Mageth

Maybe it wasn't in season.

beastmaster

Original sin is not about punishing the sons for the sins of the father. Rather, for the Catholics, original sin holds that, by consequence of Adam's sin, humanity has lost gifts which it once held but had no right to retain, such as (1) complete mastery of human passions, (2) exemption from death, and (3) sanctifying grace.

It is as if an ancestor destroyed or sold a valuable piece of property: you have been made worse off by the ancestor's action because you otherwise might have inherited that property, but it cannot be said that you are being unjustly punished for the ancestor's action. So is original sin.

Or so the story goes for the Catholics. The Protestant version is a little different.

According to the Protestants, original sin means that each person is born with the disposition to *imitate* Adam's original sin. In this way, each person individually participates in Adam's guilt anew within their own lifetimes.

Neither concept of original sin is strictly analogous to slavery reparations.

The Tree of Life is mentioned as early on in the Bible as the Tree of Knowledge. However, you are correct that God never forbad A&E from eating of the Tree of Life.

yguy

If your son did something wrong for which you had previously promised he'd be disinherited, and he realized how wrong he was, would you disinherit him anyway? I wouldn't.

Also, there are the men of Nineveh, to whom God promised destruction through Jonah.

In the matter of how we respond to temptation, I believe he suspends his foreknowledge.

In Herbert's "God Emperor of Dune", the Emperor Leto II commandeers the Bene Gesserit breeding program, which eventually produces Siona, his proudest achievement. Why? because he can't predict what she will do.

And just what makes you think God's warning to Adam was vague?

If the dad didn't warn him about the pass, maybe; but if he did, the kid might drive it off the cliff anyway because his ego makes him think he's a race car driver.

To say God repented in the same sense Jonah repented is patently absurd. More likely He was just sad that man had abused the gift He'd given them.

Tarnaak

If they had to be thrown out to prevent them from obtaining eternal life, then what exactely are Christians "fighting" for?

Tarnaak

Its all in the Bible, and the Bible has been verified by Non-biblical reference to many of the writers of the Bible, thus would make sense that the Bible is a good reference. I would give the exact data on this but you would, just like any other that doesn't WANT to believe, say its not true

Goliath

Hey Tarnaak,

Your presence is requested in this thread. Meet the challenge I laid down within said thread to win $1,000.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Starboy

The bible is the place where you get your claims about the supernatural. It is not evidence of the supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about the bible. It works just like any other book. It is printed and distributed the same as any other book and it is read and translated just like any other book. It can be destroyed and manipulated just like any other book. If a scientist wrote a paper claiming that a certain phenomena existed and he cited as his evidence his very own paper he would be laughed out of the reality business (science). But in the unreality business (religion) such methods are considered respectable. Religion declares its claims about the supernatural to be real ("true") yet doesn't allow itself to be held to the same standard of reality that most other human endeavors are held to. Sounds like fraud to me.

Starboy

Calzaer

So Herbert is now canonical?

yguy

Scripture is where you find it, not where religious authorities determine it to be.

Calzaer

Ooohkay.

So if I find scripture in Carl Sagan, does that make atheism canonical?