Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (1387)	9/9/1999 7:52:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6418

I was not thinking of anything so doctrinally specific. I was thinking, rather, of matters like the relationship between time and eternity.....

To: Dayuhan who wrote (1387)	9/9/1999 9:58:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 6418

I thought it would be interesting to take up the question of Original Sin. Now, as I understand it, Adam and Eve were living in a state of grace, and that grace was withdrawn with the Expulsion. Rather than condemn them to death or sterility, they and their descendants were condemned to a life of hardship from which they might have been spare. This was the Jewish conception of the matter, and entailed no inherited "stain of sin". Since there was no right to the bliss, there could be no injustice in the hardship. Christianity introduced the idea the first sin lead to a corruption that was part of the corporeal being of the First Parents, and heritable. We might clinically describe it as the difficulty of bringing the "reptilian brain" entirely under the control of reason, or, as Paul said, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." The Christian attitude seems to be reflected in the old poem, "Oh happy fault, to merit for us so great a Redeemer." In other words, God permitted all of this in order to demonstrate the boundlessness of His love, through the sacrifice of the Cross. Now, it is understandable that one might find it dubious, but it is certainly sublime.....

To: Dayuhan who wrote (1387)	9/9/1999 11:38:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

But I could not accept that God would condemn one person for the actions of another. It didn't make sense. You are applying the human understanding of sense to the actions and beliefs of God. That's where, IMO, you go wrong. It's like trying to persuade a toddler that it makes sense for him not to have that candy bar fifteen minutes before dinner. If you haven't had kids, trust me, there is NO way to make that make sense to a two year old. But it makes perfect sense to the parent. Similarly, vaccinating a young child -- it makes no sense to sit still and have that doctor poke that painful needle in you over and over. To us the pain makes perfect sense. But not to the child! (Modern parents don't see this as such a great example, but it was a telling example forty years ago when those suckers HURT, and most vaccinations were short term and they had lots of single disease vaccinations, not these multiple ones they have now, one quick prick and that's it.)