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: TimF who wrote (46938)	5/9/2002 10:19:31 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Not that I'm Catholic, nor trying to defend the doctrines. But I should point out that you're assuming that God should behave in ways that humans understand and approve of. No reason for this to be.

To: TimF who wrote (46938)	5/10/2002 11:08:17 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Original sin makes sense as a loss of grace that had been given to Adam and Eve, but not as an hereditary guilt. The need for grace to enjoy Heaven, especially conceived as the Beatific Vision, makes sense, but to say that the alternative is Hell goes too far. After all, sins are finite, and therefore punishment should be finite. Also, as you mention, the overwhelming majority of mankind are pretty tepid sinners. Why torment them eternally? Finally, the idea that Christ took on our humanity in order to share with us His Divinity, that God somehow experienced what we go through, in order to unite us with Himself, makes sense, but the idea that it was juridically necessary to make an innocent suffer for the guilty, or that God could not have been merciful in some other matter, is troubling........