Soul Invictus

I'm sure Frivolous would like to explain this for me. Can anyone inform me about the developments for the need of a new covenant? (What OT laws were not to be followed anymore and why?) What does the New Covenant (relationship) do? I know when I bring certain OT practices i.e. concubines, etc. my religious counterparts will tell me "...that was under the old covenant in the O.T.)

What does that mean? That God was wrong and had to rethink certain rules, or were they no longer valid?

Any feedback is appreciated

Invictus

Amos

Freedom from the law and from religion.

The OT was religion for the purpose of salvation and when this purpose has come about the NT shows how to be set free from religion . . . until Paul come along and begins a new religion.

So the Gospels end religion and are use by Paul to set the stage for his new religion.

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Nickle

So why not just do it right the first time?

Why was Jesus goofing off for so long? He could've shown up right after original sin and got the ball rolling with the whole saviour thing at the beginning. They could've skipped the whole jewish part.

Or, after accepting the validity of evolution--and muddying up whatever original sin is, maybe there could've been Homo christos erectus there to save humanity before we even became modern human.


Basically, what's the point of the Old Testament?

Amos

To make dominion worth its effort.

The human mind needs input from the outside to digest and sort between good and evil. From here the good must be retained and added to the reign of God if the Thousand Year Reign is going to be a better place to be.

Intelligence is not something you can buy at Wallmart and since evolution needs intelligence for adaptation it is the conscious mind that must sort and select whatever is required to be retained in the soul of the species. It is after this blueprint that the next generation is created and is able to compete in a changing bio environment.

Evolution is the theory that is built on historic evidence and claims that there in God because things have changed on their own. Creation looks at the effective cause of evolution and finds a creator within the species and for this to be possible "original sin" is needed. Original sin is needed to intercept time and observe the present moment so it can be integrated into the eternal mode of existence.

Nickle

So the old times (no pork, burnt offerings, circumsicion, etc.) were needed so humans could get understand what good and evil is? This couldn't happen if Jesus shows up as savior right after the Eden Incident(rated-R)? I don't think I follow you.


Agree.


Whoa, don't jump the gun there. How is intelligence needed for adaptation? Random mutation filtered by natural selection explains adaptation completely. There's no need to throw in a hand of god here--unless you think god personally supervised those microorganisms that can now process man-made materials.

WTF? You threw me there. Care to break that down for clarity?

Since many of our broken genes and bad design predate us even being human, is original sin really old, or is god just retarded? Did the ancestor of greater apes accidently gather wood on the sabbath and that's why our vitamen-C gene doesn't work?

As for the Old Testament, so Adam and Eve is just allegorical, ok. Noah is there for a lesson, ok. A menstrating woman does not have to be kept seperate from everyone, 'cause that's dumb. You don't stone to death children, that's also dumb. Not allowing a man with an injured testicle into the temple isn't really what god comanded, right?

What exactly is the old testament for? What part of it do you keep without having a cruel and contradicting diety (like taking the testicle thing as true) or completely being blinded to the greatest scientific acheivments (taking Noah and Adam and stuff as true)? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Nickle ]</p>

Amos

God is retarded? Is that because of your ignorance or are you smarter than God?

Evolution is the theory of dummies who actually think that nature has a mind to make selections. To be sure, "natural selection" implies the existence of intelligenge does it not? Please tell me where this mind of nature is.

Adaptation requires intelligence because to adapt implies to change when needed. Mutations do not require intelligence.

Random mutation is suppose to answer everything because it is random and does not require a mind. I would call that biology for dummies.

I don't object to mutations but do not see that to be an acceptable answer to justify qualities and innate abilities.

Nickle

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001716" target="_blank">This</a> Thread was started to discuss the mechanics of evolution and your misunderstanding of it. I don't want to sway too far from the OP (and the wrong forum).

I'll wait for the response to the rest of my post.

Amos

Maybe I should just say that in my view essence precedes existence and you will probably argue that existene precedes essence.

Evolution does not allow essence to precede existence because intelligence is needed to change the blueprint after which species are formed. You just hold that mutations change things in nature and the blueprint is written by man to fit the theory of evolution.

So what more do I need to say?

Amos

This was a double post to be deleted and I will now use it to explain the line below. I wrote:

Original sin is needed to intercept time and observe the present moment so it can be integrated into the eternal mode of existence.

Original sin is symbolized with the eating of the apple from the tree of knowledge. This tree is our conscious mind and makes the tree of life the subconscious mind. In our subconscious mind time-as-such is not known and time is extrapolated from there to stop and notice our local conditions for the purpose of selecting between good and bad for the purpose of adaptation (just in case nature does not have a mind). All sentient beings have a conscious mind and a soul because they woul dhave never survived without one. Of course our soul is incarnate upon us (no genes in the brain) and that is how essence precedes existence.

I am having trouble posting, so I hope it works.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

I won't derail this thread (yet), as there is another now dedicated to Amos's statements. But I will say:

Amos, I insist that you come over to the other thread to discuss these evolution issues. Alternatively, you could just shut the feck up about that which you do not understand.

DT

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Darwin's Terrier ]</p>