Kevin's Watch

Great words there LM. (Funnily enough, a friend of mine in the UK used to date his daughter, Indie (India actually.) )

Some interesting posts. I still think the apple was a big set-up. Even if we're talking about free will, and omniscient god must have known what the result would be.

So he puts these folks into a position where they're going to screw up, to get a hold on them.

Anyway, I've been giving the original intent here serious thought. And I've come to the conclusion that Cail's way of looking at it is perfectly fair. i.e. As long as you have faith. It doesn't, (or shouldn't) matter what your faith is in. Just that you have it. That you accept something on it's basis. (And live a "good" life of course.)

Think about it. If there is a heaven, or any kind of afterlife or deity, why should they let people in who don't have faith that it's true? Regardless of what they do? (Based on the idea that belief is more important than what you do at least.)

So yeah. I can accept that Cail. Makes a just kind of sense on the whole. Of course it leave me out, but I can live with that.

Of course, if it's dependant on what kind of god you worship, then I'm even less interested. But I certainly think that the message is garbled. A "heavenly reward" should be based on your actions on earth. At least, if god really wants people to love each other. If that's not what he wants, then the other interpretations make more sense.

--A

Av, as I said in another thread, that's what man wants, to earn his way in. Its our nature. Which is why I question it.

You suggesting that one has to earn their way into heaven because that's man's nature?

...Oh...

I realised what you mean: You question the value of good works because they would be man's rationalisation as to why he deserved to get in?

I can understand your stance there, much as I may disagree. but I'm off for the day, so we'll have to take it up tomorrow.

--A

Humanity has gone through many ages of belief and ahh...unbelief. Take for instance the Enlightenment followed by Romanticism. The Paleoindian and Archaic North American prehistory was very animistic with seemingly little effort placed into theism. Much like the Middle East, not until free time was granted and a certain level of organization and food production was established did theism particularly monotheism begin. The Jews were not monotheists either, not until long after the Babylonian Exile, even Solomon, wise Solomon, placated other gods. The scientific Greek, while having a pantheon, devoted much more time to learning and study than devotion.

Always nice to have a man on board who knows his trade Kins.

Cail wrote:The only analogy I can think of (and it's a bad one) is that it's like the library. You can't check out a book if you don't have a card. The card's free, and anyone can get one, but if you choose not to, then you really can't be surprised or upset that you can't take a book out.

I'd say it's more like choosing between two library cards, one made of plastic and one made of a loved one's severed head. Each individual steps forward and is presented with the cards, but which one actually grants access is selected at random on a case-by-case basis. For some, it's the plastic, for others the head. Those who are lucky and get plastic take it and swan into the library; those who get the severed head refuse and are rejected. They don't necessarily fail to deserve entry, nor do they necessarily doubt that the library exists, but the criteria they are given for entry are horrific.

I'd say that's a divine admin error, rather than the evil of man.

I find the package of Christianity repellent, and the criteria for entry to heaven unacceptable.

Ever seen The Prisoner? Christianity gets me like that. "I am not a Christian! I am a free man!"

Behind the strangeness, what I was getting at was this:

It's not as simple as "take the card or don't" - a choice with an obvious right answer that costs nothing.

What does being a Christian (or of any faith, for that matter) cost? I'm free, and I'm <gasp!> a Catholic.

You're not free to have sex outside marriage. You're not free to hate thy neighbour. You have to follow rules, I don't.

CovenantJr wrote:The only analogy I can think of (and it's a bad one) is that it's like the library. I'd say it's more like choosing between two library cards, one made of plastic and one made of a loved one's severed head.

WTF?


My analogy would be like a cat and a dog. Some cats are picky eaters; there's a time in the day for everything and if it outside their time for being interested in you then you won't get any interest. A dog on the other hand is always interested, even if you wake him out of a dead sleep.

So let's say I have some cat food and some dog food. The cat's not interested. I'll eat it later, if & when I feel like it. The dog comes as soon as its poured in the bowl.

----

Or here's a gross one since CJ likes that sort of thing.

Two souls go to the library to apply for a library card. The first guy is a Christian and his soul is bound for heaven. He's alive!
The second soul is unsaved and looks like a bad George Romero movie, he's a rotting corpse!

Which one would you rather be?

----

Aren't analogies fun? You can always make your view look like the right one through exaggeration.

Nice try SalotH.
Firstly, it was Cail's admittedly bad analogy. And secondly, it may be bad, but yours are worse.

And I personally think Cail's analogy illustrates quite clearly the idea he has presented about who is saved. But that's just me.

ur-bane wrote:Nice try SalotH.
Firstly, it was Cail's admittedly bad analogy. And secondly, it may be bad, but yours are worse.

And I personally think Cail's analogy illustrates quite clearly the idea he has presented about who is saved. But that's just me.

I have a lot of respect for Cail's intelligence.

SalotHSaR wrote:

ur-bane wrote:Nice try SalotH.
Firstly, it was Cail's admittedly bad analogy. And secondly, it may be bad, but yours are worse.

And I personally think Cail's analogy illustrates quite clearly the idea he has presented about who is saved. But that's just me.

I have a lot of respect for Cail's intelligence.

Thank you both, but SalotHSar, you might not want to let that get out....

Nathan wrote:You're not free to have sex outside marriage. You're not free to hate thy neighbour. You have to follow rules, I don't.

Wrong. I can choose to do whatever I want. I don't have to follow the "rules". That's where freewill comes in. The difference is, if I genuinely believe I screwed up, and ask for His forgiveness, it's granted. I'm human, it's expected that I'm going to screw up.

But you only get that waiver if you believe. You can screw up, however badly, and the fact that you believe makes it all alright. If you don't believe, it doesn't matter how sorry you are for screwing up, how hard you work to make up for it. You're still screwed.

You know, I've always preferred cats to dogs. For a very simple reason: If you kick a cat, you got a better than even chance that you'll never see it again. Kick a dog, and chances are he'll be back, wondering what the hell he did, and looking for affection.

Another poor analogy perhaps, but it seems to suggest a little moral tale.

(And a moral tale is what religion is really about isn't it? Obey what is higher than you without question, accept your lot, and you'll live forever.)

--Avatar

Cail wrote:Thank you both, but SalotHSar, you might not want to let that get out....

It was a joke. Look at the thread more closely. Who said what & what I'm really saying. I really liked that one & I got to slap the smack down on two individuals at once. Don't let my slyness go unnoticed now, it's more fun with an audience.


Actually, if you don't get it, don't worry. I had to point it out to my wife & she's pretty quick. Oh well. I guess what I'm really saying is that this thread is about dead. We're talking about a severed head library card being a better comparison to Christianity than an undead non-believer trying to get a library card. Whatever point there ever was originally is surely lost beyond all redemption. Avatar, start up a new topic. LOL!

You'd be amazed at what happens when you think a thread is dead. In this place, expect the unexpected.

--A

SalothSaR wrote:I've always been taught that sin was passed on by semen.

Does that mean that children of a sinfull woman and that of a clean man would be clean?

Apart from the thoughts that Prebe's question raises, the whole notion of "passing on" a sin (any sin) is ridiculous to me.

It suggests not only that we're inherently (and thus deliberately if we're created) flawed, but that we are responsible for the mistakes of our forebearers.

While I could understand sin in the sense that its an action that god dislikes, (if I accepted the concept of sin in the first place), I can't understand the idea that we would be blamed not only for the actions of our parents (fathers?), but for every man all the way back.

Would any of us condemn somebody because his father was a thief? Would you jail somebody because his father killed somebody?

Isn't this another reinforcement of the idea that our actions have nothing to do with our "acceptability" to god?

How do you pass a "sin" on? It's as ridiculous as the idea that a man's heritage magically makes him fit to rule/command, regardles of whether or not he os actually competent.

Richard Bach wrote:The only sin is to limit the "Is". Don't.

The whole idea of "original sin" strikes me as totally unjust.

--Avatar

Maybe sin is contained in a cytoplasmatically transmitted organelle like a mitochondrion. Only paternally inherrited (as opposed to mitochondria, and midichlorians ?) I say cytoplasmatically, because if it was in the chromosomes, women should be able to pass it on as well. Unless of course the sin gene become irreversibly methylated (inactivated) in the presence of two X-chromosomes, which would mean that women were never sinners.

An other possibility would be that it was bound to the Y-chromosome (this can only be passed on by men, since only they have it), but this again would make it impossible for women to be sinners.

So the only thing that could explain original sin is a cytoplasmic factor, or organelle. A Sintochondrion.

(sorry for the nerdy explanation, but this is really the only way it could work)

LMAO!

Aah, I doubt we're talking about a biological inheritance so much as a "spiritual" one. (Of course you know this.)

--A