heah's you -- dat's de yuther one; I's Sollermun; en dish yer dollar bill's de chile. Bofe un you claims it. What does I do? Does I shin aroun' mongs' de neighbors en fine out which un you de bill do b'long to, en han' it over to de right one, all safe en soun', de way dat anybody dat had any gumption would? No; I take en whack de bill in two, en give half un it to you, en de yuther half to de yuther woman. Dat's de way Sollermun was gwyne to do wid de chile. Now I want to ast you: what's de use er dat half a bill? -- can't buy noth'n wid it. En what use is a half a chile? I wouldn' give a dern for a million un um."
"But hang it, Jim, you've clean missed the point -- blame it, you've missed it a thousand mile."
"Who? Me? Go 'long. Doan' talk to me 'bout yo' pints. I reck'n I knows sense when I sees it; en dey ain' no sense in sich doin's as dat. De 'spute warn't 'bout a half a chile, de 'spute was 'bout a whole chile; en de man dat think he kin settle a 'spute 'bout a whole chile wid a half a chile doan' know enough to come in out'n de rain. Doan' talk to me 'bout Sollermun, Huck, I knows him by de back."
"But I tell you you don't get the point."
"Blame de point! I reck'n I knows what I knows. En mine you, de real pint is down furder -- it's down deeper. It lays in de way Sollermun was raised. You take a man dat's got on'y one or two chillen; is dat man gwyne to be waseful o' chillen? No, he ain't; he can't 'ford it. He know how to value 'em. But you take a man dat's got 'bout five million chillen runnin' roun' de house, en it's diffunt. He as soon chop a chile in two as a cat. Dey's plenty mo'. A chile er two, mo' er less, warn't no consekens to Sollermun, dad fatch him!"
Good! Then I'll reproduce part of my personal favorite among Twain's Biblical parody interpretations: the argument between Huck and Tom about whether Soloman was wise:
...Harem."
"What's de harem?"
"The place where he keeps his wives. Don't you know about the harem? Solomon had one; he had about a million wives."
"Why, yes, dat's so; I -- I'd done forgot it. A harem's a bo'd'n-house, I reck'n. Mos' likely dey has rackety times in de nussery. En I reck'n de wives
quarrels considable; en dat 'crease de racket. Yit dey say Sollermun de wises' man dat ever live'. I doan' take no stock in dat. Bekase why: would a wise man want to live in de mids' er sich a blim-blammin' all de time? No -- 'deed he wouldn't. A wise man 'ud take en buil' a biler-factry; en den he could shet down de biler-factry when he want to res'."
"Well, but he was the wisest man, anyway; because the widow she told me so, her own self."
"I doan k'yer what de widder say, he warn't no wise man nuther. He had some er de dad-fetchedes' ways I ever see. Does you know 'bout dat chile dat he 'uz gwyne to chop in two?"
"Yes, the widow told me all about it."
"Well den! Warn' dat de beatenes' notion in de worl'? You jes' take en look at it a minute. Dah's de stump, dah -- dat's one er de women; heah's you -- dat's de yuther one; I's Sollermun; en dish yer dollar bill's de chile. Bofe un you claims it. What does I do? Does I shin aroun' mongs' de neighbors en fine out which un you de bill do b'long to, en han' it over to de right one, all safe en soun', de way dat anybody dat had any gumption would? No; I take en whack de bill in two, en give half un it to you, en de yuther half to de yuther woman. Dat's de way Sollermun was gwyne to do wid de chile. Now I want to ast you: what's de use er dat half a bill? -- can't buy noth'n wid it. En what use is a half a chile? I wouldn' give a dern for a million un um."
"But hang it, Jim, you've clean missed the point -- blame it, you've missed it a thousand mile."
"Who? Me? Go 'long. Doan' talk to me 'bout yo' pints. I reck'n I knows sense when I sees it; en dey ain' no sense in sich doin's as dat. De 'spute warn't 'bout a half a chile, de 'spute was 'bout a whole chile; en de man dat think he kin settle a 'spute 'bout a whole chile wid a half a chile doan' know enough to come in out'n de rain. Doan' talk to me 'bout Sollermun, Huck, I knows him by de back."
"But I tell you you don't get the point."
"Blame de point! I reck'n I knows what I knows. En mine you, de real pint is down furder -- it's down deeper. It lays in de way Sollermun was raised. You take a man dat's got on'y one or two chillen; is dat man gwyne to be waseful o' chillen? No, he ain't; he can't 'ford it. He know how to value 'em. But you take a man dat's got 'bout five million chillen runnin' roun' de house, en it's diffunt. He as soon chop a chile in two as a cat. Dey's plenty mo'. A chile er two, mo' er less, warn't no consekens to Sollermun, dad fatch him!"
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
Re: Death/Dying
Ok David... You got me. 
I'm switching to egg nog, Twain, and rum for the holidays from now on. 
I'm switching to egg nog, Twain, and rum for the holidays from now on. The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
Gman
- Old School
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Northern California
Re: Death/Dying
David Blacklock wrote: ...Harem."
"What's de harem?"
"The place where he keeps his wives. Don't you know about the harem? Solomon had one; he had about a million wives."
"Why, yes, dat's so; I -- I'd done forgot it. A harem's a bo'd'n-house, I reck'n. Mos' likely dey has rackety times in de nussery. En I reck'n de wives
quarrels considable; en dat 'crease de racket. Yit dey say Sollermun de wises' man dat ever live'. I doan' take no stock in dat. Bekase why: would a wise man want to live in de mids' er sich a blim-blammin' all de time? No -- 'deed he wouldn't. A wise man 'ud take en buil' a biler-factry; en den he could shet down de biler-factry when he want to res'."
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
-
gogobuffalo
- Familiar Member
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:04 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Location: Illinois
Re: Death/Dying
Hey guys I don't mean to ruin your fun but this is one thing I would like to post. If original sin is true, that doesn't mean that God creates humans guilty and that He is cruel for doing so. God created humans perfectly and flawlessly, but the Bible also says that after Adam and Eve sinned that man lost the image of God. That would certainly imply that we were not quite how we were created. I do like the imperfect in love explanation, which to an extent I believe is true. But I also believe that original sin is true. There are multiple versus in the Bible that can be used to support it. And Gman isn't your theory the same thing as orginal sin? Now you will probably find some way to word your way around this, haha just joking, but God says that man should love God with his whole heart and mind and etc. in the Bible. Now if we are born imperfect in love, we are therefore born without fullfilling this request from God, therefore being born sinful! Well, just my thoughts on the matter, I'm not expert on original sin by any means. But yea people always get this wrong in my mind: God did not create these terrible beings that run around and kill each other and do terrible things and He did not create a terrible place for these terrible people to do these terrible things in. HE ceated two perfect people and a perfect Earth. It was MAN who brought MAN into a sinful world, not God. God of course knew it was going to happen, but creation in this way is the only way for God to have created us with a true and complete free will, which is what He wanted to do. Why? Well I just don't know. But ask yourself this: would you like to be a preprogrammed robot?
-
David Blacklock
- Valued Member
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:43 pm
- Christian: No
Re: Death/Dying
>>would you like to be a pre-programmed robot?<<
Maybe we are. What difference would it make to your sense of well being if you were but didn't know it?
DB
Maybe we are. What difference would it make to your sense of well being if you were but didn't know it?
DB