If Jesus died for our sins...

Delorean · Post by **Delorean** » Sat May 07, 2011 9:03 pm

According to what I've learned through school scripture studies, what little Bible I've read and various other medium, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and were punished by God, Adam punished by having to toil the earth labouriously through weeds, rocks, etc, and Eve was punished with having periods and bringing forth children in pain.

Skip forward a few thousand years, and Jesus died for everyone's sins, so shouldn't that have wiped the slate clean? Then why are there still rocks and weeds, and why do women still get periods and have painful childbirth?

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Sat May 07, 2011 9:51 pm

hmmm that's an interesting idea... definately different from what is known usually as sin.... but then again, there's the whole idea that Jesus died so that we may again "walk" with God, because after adam and eve sinned they also lost that... which according to the new testament Christ's death does that... gives us a chance to be close again with God gentiles and Jews... so we're not constantly sacrificing animals... which then christ is figuratively the last "animal" sacrificed...

Post by **spot** » Sat May 07, 2011 11:21 pm

Omni_Skittles;1359063 wrote: so we're not constantly sacrificing animals... Speak for yourself, Skittles. I converted my basement into a Temple years ago.

Cats go missing round here, but on the plus side I hand out really nice coats as Christmas presents.

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Sat May 07, 2011 11:26 pm

spot;1359065 wrote: Speak for yourself, Skittles. I converted my basement into a Temple years ago.

Cats go missing round here, but on the plus side I hand out really nice coats as Christmas presents.that's a nice trade to have... turning kittens into fur coats.... i'd want one! sooo soft

Delorean · Post by **Delorean** » Sat May 07, 2011 11:31 pm

spot;1359065 wrote: Speak for yourself, Skittles. I converted my basement into a Temple years ago.

Cats go missing round here, but on the plus side I hand out really nice coats as Christmas presents.

Gee, I'd love for you to camp out in my backyard, you'd have more fur supplies than you could poke a stick at!

Post by **spot** » Sat May 07, 2011 11:51 pm

Delorean;1359061 wrote: Skip forward a few thousand years, and Jesus died for everyone's sins,There, perhaps, is your theological error. On what basis do you think the New Testament says he did?

I thought what He said was that His redemption - think gift coupons to understand the word - involved claiming His own from His Father on the day of Judgement. That's the basis for "died for our sins", unless I'm wrong. A few quotes wouldn't come amiss. And those included in "our" is remarkably limited, it refers to an in crowd. The sheep as opposed to the goats.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 08, 2011 3:14 am

Delorean;1359061 wrote: According to what I've learned through school scripture studies, what little Bible I've read and various other medium, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and were punished by God, Adam punished by having to toil the earth labouriously through weeds, rocks, etc, and Eve was punished with having periods and bringing forth children in pain.

Skip forward a few thousand years, and Jesus died for everyone's sins, so shouldn't that have wiped the slate clean? Then why are there still rocks and weeds, and why do women still get periods and have painful childbirth?

Do you believe in the concept of original sin?

Post by **spot** » Sun May 08, 2011 4:21 am

It's an enquiry into apostolic (as opposed to sectarian) dogma, surely, regardless of any personal opinion as to the truth of the Church's assertions. Apostolic opinion avers that if the biblical record has Our Lord uttering a particular saying then you can bet your socks He said just that, or near enough. Actually there's plenty of Baptists who'd make the same claim, though it wouldn't be an article of faith in their case, just narrow bloody-mindedness.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 08, 2011 6:48 am

spot;1359072 wrote: It's an enquiry into apostolic (as opposed to sectarian) dogma, surely, regardless of any personal opinion as to the truth of the Church's assertions. Apostolic opinion avers that if the biblical record has Our Lord uttering a particular saying then you can bet your socks He said just that, or near enough. Actually there's plenty of Baptists who'd make the same claim, though it wouldn't be an article of faith in their case, just narrow bloody-mindedness.

You're the one that has brought sectarian in to the conversation not I. My favourite religious sect I think are the ranters, mainly because they seem to have annoyed everybody.

The OP asks the question if jesus died for our sins why was the slate not wiped clean. Asking if he actually believes in the concept of original sin is a reasonable question. If he doesn't believe in it then he can't believe Jesus died for our sins. If he doesn't believe it then the "punishment" of having to toil the earth labouriously through weeds, rocks, etc, and Eve being punished with having periods and bringing forth children in pain has nothing to do with god and he has the answer to his question.

If he does believe it then it becomes a case of which particular version or selection of explanations will provide him with an answer that satisfies. While I am actually familiar with and can argue various of the sectarian beliefs on the matter I would not attempt do so for the simple reason I do not believe any of them. It boils down to belief, you either belief in original sin or you do not, if you do not many will argue you cannot be a true christian if you do not believe that is why he died. It starts getting silly and pointless with the shouty people getting terribly upset by people disagreeing with them.

Actually there's plenty of Baptists who'd make the same claim, though it wouldn't be an article of faith in their case, just narrow bloody-mindedness

No doubt there will be some baptist along shortly to take you to task over that little dig ready to shoot you down with the bullets of divine revelation.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 08, 2011 7:06 am

I do wish I could communicate more easily with you. The entire point of my post was to say that the OP's personal beliefs are irrelevant to our answering the question and that asking her, when the information hasn't been volunteered, is intrusive. The distinction between dogmatic systems among the Christian denominations was secondary but it seems to be all you noticed.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 08, 2011 8:02 am

spot;1359077 wrote: I do wish I could communicate more easily with you. The entire point of my post was to say that the OP's personal beliefs are irrelevant to our answering the question and that asking her, when the information hasn't been volunteered, is intrusive. The distinction between dogmatic systems among the Christian denominations was secondary but it seems to be all you noticed.

I raise the question because so many seeking answers to such questions have not actually asked themselves the obvious one first. Like, do they actually believe in original sin? What does it actually mean? Some believe the original sin was sex, others it was disobeying god.

If delorean has asked then the debate will continue without any more input from me. If he hasn't asked that question then maybe he'll think about it. If it's intrusive I am sure he is quite capable of speaking for himself and if it is seen as such I apologise since pointless prying is not my intention.

The distinction between dogmatic systems among the Christian denominations was secondary but it seems to be all you noticed

But not secondary to the answer given to the question. I also find many christians are surprised to find out there are actually different answers to the same questions depending on which denomination you ask. Please don't assume ( as you seem to) That I actually hold to any particular version. Because I don't.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sun May 08, 2011 8:18 am

gmc;1359079 wrote: I raise the question because so many seeking answers to such questions have not actually asked themselves the obvious one first. Like, do they actually believe in original sin?
That's a question for Catholics, but not Christians. Catholic dogma is in every case politically, not spiritually based, and the dogma of original sin makes a 'reason' for political interference and control, because it gives a 'reason' for water baptism, invariably under the careful aegis of the Vatican. It also makes a reason for worship of 'Mary', who, according to dogma, was born without this mysterious original sin that nobody understands, along with other Catholic 'mysteries'.

Sin is sin because it is deliberate breach of conscience. It is nonsensical to allege that it can be inherited. Everyone has a Fall on first doing that which they know to be wrong, either by commission or omission. The compromised, guilty conscience that results is ineradicable: in the Biblical view, after this life as well as throughout it. That is, unless there is a saviour or christ to clear consciences.

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Sun May 08, 2011 9:09 am

"Then why are there still rocks and weeds, and why do women still get periods and have painful childbirth?"

The "rocks and weeds" that are needed to be cleared on the earth represent work. We appreciated more what we have if we work for it; when we are responsible for it. "Periods" are more of an inconvenience than anything else. They are necessary to prepare a woman's body if or when she is to become pregnant. "Painful childbirth" is only a temporary thing. We recover to blessed with a new child. And many of us, more than once. JMO

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 08, 2011 11:28 am

xyz;1359080 wrote: That's a question for Catholics, but not Christians. Catholic dogma is in every case politically, not spiritually based, and the dogma of original sin makes a 'reason' for political interference and control, because it gives a 'reason' for water baptism, invariably under the careful aegis of the Vatican. It also makes a reason for worship of 'Mary', who, according to dogma, was born without this mysterious original sin that nobody understands, along with other Catholic 'mysteries'.

Sin is sin because it is deliberate breach of conscience. It is nonsensical to allege that it can be inherited. Everyone has a Fall on first doing that which they know to be wrong, either by commission or omission. The compromised, guilty conscience that results is ineradicable: in the Biblical view, after this life as well as throughout it. That is, unless there is a saviour or christ to clear consciences.

Leaving aside the vexed question as to whether catholics are actually christians or if heretics can get to heaven I think you will find followers of John Calvin, martin luther, john Wesley and even Joseph Smith might disagree with you. Most of the protestant sects accept original sin as part of their faith. You may not but other christian sects do, it's one of the many reasons christians find to squabble when they are not ganging up on non-believers. Mormons seem quite civilised in that at least little children are free of it.

from the book of mormon

8. Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. 9. And after this manner did the Holy Ghost Manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.

I shall leave you all to argue about it. I find belief or otherwise in original sin just one of the many things that make me an non-believer.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sun May 08, 2011 12:29 pm

gmc;1359099 wrote: Leaving aside the vexed question as to whether catholics are actually christians or if heretics can get to heaven I think you
gmc finds it quite impossible to write without personal reference. However, we can surely indulge his foible in the interest of developing the thread topic.

will find followers of John Calvin,
An actual murderer.

martin luther,
An inciter to murder.

john Wesley
A high churchman to his dying day, strangely enough.

and even Joseph Smith
Quite. Even.

might disagree with you.
What a relief.

Most of the protestant sects accept original sin as part of their faith.

Can we see documentary evidence of this, please? And do try to spell correctly. How many times does it need to be said?

I find belief or otherwise in original sin just one of the many things that make me an non-believer.
Then do you not have a vested interest in retaining a straw man? How many other grassy figments are there in your pocket?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun May 08, 2011 7:55 pm

Animal and human sacrifice doesn't solve anything. You have a problem and torture an animal ... now you have a problem and a dead animal to dispose of. What more disturbing though is the notion that anything would be appeased by watching the torture.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun May 08, 2011 8:04 pm

along-for-the-ride;1359083 wrote: The "rocks and weeds" that are needed to be cleared on the earth represent work. We appreciated more what we have if we work for it; when we are responsible for it.

That complicates the picture of Heaven then, if pain and work is required for true emotional fulfillment. It's going to be one mind-numbingly boring place without free will and all.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 08, 2011 8:21 pm

yaaarrrgg;1359113 wrote: Animal and human sacrifice doesn't solve anything. You have a problem and torture an animal ... now you have a problem and a dead animal to dispose of. What more disturbing though is the notion that anything would be appeased by watching the torture.

In what way did any biblical animal sacrifice involve torture, yaaarrrgg? This part of the discussion relates entirely to biblical practice stemming from the Mosaic law.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun May 08, 2011 10:02 pm

spot;1359116 wrote: In what way did any biblical animal sacrifice involve torture, yaaarrrgg? This part of the discussion relates entirely to biblical practice stemming from the Mosaic law.

According to the Bible story ... Jesus was tortured for quite a while. The whole foundation of the Christian religion is based on the notion of blood atonement and suffering. Making something innocent suffer and bleed, to appease an angry (and possibly mentally deranged) god. Before Jesus it was the animals that had to pay the price. Jesus was the culmination of the ideal "sacrificial lamb." A human sacrifice. It's a very barbaric practice. And it's fairly nonsensical to punish a thing that didn't even do the supposed wrongdoing.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 09, 2011 5:39 am

yaaarrrgg;1359114 wrote: That complicates the picture of Heaven then, if pain and work is required for true emotional fulfillment. It's going to be one mind-numbingly boring place without free will and all. :)As I understand it, the emotional fulfillment due to work/toiling AFTR refers to will continue except it will be by eternal praise of God in heaven: just to be near him.

This, of course, when examined, magnifies more Christian contradiction.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 09, 2011 7:19 am

yaaarrrgg;1359121 wrote: According to the Bible story ... Jesus was tortured for quite a while. The whole foundation of the Christian religion is based on the notion of blood atonement and suffering. Making something innocent suffer and bleed, to appease an angry (and possibly mentally deranged) god. Before Jesus it was the animals that had to pay the price. Jesus was the culmination of the ideal "sacrificial lamb." A human sacrifice. It's a very barbaric practice. And it's fairly nonsensical to punish a thing that didn't even do the supposed wrongdoing.
That has nothing whatever to do with biblical animal sacrifice, it's just a shoddy play on words on your part. Levitical sacrificial practice had nothing to do with either torture or human sacrifice. "Before Jesus it was the animals that had to pay the price" switches from a torture scenario which wasn't sacrificial, it was criminal execution. You might remember that criminal execution used to involve disembowelling and being torn apart by horses specifically to induce as much suffering as possible, just 400 years ago in England.

"it was the animals that had to pay the price"? In what way did any biblical animal sacrifice involve torture? Produce even a hint of evidence. Sacrificial animals were given the quickest and most pain-free death the priests could achieve.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 09, 2011 8:38 am

It seems to me that the sacrifice for the passover could be considered tortuous. If I recall accurately, wasn't the throat of the animal slit so the blood would slowly and carefully drip into a cup? Also, wasn't one animal sacrificed as such per each family's house entrance?

Post by **spot** » Mon May 09, 2011 9:24 am

Ahso!;1359138 wrote: If I recall accurately, wasn't the throat of the animal slit so the blood would slowly and carefully drip into a cup?That would, I agree, constitute the torture of an animal during sacrifice. The "slowly" bit. I'd be grateful if you could confirm the accuracy of your recollection. You saw it happen? You came across a reference to it in a reputable place?

It sounds a lot more like the kind of tale used to buttress the Blood Libel against Jews before a pogrom broke out. Why a cup, of all things? Cups are for drinking from.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 09, 2011 9:35 am

I was thinking that the blood had to be caught so "slowly and carefully" was my description, though I did find the following.

The Sacrifice.

The sacrificial animal, which was either a lamb or kid, was necessarily a male, one year old, and without blemish. Each family or society offered one victim together, which did not require the "semikah" (laying on of hands), although it was obligatory to determine who were to take part in the sacrifice that the killing might take place with the proper intentions. Only those who were circumcised and clean before the Law might participate; and they were forbidden to have leavened food in their possession during the act of killing the paschal lamb. The animal was slain on the eve of the Passover, on the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, after the Tamid sacrifice had been killed, i.e., at three o'clock, or, in case the eve of the Passover fell on Friday, at two. The killing took place in the court of the Temple, and might be performed by a layman, although the blood had to be caught by a priest, and rows of priests with gold or silver cups in their hands stood in line from the Temple court to the altar, where the blood was sprinkled. These cups were rounded on the bottom, so that they could not be set down; for in that case the blood might coagulate. The priest who caught the blood as it dropped from the victim then handed the cup to the priest next to him, receiving from him an empty one, and the full cup was passed along the line until it reached the last priest, who sprinkled its contents on the altar. The lamb was then hung upon special hooks or sticks and skinned; but if the eve of the Passover fell on a Sabbath, the skin was removed down to the breast only. The abdomen was then cut open, and the fatty portions intended for the altar were taken out, placed in a vessel, salted, and offered by the priest on the altar, while the remaining entrails likewise were taken out and cleansed.

Read more: JewishEncyclopedia.com - PASSOVER SACRIFICE

Post by **spot** » Mon May 09, 2011 9:50 am

That looks like a perfect description of Temple ritual - you'll remember this all ended in 72AD and hasn't happened since? I can't see the least reason to think it was done slowly, the ritual is described in terms which suggest deliberate haste during the despatch of the animals. Some of the blood spurting from the severed neck of each lamb had to end up on the altar, that's all. I expect everyone involved had to change outfits at the end of their shift.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 09, 2011 10:04 am

spot;1359143 wrote: That looks like a perfect description of Temple ritual - you'll remember this all ended in 72AD and hasn't happened since? I can't see the least reason to think it was done slowly, the ritual is described in terms which suggest deliberate haste during the despatch of the animals. Some of the blood spurting from the severed neck of each lamb had to end up on the altar, that's all. I expect everyone involved had to change outfits at the end of their shift.You'd think so, about changing clothes. But that said, both descriptions, yours and mine, are equally plausible as neither you nor I were there and cannot say for sure.

It would seem to me the priests were more concerned with pleasing God and not nearly as concerned with the suffering of the animal. Would you agree? I don't recall reading where God commanded the Israelites to consider the emotional or physical well being of the animal other than how it pleased God, have you.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 09, 2011 11:47 am

Ahso!;1359144 wrote: You'd think so, about changing clothes. But that said, both descriptions, yours and mine, are equally plausible as neither you nor I were there and cannot say for sure.

It would seem to me the priests were more concerned with pleasing God and not nearly as concerned with the suffering of the animal. Would you agree? I don't recall reading where God commanded the Israelites to consider the emotional or physical well being of the animal other than how it pleased God, have you.

I'd assume it to have been quick and as painless as possible because the direct decent of those behaviours still exists in the preparation of kosher meat:shechita slaughter severs the jugular vein, carotid artery, esophagus and trachea in a single continuous cutting movement with an unserrated, sharp knifeI'd be more than surprised if anything different happened at the Temple, it's a process universally applied throughout the Middle East by every religious group since time out of mind.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 09, 2011 11:54 am

You don't think politics or interest groups have influenced the practice as time has advanced? Also, assuming for a moment you're correct, you doubt there hadn't been that many botched sacrifices?

EDIT: If Israelites didn't think much of cutting the foreskin off infants and children while they screamed in pain, you assume they were more deliberate with their animals? That's doubtful to me. These were people who slaughtered human men, women and children at the commands of their God - or observed as he himself did the horrific murdering.

Thankfully, most of it is BS, his dirty work is anyway.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 09, 2011 12:02 pm

I suggest you observe both a Shochet and a Mohel in action. Neither operates on anything that's screaming in pain. Rid yourself of your bias if you want to discuss these things intelligibly.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 09, 2011 12:05 pm

I thought we were discussing events before, what was it you said, 72AD?

Post by **spot** » Mon May 09, 2011 12:25 pm

Ahso!;1359156 wrote: I thought we were discussing events before, what was it you said, 72AD?

You feel a Shochet and a Mohel behave differently now to the way they acted during the period of the Temple? I see no reason to believe so.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 09, 2011 12:54 pm

You don't think the practice has become more precise and the tools manufactured better? You doubt there were any lazy priests who didn't bother to sharpen their knives regularly? You also doubt there were any priests who took pleasure in watching a living thing suffer? Any Catholic who'd take such a stand regarding child molestation within the priesthood would quickly be labeled a fool.

You appear to be expressing the idea that it's been perfectly executed up until 72AD. I'd guess not, not even close. With all the rebuking these priests took from God and the Prophets in the OT and then later by Jesus and the the Apostles, I'd guess they were pretty sloppy and unreliable more often than not, not to mention devious.

To suggest a majority gave a rat's behind about the animals they were slaughtering rings hollow to me.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon May 09, 2011 3:47 pm

As I understood it, the whole concept of animal and human sacrifice is a transference of punishment. You take something innocent and punish it. It's meant to be the payment for the "sin" in the eyes of God. (God sees the blood, and is less angry).

But according to the story why didn't God give Jesus a much less painful death? Why the hours of torture? He could have made him pass out and feel no pain. Or better yet, God could have practiced the supposed Christian value of "forgiveness" and avoid the blood fest to begin with.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be overly concerned with the comfort of the animal when it's receiving the punishment for the sins. Did they punish with kindness and compassion? Isn't that somewhat of a contradiction? These people didn't have a problem with beating and killing their own kids. Trying to paint them as animals lovers is a bit of a stretch IMO.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 09, 2011 4:05 pm

yaaarrrgg;1359171 wrote: As I understood it, the whole concept of animal and human sacrifice is a transference of punishment. You take something innocent and punish it. It's meant to be the payment for the "sin" in the eyes of God. (God sees the blood, and is less angry). You're mistaking sacrifice for scape-goating. Sacrifice is payment, scape-goating is loading your sins onto a representative and ejecting him from the community. Two different forms of magic without a lot in common.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon May 09, 2011 4:40 pm

spot;1359173 wrote: You're mistaking sacrifice for scape-goating. Sacrifice is payment, scape-goating is loading your sins onto a representative and ejecting him from the community. Two different forms of magic without a lot in common.

Well, there's two levels of discussion here ... what I think and what Christians think. I agree with you, but Christians don't view Jesus as a scapegoat do they? Christians typically see him as the sacrificial "lamb"

Post by **spot** » Mon May 09, 2011 5:08 pm

yaaarrrgg;1359178 wrote: Well, there's two levels of discussion here ... what I think and what Christians think. I agree with you, but Christians don't view Jesus as a scapegoat do they? Christians typically see him as the sacrificial "lamb"

What's apparent from the New Testament is that Paul and the other gospel writers built a religion around all the Old-Testament end-times promises of redemption for the chosen people, describing a character who they claimed fulfilled all the requirements one at a time and was therefore undeniably the Messiah been and gone and anyone who signed up for bread and wine on Sundays constituted the redeemed.

I think a very attractive idea is that there was indeed a real-life chap during the early first century in Jerusalem who thought he could force God to honour all the Old-Testament end-times promises of redemption for the chosen people, by personally enacting every prophesy of the Suffering Servant Messiah. By doing it - this is how magic works - you become it. If someone's put his foot onto every stepping-stone one at a time then he's undeniably crossed the river. The stumbling-block is that this attractive idea means the plot was thought up twice, because Paul and the gospel writers undoubtedly invented the version in the first paragraph. Who knows, maybe they were influenced by memories of a transcendental mystic from thirty years before who'd got himself killed trying.

I once, thirty years back, saw Marc Bolan surrounded by a crowd of frenzied worshippers and I heard some stories about him then and since. I'm in at least as good a position as the best-placed gospel writer to write about the things he did before he was killed, and quite probably better.

Loyal · Post by **Loyal** » Tue May 10, 2011 9:24 pm

Just because Jesus died for our sins, doesn't mean that "O. K. now" everything is going to be rosy. He died for inherited sin from Adam. since everyone came through Adam and Eve, Job 14:4 says, something clean cannot come from something unclean. That means that all have sined and fall short of the glory of God. As far as the continued thorns and thissles. It will continue until God says, enough. Then, He will turn his earth into a paradise. Rev.7:16 says they will hunger no more nor thrist any more , neither will the sun beat down upon them nor any scorching heat. They will be guided to fountains of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes. { This will be after armegeddon}

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Wed May 11, 2011 4:22 am

Loyal;1359264 wrote: Just because Jesus died for our sins, doesn't mean that "O. K. now" everything is going to be rosy. He died for inherited sin from Adam.

But then Jesus would have inherited sin, too.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 11, 2011 5:02 am

Loyal;1359264 wrote: Just because Jesus died for our sins, doesn't mean that "O. K. now" everything is going to be rosy. He died for inherited sin from Adam. since everyone came through Adam and Eve, Job 14:4 says, something clean cannot come from something unclean. That means that all have sined and fall short of the glory of God. As far as the continued thorns and thissles. It will continue until God says, enough. Then, He will turn his earth into a paradise. Rev.7:16 says they will hunger no more nor thrist any more , neither will the sun beat down upon them nor any scorching heat. They will be guided to fountains of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes. { This will be after armegeddon}This philosophy you've adopted as your own is that of an intolerant and bitter person who thought little of himself and others. If this is the personality you wish to ascribe to your god, that's unfortunate, I'd rather not apply such dogma to a once only lived life.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed May 11, 2011 6:36 am

I find it interesting the list of things God can't do, given that he's supposed to be all powerful. Apparently he couldn't figure out a way to prevent inheritence of a gene he didn't like. More puzzling is given that he created everything, he's upset with the gene he made. The only solution he can come up with is torturing his own kid. Now if that isn't a clever solution to remove a gene from the pool, I don't know what is.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed May 11, 2011 6:44 am

Ahso!;1359159 wrote: You don't think the practice has become more precise and the tools manufactured better? You doubt there were any lazy priests who didn't bother to sharpen their knives regularly? You also doubt there were any priests who took pleasure in watching a living thing suffer? Any Catholic who'd take such a stand regarding child molestation within the priesthood would quickly be labeled a fool.

You appear to be expressing the idea that it's been perfectly executed up until 72AD. I'd guess not, not even close. With all the rebuking these priests took from God and the Prophets in the OT and then later by Jesus and the the Apostles, I'd guess they were pretty sloppy and unreliable more often than not, not to mention devious.

To suggest a majority gave a rat's behind about the animals they were slaughtering rings hollow to me.

This point made me think of some of the videos I've seen from inside meat processing plants. Legally, these animals are supposed to receive healthy living conditions and painless deaths, but the reality is often very different. Cows in particular would be dead in a few weeks if they were not slaughtered, from all the antibiotics and corn diets. Chickens are usually grown in dark crowded buildings covered in feces, not even able to walk. The organic/free range brands are a lot better, but they are the exception not the norm.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 11, 2011 7:40 am

yaaarrrgg;1359283 wrote: I find it interesting the list of things God can't do, given that he's supposed to be all powerful. Apparently he couldn't figure out a way to prevent inheritence of a gene he didn't like. More puzzling is given that he created everything, he's upset with the gene he made. The only solution he can come up with is torturing his own kid. Now if that isn't a clever solution to remove a gene from the pool, I don't know what is.

It gets worse, if the father son and holy ghost are one and the same then he was torturing himself.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Wed May 11, 2011 8:09 am

gmc;1359286 wrote: torturing himself.
A very common habit.

Loyal · Post by **Loyal** » Wed May 11, 2011 1:51 pm

Matthew 1:18 Jesus was born through Holy Spirit. He was not conceived through a decendent of Adam and Eve, therefore, he did not have inherited sin. He was sinless, becausew holy spirit is sinless. Do you recall THE VIRGIN MARY well she was a virgin. She never had intercourse.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Wed May 11, 2011 2:06 pm

Loyal;1359304 wrote: Matthew 1:18 Jesus was born through Holy Spirit. He was not conceived through a decendent of Adam and Eve, therefore, he did not have inherited sin. He was sinless, becausew holy spirit is sinless. Do you recall THE VIRGIN MARY well she was a virgin. She never had intercourse.
But she inherited sin. If sin is inherited.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 11, 2011 2:08 pm

Loyal;1359304 wrote: Matthew 1:18 Jesus was born through Holy Spirit. He was not conceived through a decendent of Adam and Eve, therefore, he did not have inherited sin. He was sinless, becausew holy spirit is sinless. Do you recall THE VIRGIN MARY well she was a virgin. She never had intercourse.You know, as often as God's Spirit leads the innocent to places such as this time and time again, in order, it seems, to endure suffering and perhaps test us long-suffering Reprobates, He/She/It must take pleasure in torture.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 11, 2011 2:17 pm

xyz;1359306 wrote: But she inherited sin. If sin is inherited.

And?

If He was "born through the Holy Spirit and not conceived trough a decent of Adam and Eve" then He inherited only from the Holy Spirit. Given that direct statement of doctrine what point is your statement adding?

Given also that Jesus is part of the Trinity He is, by the Church's definition, an aspect of God and therefore shares God's state of sinlessness.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 11, 2011 2:31 pm

Bryn Mawr;1359308 wrote: And?

If He was "born through the Holy Spirit and not conceived trough a decent of Adam and Eve" then He inherited only from the Holy Spirit. Given that direct statement of doctrine what point is your statement adding?

Given also that Jesus is part of the Trinity He is, by the Church's definition, an aspect of God and therefore shares God's state of sinlessness.I see XYZ's point being that children do not inherit traits from the male parent only. To say otherwise is surely ignorant. Perhaps absent scientific knowledge that idea may be acceptable, but not in today's world. We now know better.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 11, 2011 3:32 pm

Ahso!;1359310 wrote: I see XYZ's point being that children do not inherit traits from the male parent only. To say otherwise is surely ignorant. Perhaps absent scientific knowledge that idea may be acceptable, but not in today's world. We now know better.

The state of sin is not a genetic characteristic and does not obey Mendelian laws. The whole point of the Immaculate Conception was that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and not of Mary in a spiritual sense and thus inherited the spiritual characteristics of God in His aspect of the Holy Ghost.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 11, 2011 4:03 pm

Bryn Mawr;1359317 wrote: The state of sin is not a genetic characteristic and does not obey Mendelian laws. The whole point of the Immaculate Conception was that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and not of Mary in a spiritual sense and thus inherited the spiritual characteristics of God in His aspect of the Holy Ghost.That's the problem with spirituality - it's fickle.