The great and all powerful religion thread!

[V.V.V.V.V.]

How could original sin be confused with the potentiality of sin?

 

[Manic Ferocity]

By not being completely literal.

Either way, it doesn't really change how retarded that story is.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Well, yeah, but the bible has too many other places where a less-than-literal way of reading would be useful

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Touche.

 

[Cythraul]

It really depends on your definition of "original sin." I would think it could refer to the capability of people to sin.

Yeah but that obviously takes the bite out of that thing you posted. It's supposed to be amusing because it's appealing to the notion of God's responsibility for original sin, but it doesn't work; just because you allow somebody a choice in something doesn't mean you're responsible for the subsequent choice they make.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Religious people shift between being literal and being figurative. Choose one type of interpretation already. Either you go the literal way, and explain simple shit like Cain and Sets kids for example. Or you go the figurative way, and tell us what you really think about why the world exists, and why you have to stick to one single philosophy when you could pick and choose bits and pieces from all kinds of religions.
Enough with the indistinct hopping from side to side.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Enough of YOUR indistinct hopping!

 

[Blind Guardian]

I'll distinctly hop into your indistinct anus.

 

[Einherjar86]

It was not meant to identify wealth with evil. Satan was attempting to get Jesus to sin (by breaking the 1st Commandment), and offering a reward to him for doing so.

I disagree. From a literary standpoint, I think that it completely identifies wealth with evil. The fact that Satan is bribing Christ with the possibility of material wealth establishes it as an indecent acquisition (I believe). Christ would never teach that the pursuit of worldly goods or wealth is necessary for or indicative of salvation (which works well, since he preaches to the poor); the wealth of Christians lies in Heaven, in the wealth they will achieve in an eternity with God. The worldly, material paradise offered by Satan is used symbolically as a means to deprive human beings of salvation. Since the Pharisees and the Jewish high priests possess vast amounts of wealth, they're symbolically equated with evil and sin (having already been tempted by Satan).

As stated earlier, Jesus never advocated breaking Torah. The Pharisees and Sadducees (the religious leaders), placed higher value on teachings that many times contradicted Torah. He was trying to overturn the "norm", to bring Israel back to the original order the Father set down. Roughly half of Jesus' conversations/teachings begin with a scripture reference from the OT. I could quote all these instances but it would take pages.

But Jesus even uses OT references in his accusations against the Jews. He references Isaiah when he recites the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, using the metaphor of the vineyard (which had been used before to symbolize Israel), in order to turn blame against the Jews.

I don't think Christ advocated "breaking Torah" either; but I do think he condemned retribution, which was a commonly accepted tenet of Hebrew culture. The OT says nothing against retribution, and it became a socially accepted practice. Furthermore, the fact that God Himself took part in acts of vengeance against the Hebrews demonstrates that retribution was part of a divine order of things. Christ seeks to supplant this with pacifism.

 

[Pessimism]

I'm not a Christian but *eyeroll*

The least you could have done was use the proper emote good sir!

 

[Dak]

I disagree. From a literary standpoint, I think that it completely identifies wealth with evil. The fact that Satan is bribing Christ with the possibility of material wealth establishes it as an indecent acquisition (I believe).

Although it is a picture of the common "temptations", my original interpretation is true. Jesus had already been promised everything Satan was offering, if he waited and accepted it from His Father later, not taking it from Satan [now]. It's not about the material goods, it's about who you are worshipping.

Christ would never teach that the pursuit of worldly goods or wealth is necessary for or indicative of salvation (which works well, since he preaches to the poor)

This is true. The more wealth one has, the more one tends to rely in it, or see themselves as the reason for the wealth. The "prosperity" religious teachings are nothing new, and the rich Jews like to make a big show of giving to shame the poorer ones. Giving for the wrong reasons is worse than not giving at all.

the wealth of Christians lies in Heaven, in the wealth they will achieve in an eternity with God.

Nowhere in the Bible are believers promised eternity in "heaven". The Bible specifically says the millenium reign of Christ will be on this earth, and that after that there will be a new heaven and new earth. I would need to double check but I think the "new heaven" referenced is merely talking about the spiritual plane. The original intent of YHWH was to have human beings living on earth "walking with him in the Garden", and everything is being set to go back to that.

The worldly, material paradise offered by Satan is used symbolically as a means to deprive human beings of salvation. Since the Pharisees and the Jewish high priests possess vast amounts of wealth, they're symbolically equated with evil and sin (having already been tempted by Satan).

Again, it has nothing to do with wealth and power themselves. It is who you are following.

But Jesus even uses OT references in his accusations against the Jews. He references Isaiah when he recites the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, using the metaphor of the vineyard (which had been used before to symbolize Israel), in order to turn blame against the Jews.

Israel is many times referred to as different plants in the OT, and the leaders would be the husbandmen. At the time, the religious leaders were the only native leadership allowed under Rome, and the religious leadership at the time did not place Torah first.

I don't think Christ advocated "breaking Torah" either; but I do think he condemned retribution, which was a commonly accepted tenet of Hebrew culture. The OT says nothing against retribution, and it became a socially accepted practice. Furthermore, the fact that God Himself took part in acts of vengeance against the Hebrews demonstrates that retribution was part of a divine order of things. Christ seeks to supplant this with pacifism.

God let a lot of things slide that they did as a nation, and nothing in the Torah advocated a short-fuse mentality. All of the things mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount (for example), are not things that even had a specific law in Torah against happening. Jesus did point out that an "Eye for an Eye" was not to apply to things not mentioned in the Torah.
In fact, the reference to someone with the ability to, refusing to lend to someone is mentioned in Torah, and forbidden.

Jesus was constantly explaining scriptures to the Jews trying to correct their understanding of it, even as a child he was debating with the Pharisees/Sadducees (Luke 2:46-47). He was constantly stumping the Pharisees when they would try to trick him into breaking Torah or advocate it, because their understanding of it was wrong. Which He told them on more than one occasion.

@ Runk: Incest doesn't work now (and hasn't for hundreds of years) because of the corruption of the gene pool. We are losing genetic information every decade, not gaining it, so it would stand to reason that if you go back far enough, there would have been enough for incest not to have popped out re-re kids.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

So, who did the people he mentioned have sex with?

 

[Dak]

So, who did the people he mentioned have sex with?

Gen 5:4

and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

oic.

 

[cookiecutter]

gross

 

[Pessimism]

Mosaic law dictates that incest is a nasty nasty no-no. However, that came into effect well after Adam, Eve, Noah and hist wife. After all, when you have to repopulate the planet two times, you've got to have a way to do it. You could also ignore the original incestuous advances with the whole "land of Nod" crap and make up some population that existed or whatever.

"But Pessimism, why didn't God just make more people to avoid incest - or do something else that is equable plausible for an all powerful being?"
Answer: Obviously if God wills it it is alright

 

[Blind Guardian]

Oh everything is too mysterious, something ain't right I tell ya!

 

[DarkBliss]

This may explain mental retardation and other sometimes purely genetic afflictions and defects. Adam be damned.Some role model.

 

[Einherjar86]

Although it is a picture of the common "temptations", my original interpretation is true.

Well... I know you believe it's true; but whether or not it really is is a matter for debate. But then again, if that's what you believe, then that's that. I liked your responses though, thanks for going about it.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Yeah, that is definitely a shaky contention.