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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (40644)	12/5/2001 3:48:50 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Finally, a post we can wholly agree on. I am not sure of the sense in which we are to understand the guilt to have been assumed. Obviously, the sin did not become His, even if he embraced consequences. I really do think that seeing it mainly as a physical thing is close enough, although there is a mystical sense in which Christ tasted our corruption, despair, and death in His person, which was both human and divine. You are right, the descent into Hell is debatable. The traditional Catholic view is not that He had to suffer in Hell, but that He freed the prisoners: those holy persons, like the patriarchs, who had what is called the "baptism of desire", that is, could be presumed, through their piety, to have been willing to follow Christ had they been born at the right time. Since it need not be that He spent much time in Hell, it is possible that what He said to the thief was also true, and that He led the prisoners into Paradise that very day. The image of Abraham in Paradise, of course, was traditional. If Abraham too were subject to Original Sin, he would, in fact, have been one of the prisoners in Hell. Thus, it may be that that day was the first where the image of being embraced by Abraham in Paradise had some truth......