Amos

Sorry Bernard for I did mean to shock you. Hope all is well again and so I can take it one step further.

Without going into the sacramental power of Catholic Baptism let me just point out to you that Romans 8:7-12 makes it clear that "it was only through the law that I came to know sin . . . and sin seized that opportunity to rouse in me every kind of evil desire." Later it concludes that "the commandment that should have led to life brought me death" and it is out this death that we are born into eternal life through the goodness of our "inner self"-- which agrees with the law of God (v.22).

Really then, the concept sin is just a fishing tool needed to redeem our prior benevolent nature wherein we are in harmony with God and Baptism is life-line along which we are baited unto eternal life. I think it also states that we must reach the limit of our sinfulness (v13) before anything good can happen to us or it would not be called the limit of sinfulness.

Of course, the "limit of sinfulness" is the deviation from our norm and that is why we have the cardinal virtues and capital sins that can convict us any time and any place.

Doctor X

Amos:

Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself from one post to the next?

--J.D.

Amos

Please show me where so I have something to worry about.

Devilnaut

Doc, yes baptism removes sin but only "real" baptism (which Amos called catholic baptism).

You were referring to the symbolic baptism early in life (which is really just a tradition and not the real thing) and Amos was talking about real baptism (the content which fills the container, the hole created by the symbolic baptism at birth).

Doctor X

In response to my rhetorical inquiry:

I received in reply:

Fine . . . have a Catholic baptism.

Then Amos replies to Bernard regarding the need to sin. However, above, those with a Catholic baptism have lost the capacity to sin.

This may seem a minor point, but consistency is important.

Back to the Topic:

I am working through Levenson's book--quite good! It may change my mind a bit. The death of Junior may--have not got that far yet--indeed be a sacrifice. However, child sacrifice was not something to "clear away sins"--the deity "owned" the child and could claim it. Furthermore, one has to remember the difference between "sin" as we see it now--"I've been a baaaaaaAAAAAAaaaaadddddddddd boy!"--and having to make happy a deity--get him on your side.

The child sacrifices of King of the Moab [2 Kgs 3:26-27--Ed.], and Jephthah [Judg 11:29-40--Ed.] fit this model. Levenson discusses other biblical passages that point to child sacrifice:

Mic 6:6-6
Isa 30:30-33
Ezek 20:25-26--which disturbes inerrants!
Jer 19:5-6
Exod 34:19

as well as the infamous Exod 22:28-29 I have cited a number of times.

He also discusses the practice in Carthage--into the Common Era--of child sacrifice:

Levenson takes time to discuss contrary opinions. As he notes to the possible complain that these represent "infant mortality" or disease:

He also notes the practice of substitution--using a lamb or kid rather than . . . well . . . your kid. It has been assumed that this is a "evolution"--first children then substitutes and that the whole Abraham-Isaac myth is the development of the substitution--which would be contradicted by "historical myth" by the Exodus rules!

On the contrary, it seems that:

This is about as far as I have gone. The point is that Levenson stresses the absence of
"textual and archaeological evidence for a general practice of child sacrifice" which makes him wonder if this was an "ideal" rather than a rule.

Anyways, more as I progress. . . .

--J.D.

Amos

Not exactly because the capacity to sin is lost with our Beatific Vision which is equal to the convergence of our twain mind. What I tried to tell you is that Catholic Baptism is required to achieve this but maybe I should add here that this will not happen until later in life. I have stated that Baptism is like a life-line to our soul (through our fellowship with believers and communion with the saints) and therefore we are never lost but are allowed to stray from the flock to create the feeling that we are lost-- which is about the time when we reach the "limit of our sinfulness" . . . and this is "the limit" because we will have reached the end of this world and are about to venture upon a new phase in life that we can call "eternal" because time-as-such is not known in the right brain. We can now return to John B who was born in the right brain wherein he prepared the way towards a successful menopauze (meno= I remain as I become eternal). Hence the "water and spirit" birth is needed to achieve the fulness of salvation.

The conviction of sin is needed to achieve the above and that is why religion must remain keen on the concept sin which in turn is why the law (various taboos) is the heart of every mythology.

Koyaanisqatsi

....and Marry had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow.....

Soul Invictus

Make sure you keep me posted as to the validity of the sacrifice issue. We definitely want to compare it to the information on the URL you submitted. Not to mention the significance of the debate surrounding that issue!

Amos

You are supposed to believe me.

Doctor X

Amos:

Ye speaketh in "word salad" to use the technical term.

I, again, advise you to read some basics on physiology then some of the basics on OT and NT scholarship.

As I have already explained to you, "twain mind" is a fantasy created by you. It is not only not physiologic, it is NOT IN THE NT or OT.

Now you offer contradictory meanderings on the baptism not shared by those who performed it given the texts we have.

This reminds me of reading about the Unarians . . . if it make sense to anyone, they need help.

Once again:

Ganong, Review of Medical Physiology, Lange Publishing.

Freidman, Who Wrote the Bible? and
Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament?

which are listed in the Recommended Reading. Invest some time into learning what you are trying to write about.

And with that I have nothing more to say.

Soul:

I will add to this thread when I have completed the book. It is a very good read.

--J.D.