1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Passion Play

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Chris Blount, Apr 10, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. May 6, 2004 #201 of 400
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    This is pretty much Paul's theology, but then he's the one who also emphasized the Greek understanding of soul good, flesh bad, heaven is when the soul gets to shed the body. I don't disagree that Christ was sinless, although I question whether he had no inclination to sin. After all, its not tough to be sinless if you really CAN'T be tempted. As Jesus said, its not that hard to be nice to the people who love you, although some even screw that up, but its a lot tougher to love the people who hate you. I happen to believe that Jesus fought temptation every day of his life, because he WAS human as well as divine, and it was real temptation because he DID have an inclination to sin, but he resisted it. To say that Jesus had no inclination to sin denies Jesus humanity, and comes dangerously close to the heresy of gnosticism, or the denial of Jesus humanity. (I hope that makes sense, I came down to check something else and thought I'd check in here a minute. Its late.)
     
  2. May 6, 2004 #202 of 400
    Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    Jesus was fully God and fully human. The only way that He could take the sins of the world onto Himself in place of us was to live the life of a man, but live it blameless. Thus, I believe He had the inclinations of man and dealt with the temptations, but never strayed from His Father's will. As a result, a sinless man was punished in place of a sinful world, and as a result by His grace we are cleansed.

    Talk about love and sacrifice! :joy:
     
  3. May 6, 2004 #203 of 400
    Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I never said that Christ was not tempted to sin he certainly was, but he resisted that temptation unlike Adam, Christ was fully human just like Adam was before he sinned and he was also fully God. If anything his temptations were even greater because he had the power of God but chose not to use that power exept in a few situations where he used miracles to glorify God and show the world who he was. I know some have taken some statements Paul has made out of context to prove that he was teaching a separate soul like in Greek mythology but I do not believe Paul was teaching this. Are you now dismissing Paul now because of a few things he said that many have taken out of context?
     
  4. May 6, 2004 #204 of 400
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    No Chris, after studying Paul's letters a great deal and leading a number of Bible Studies on them I am saying that this is another example of how Paul described things in ways that his audience would understand. His theology is a mix of the style a Rabbi would have used, and Greek theology that many of his audience would relate to. More than "a few things he said that many have taken out of context" he developed much of what is accepted as Christian Theology today, with a heavy Greek influence. Of course we need to remember that Rome liberated the Jews from the Greeks, and the Greeks had tried to wipe out the Jewish faith. It's no wonder that many Jews ended up with a Helenized Judaism. If it had not been for the Maccabees, which developed into the Pharisees, there would have been no Jewish faith left by the time Jesus came.
     
  5. May 6, 2004 #205 of 400
    Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    It appears we agree here too, now what are we going to find to disagree on now to keep this thread going or should we gang up on the atheist and agnostics again :D .
     
  6. May 6, 2004 #206 of 400
    Redster

    Redster Godfather/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,185
    0
    Jan 14, 2004
    hehehe, not feeling to argumentative today but go for it.
     
  7. May 6, 2004 #207 of 400
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    The only way that He could take the sins of the world onto Himself in place of us was to live the life of a man, but live it blameless.

    The only way? (emphasis mine) This seems to limit God's power, and smacks of some sort of ritual mysticism. An all powerful God has no need of such theatrics.
     
  8. May 6, 2004 #208 of 400
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Probably not the ONLY way God could have done it, but a very good way to demonstrate to us his great love for us. It all depends on whether you agree more with Anselm or Abelard.
     
  9. May 6, 2004 #209 of 400
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    It all depends on whether you agree more with Anselm or Abelard.

    All I remember about either is that Anselm defines God as greater than anything we can comprehend, ergo God must exist (or something along those lines). Abelard was the fellow who was castrated because he seduced his student. ;)
     
  10. May 7, 2004 #210 of 400
    Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
  11. May 8, 2004 #211 of 400
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Oy vey! So many posts, so little time.:(

    Leave it to the female to cut through all the BS.:lol:

    Of course, "sex" is our primary impulse(instinct if you will) because it's the driving force behind our most important biological "prime directive", species preservation. Naturally, we like to try and deny it. But the truth is we are merely another sexual animal and wouldn't exist if we were not. Even homosexuality aids in this. Although homosexuals don't directly contribute to species preservation by producing offspring, they do contribute to a general increase in sexual activity and awareness and desire for that activity. And the more sex, the more likely a species will be "preserved".

    This is why anything with a sexual connotation immediately grabs our attention, or should I say "grabs our crotch"?:sure: None of this has ever been lost on those desiring power and control over humanity's minds, AND BODIES! By "restricting", placing limits on, by making sex it a "sin", humans can be manipulated into doing just about anything. Is it any wonder then control(restriction) of sex is incorporated into nearly every religion? That the first "sin"(evil) Adam & Eve are made aware of is exposure of their naked bodies, the "sexual" parts of their bodies especially?

    This is not to say religion is the only institution that exerts control by manipulation of our sexual impulses. Governments and other organizations do also. However, it should be noted that throughout human history, it's been pretty rare that governments are not intricately intwined with religious power of some sort. Often they were one and the same, and still are in many places. Even private institutions, for instance Masons and Boy Scouts, still often require at least a cursory acknowledgement of a higher power, creator or supreme being. Only in the last few centuries have we wisely decided it's better to separate the two, beginning of course with the "American experiment".

    BTW, this is probably one of the main underlying motives for the current "backlash" against secularism in government as seen with the religious right in this country and the drive for Islamic fundamentalist states abroad. Religions feel they are losing their traditional influence on government.

    But I digress again.:D

    Beyond the microscopic world, very few organisms reproduce asexually. So in a very real sense, life IS sex, and sex IS life, at least higher forms of life. It's very logical then that as "intelligence" increases in these higher forms, sex is used and manipulated for group and individual advantage. This is easily seen in the animal world and the higher the "intelligence" of the animal, the more important sex, and who is allowed sex, becomes. As the animal with the highest "intelligence", it stands to reason we have developed the manipulation of sex, who can have sex, when and where, to the highest, most intricate degree.

    Gotta go to work now. I'll be back later for more fun. After all, if I don't earn some money, how can I expect to ever be allowed decent sex?:(
     
  12. May 8, 2004 #212 of 400
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    They certainly do in animals, as it has been observed in many species that homosexual pairs often aid their "clan" in raising orphaned offspring. That activity has been seen in birds, dolphins, orcas, and bonobos. Some researchers have suggested that homosexuality in humans has a positive effect on their siblings ability to mate, or did way back in the prehistoric era. That's why the trait is still with us, it is beneficial to our species as a whole.
     
  13. May 9, 2004 #213 of 400
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Geez Happy, don't get your proverbial panties in a bunch. I've given you that homosexuals contribute indirectly to species preservation. I'm on our side here pal! I'm not sure what you're referring to as "homosexual pairs" in the animal kingdom, but let's not get on that topic. We've hard enough time dealing with it in the human kingdom. Everything doesn't have to relate back to how wonderful gay people are and what a boon they are to society. Concentrate on the topic at hand, the dysfunctional heterosexual coupling of Adam & Eve and how it led to the damnation of all Mankind as well as side orders of murder and inferred incest and child molestation.:nono: After all, Eve, the mother of us all, is the only female mentioned in this primary nuclear family. How did Cain, as well as Abel(if he had time before the fratricide) have offspring? Of course, maybe Abel was gay! He was the one into "gardening", right? Maybe he was the first victim of gay-bashing?;)
     
  14. May 9, 2004 #214 of 400
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
  15. May 9, 2004 #215 of 400
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Your premise then is that A&E(not the cable channel:)), because of their intellectually stimulating conversations with God, were well educated and intelligent except of course for that one minor subject of debate, good and evil, which was restricted from them for their own good.:confused:

    Ana BTW, since sex has reared it's ugly head(no pun intended:rolleyes: ) as one of the first consequences of The Fall, and a "sin" in and of itself, pregnancy being one of the punishments, what was the plan if A&E hadn't strayed and ignored the Satan-beast? Was it going to be cozy chats with God in the Garden for eternity? Or was it inevitable? Did God already know what was going to happen? If that's the case, then it was all a setup with God and Satan working together to entrap A&E.

    I'm all for a sense of propriety and modesty is, I agree, a virtue. I would never inflict an image of myself or others, naked or otherwise, on those with no desire to view it. I was one of the first on this board to condemn Janet Jackson's Superbowl antics, but not because I feared some unsuspecting four yearold being exposed(pun intended this time) to a naked breast would be the downfall of civilization as we know it. It was exactly the foisting of this display on an unsuspecting, unprepared captive audience for sensationalistic commercial purposes that upset me. For my own sensibilities, Ms. Jackson's naked breast, better yet her naked entirety, is a fine subject for viewing. In fact if it were advertised ahead of time, a halftime show by the Folies Bergere or Crazy Horse just might get me to start watching the Superbowl again.;)

    And of course there are idiot nudists just like there are idiot Christians, idiot atheists and idiot Shriners. So what? And as disturbing as it may have been for you, one guy relieving himself did NOT make the lake un-pristine. And naturally(another pun intended) if this sort of stuff offends you, I suggest you stay away from nudist camps, or any "camps" for that matter.

    OK, humility and modesty is fine. You don't have to show me yours if you don't want to, or more importantly if I don't request it. And no kidding "We are very imperfect and mortal beings". I never denied that. In fact I venture that very imperfection and mortality are one of the main reasons we invented gods at all.

    Of course it's your contention that us "very imperfect and mortal beings" were created by a very perfect and immortal one. But to accept that premise, the only logical conclusion is we were intentionally "created" as imperfect and mortal. So again, where does the fault lie? With the watch maker or the broken watch? And should the watch be punished for being broken?

    Bleak? Why bleak? I consider for highly evolved pond scum, we're doing quite well for ourselves.:D Sure, tomorrow we could eliminate most if not all human life on the planet with the touch of a button. Or perhaps we'll slowly pollute ourselves to extinction. Or maybe a comet will swing out from behind Jupiter to do it for us. But unlike some, I am not expecting nor planning nor counting on the end of the world, or even the end of humanity. I expect despite our imperfections and mortality, humans will endure. We're a pretty tough and adaptable species, and resourceful too. We'll find a way to make it through. To paraphrase a famous tobacco ad, "We've come a long way baby to get where we've got to today!" And we can go further. But the way forward is not by ignoring what we can see right in front of us and cling to archiac myths and legends instead.

    I don't necessarily agree, but why MUST there be one at all?

    OK, now you're scaring me!:eek2: Who or what "has to die to make it right again"? And make WHAT right again? What are you suggesting? Sure, everybody is going to die. But I absolutely have no "innate sense" that the death of ANY "someone or something" is going to make anything "right", or essentially change anything at all. Elaborate if you will although I'm not sure I'm anxious to hear it.

    Perhaps you are referring to the Christian paradigm of "God" having to die in some sense in order to "save" humans. But beyond how nonsensical that seems to me anyway,(as has been posted, this would indicate a lack of power of God to accomplish the task more simply), it harks back to primative ritual blood sacrifice. The Gospels themselves often refer to Jesus as "the lamb" suggesting human sacrifice as being not only appropriate but necessary. Frankly, to me it's quite creepy!

    There you go again. I know it's your answer for everything. But it's your answer for everything!

    Some examples please?

    Yet, you seem to willingly accept "science" that is beyond the fringe simply because it confirms your own predetermined viewpoint. Geological and fossil dating methods are NOT considered "fringe" by anyone except psuedo-scientists like the Institute for Creation Research and their ilk whose only purpose is to try and poke holes in generally accepted scientific theory that just happens to cast doubt on Biblical accounts. And I might add, the holes are superficial at best and often misinterpretations and fabrications made up of whole cloth.:icon_stup

    And pigs might fly or refrigerators grow on trees;) somewhere in this wondrous Universe. But yeah, I find the God of the Bible not much less remote.

    Actually, it gets a little old after awhile. I have to go back in a couple weeks to finish the job(supervising the loading of containers of their "old" furnishings while they bring in the new. We resell the old making us "recyclers":D) Now I'm told there's a 400 room hotel in Oahu(this one is only 40 being changed now) and another possible with 1100!:hair: Although that will be a three year preoject. And "islands" mean you can't necessarily go home every night.
     
  16. May 9, 2004 #216 of 400
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    I was simply agreeing with you and providing a little background information to support your premise. I apologize for trying to help, I won't make that mistake again. BTW, there is quite extensive documentation on homosexual pairs in the animal kingdom, especially in those species that "mate for life" like some birds and mammals. I know that is information that some people would rather not be known, but it is true none the less.

    My part in this discussion is done, sorry to have wasted everyone's time.
     
  17. May 9, 2004 #217 of 400
    Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    We forgive you Happy. :D
     
  18. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Look Happy, I apologize for my reply and am sorry if it offended you. It was quick and harsh, and thoughtless. But maybe you'd like to know why it was so? Too bad. I'm going to tell you anyway.;)

    I thought it was very important to include homosexual sex as part of my post. If nothing else to preclude the knee jerk reaction along the lines of, "What good is homosexual activity in regard to species preservation?" But as much as I wanted to include this vital fact, I almost didn't. Why? Because I anticipated, almost word for word, your response to it. I could have concluded I was psychic, but I don't believe in that sort of stuff either.:nono2:

    I know you were only trying to support my statement. And yes, I am aware of homosexual coupling in the animal world. But you missed my point. I was talking about sex, pure and unadulterated, NOT pair bonding, mating for life or communal offspring nurturing, gay or straight. Just sex. Everything else is off topic, at least as far as that particular post of mine was concerned.

    But concerning your points, I think it is probably way too premature in our understanding of animal behaviour to label any individual(or pair) of another species as gay OR straight. From my observations and understanding, insofar as such labels might be applied, much of the animal kingdom if anything, is bisexual. I have two brother dogs, castrated at eight weeks. They still try to "hump" each other in rowdier moods, and sometimes my castrated cat too. And they'd probably hump a rotting log if it smelled right. Does that make them "homosexual"? No, it makes them DOGS! Given the opportunity(and balls:(), I'm sure they'd be quite enamored with a bitch in heat also. They were raised together from birth and again, insofar as such human attributes may apply to them, I'm sure they "love" each other too. Does that make them a "homosexual couple"? Or could they be accused of harboring incestual tendancies?:shrug:

    Sexual preference in animals(and humans too) is as much a matter of opportunity as anything. A secondary pack or herd male may engage in what appears to be homosexual activity or relationships, but if the primary male is eliminated and they are thrust into that role, would assume a heterosexual position. They'd HAVE to. In addition, no animal except humans, to the best of my knowledge, has any idea(again insofar as "ideas" may be attributed to them:D) sex has anything to do with conception and the creation of offspring. They act instinctually, because it feels good(insofar as "feeling good" can be attributed to them:)). And whether if "feels better" for non-human animals if sex is with a member of the same or opposite sex, I believe is beyond our comprehension.

    Concerning humans, many of us, placed in particular situations, prison or the military come to mind, may switch our sexual preferences although never before having ever considered a such a switch. Consider yourself. If you were placed in a situation where the only available sexual partners were females, would you abstain from partner sex? Especially if preservation of your species were at stake? For myself, I cannot imagine a situation where I would engage in homosexuality. For one, I can't imagine kissing anything above the neck with stubble.:kisscheek And of course it's hard to imagine how the species could hang in the balance if I demured. But I have never been in such a situation and after all, I am just a human animal.

    I welcome any reply you might have if you are so moved. But I'd rather return to dispelling the myths of gods rather then the myths of homosexuality, negative or positive. Besides, right now my dog is trying to hump my arm and it's getting hard to type. :grrr:
     
  19. RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    When have I even *implied* that sex wasn't part of the original plan? Didn't God tell A&E, in fact every living thing, to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth?!? Your issue here is with Bogy's contribution, so I suggest you take it up with him for further clarification.

    ...

    So this sort of stuff doesn't offend you in the least? Yes, I would have had to have the prescience not to backpack in a permit-only wilderness area, in order to avoid this particular group. There wasn't any designated "nudist" camp for miles around. But that's okay; I haven't even found another opportunity to go backpacking since high school, and I'm sure this peculiar juxtaposition of idiot nudists with non-idiot non-nudists must be just fine with everyone else.

    Of course, you keep leaving out the same details, as you find it convenient, in order to make orthodox doctrine seem as absurd as possible. I think that by now, you're just as capable of supplying my answers to the above questions, as I am!

    Well, I see that part of your way forward is going to be found by using the spelling checker more often! :D Sorry; cheap shot; couldn't help myself.

    Opinions vary. I'm giving you my own.

    Now that's two people who have reacted this way to my scary assertion. So it may very well be incorrect; at least to some degree. This "sense" is apparently not "innate" in every human being, or at least it must be "inactive" in some.

    Perhaps those of you who are not afflicted by any such creepy "religious sense" had better get busy and procreate as much as possible, and by whatever means necessary, in order to improve the gene pool, so that humanity can finally rid itself of all such archaic tendancies, progress to the next level of evolution, and reach for the stars! :sure: Or, perhaps not.

    Well, that's good, because it's *intended* to be quite creepy, uncomfortable, and disconcerting.

    Yes; I believe we are in violent agreement on this point! :D

    Do you want more examples of what I consider to be "fringe science"? I believe that I've already outlined some examples for you. In general, it is any theory of origins, destiny, cosmology, etc. which is based almost entirely on assumptions about what "must" have been or what "must" be, and only very peripherally on any direct observations.

    I will grant you that Creation Science usually consists of the same kind of "fringe science" as that practiced by those who believe so ardently that the universe, life, and humanity are all the result of mechanistic, chaotic happenstance, wherein a biosphere somehow came into being on this earth. They further ardently believe that this biosphere steadily overcame entropy through a marvelous process called natural selection (i.e. that which survives longer tends to breed more). They further ardently believe that this postulated reversal of entropy has produced increasingly complex life forms containing more and more encoded genetic information.

    Creationists focus on "fringe science" in an attempt to directly confront and counter the established areas of "fringe science" with which they disagree, due to their own conflicting assumptions.

    I'm sure that you could never agree that the quality of Creationist "fringe science" is anywhere near as high as that of the established "science" (which you do *not* view as "fringe", almost by definition) that it attempts to confront, even given that Creationism as a movement is still vastly underfunded and understaffed by comparison. Qualified, degreed, and credentialed scientists generally obtain research funding by proposing studies that make the "correct" and most widely-recognized assumptions.

    Creation scientists are continually chided for failing to play by the rules of science, by the very people who make and enforce the rules to exclude the creationist world view. This, I contend, is a form of neo-orthodoxy; a growing blind spot in contemporary scientific endeavor that will be very difficult indeed to fully and finally overcome.

    ...
     
  20. Jim Parker

    Jim Parker Icon

    761
    0
    Aug 12, 2003
    In order to use entropy as an argument for or against something, you must be sure to draw the boundaries correctly. Enthropy states that a system as a whole moves towards lower energy states, or disorder. It does not state that all parts of the system move towards disorder. The sytem as a whole includes the sun. Life uses energy from the sun to create localized order, but the solar system as an entire sytem has less energy.

    Consider a more down to earth example. If you put a tea kettle on the stove to boil, the water in the kettle gains energy. Does this prove that hot water is a violation of the laws of entropy? No, you just have to include the flame under the kettle in the system.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page