No, there is nothing rational about the definitions of sin. What's irrational about insulting your parents or cheating on your wife?
Is death a prerequisite to be a savior?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
I agree with you Spidey . To Me that is what it means with new Messiah. That is what is said . He will take away your sin . See that is what you are doing . See how your a slave to scripture. Your taking away all sins by saying there is no sin . I agree as we are dictated to by circumstance . If the circumstance calls for your butt to be corn cobbled then by the name miss liberty your butt will be corn codded, Holy Mackerel. Smelly fish .
What sin . Don't kill people . I am down with that . Stealing , Every body steals in one form or another . It is a human trait . Communication it self is a form of stealing . Intellectual property? That still tickles my funny Bone Ha Ha Ha Ha That is a joke right. Lots of people think up the same thing at the same time . It is the nature of the god language. Funny God Language, The Word! To funny . It is all of you. It is like you live according to a script.
I had lunch with my wife today . Yeah she called out of the blue and told me to come to her office and have lunch with her . Very out of character. So at lunch I whispered nasty sex stories. I could see she was squirming in her chair . Then she would say Good after each sentence of small talk. It was on Que of my repeated story line . Meaning when ever I would get to a particular high light in the story it would time perfect with her good she was using in her small talk . She called Me to her office just to get a sexual rise . She secretly made that clear when I walk in the office by her body language and her hidden speech like that good I just described. The thing is you all talk like that in a coherent speech with multiple words . It is so strange to be able to hear it plane and clear like that now . God I struggled so long for this breakthrough. Much more testing must be done . We are just on the verge of understanding it . It has to be evolution at work . The things that dictate change . The slow change of progressions . Now question is can I cause a time warp into the future information stream . Meaning cause a jump forward in human activities by utilizing this God language as a tool . I think I can . I think I am. Un fucking real God Fuck Me . I knew it . Fucking unreal . Girls and Boys I knew something came together when I had that last ban fiasco. Just starting to get a handle on what happen . Fucking un real
The Messiah took away sins by removing the law. Sin is not imputed when there is no law. Without law, there is no sin.
For example, PC creates word prohibitions. Before any given word prohibiton, these same words were not sins, sinced it has not be labels as yet with a law. Once the law is created, then sin magically appears, since it is through the law that sin is imputed. The new Messiah took away sin by removing the old law. If PC said, today we changed our mind and the word ($%#) is OK to say. The sin is gone when you say ($%#). Isn't that amazing. All to takes is the law to be gone.
The death of the New Messiah was needed to allow the holy spirit to appear. If there is no law, and therefore no sin, how do you know what to do and what not to do? If PC said this range of words is no longer a sin, whether you use these words or not does not matter. But you might use you inner voice to decide if these words wil edify or is it done to help another. But either way there is no sin if you do or don't. But based on a good inner sense you dioes the right thing even without law or sin.
Paul said all thuings are lawful to me but not all things edify. All things are lawful to me but I will not be mastered by anything. So he could eat, drink and cuss but he was also making sure he was standing tall and not becoming an addict who lacks self control. But his sins are covered.
For example, PC creates word prohibitions. Before any given word prohibiton, these same words were not sins, sinced it has not be labels as yet with a law. Once the law is created, then sin magically appears, since it is through the law that sin is imputed. The new Messiah took away sin by removing the old law. If PC said, today we changed our mind and the word ($%#) is OK to say. The sin is gone when you say ($%#). Isn't that amazing. All to takes is the law to be gone.
The death of the New Messiah was needed to allow the holy spirit to appear. If there is no law, and therefore no sin, how do you know what to do and what not to do? If PC said this range of words is no longer a sin, whether you use these words or not does not matter. But you might use you inner voice to decide if these words wil edify or is it done to help another. But either way there is no sin if you do or don't. But based on a good inner sense you dioes the right thing even without law or sin.
Paul said all thuings are lawful to me but not all things edify. All things are lawful to me but I will not be mastered by anything. So he could eat, drink and cuss but he was also making sure he was standing tall and not becoming an addict who lacks self control. But his sins are covered.
Then what rational purposes do those actions serve? Monogamy exists to ensure the survival of our offspring, and man has always counted on the pro-survival support of the basic group unit, the family. These are even basic evolutionary survival strategies. You can't get much more rational than the strategies that have allowed us to survive and evolve.
That is incorrect. Sexual dimorphism does not suggest humans had a history of monogamy.
According to Daly and Wilson, "The sexes differ more in human beings than in monogamous mammals, but much less than in extremely polygamous mammals."[33] One proposed explanation is that human sexuality has developed more in common with its close relative the bonobo, who have similar sexual dimorphism and which are polygynandrous and use recreational sex to reinforce social bonds and reduce aggression.[34][wiki]
According to Daly and Wilson, "The sexes differ more in human beings than in monogamous mammals, but much less than in extremely polygamous mammals."[33] One proposed explanation is that human sexuality has developed more in common with its close relative the bonobo, who have similar sexual dimorphism and which are polygynandrous and use recreational sex to reinforce social bonds and reduce aggression.[34][wiki]
I never made any claim to the contrary. Can you say non sequitur? With the length of human gestation and rearing of offspring, we require either monogamy or a group support system, like the family, to ensure the survival of our young. Both of which are exactly why your above examples are irrational.
And you never answered my question:
"Then what rational purposes do those actions serve?"
And you never answered my question:
"Then what rational purposes do those actions serve?"
Cheating on your wife doesn't necessarily interfere with raising your children, and it can be rational because maybe your wife is a total biatch and relieving sexual tension is good for your health and state of mind, perhaps allowing you to be a better father.
Only because there is a group support system. And no, rational would be to quit subjecting yourself to an abusive woman entirely, by getting a divorce, instead of raising your children in a contentious environment and providing an example of dishonesty as a pattern for their future relationships. All else is merely justification of how one may chose to reconcile one's own personal survival (say, financially) versus the best survival environment for their children.
Yes indeed, why. Water to wine for the homeless would have been the more compassionate route indeed. And wine on tap for those of us with indoor plumbing. I'm not saying it's all about the wine. There's bread, too. And fish.
Also: what happened to the idea that they were waiting for a savior to rescue them from oppression and rebuild the temple once and for all, NOT a guy who would would save their souls. This is where the story leaves off before the New Testament drives up.
Conveniently, the soul-saver savior archetype evolved from the temple-saver savior archetype right about the time the Iesu Xristo embryo was implanted in the betrothed gal whose home pregnancy test kit included both an audible annuciation and a visual projection. The story is crazy from the get-go. Who needs all of this hype just to get saved?
And the story just gets more complicated from there, like when you're trying to explain why you missed the staff meeting on account of the train running late. Were they making excuses for a Messiah who kept missing his deadlines on saving the Temple?
And when did they get the idea of angels - messengers - and the Devil, life after death, heaven and hell, and all of the other strange mutations on Judaism that Christianity brought to bear?
If it wasn't such an arid country I would suspect the mushrooms, at least that might account for the hallucinatory nature of Revelations.
But back at that magic moment, when this idea first dawned on them that their Superman wasn't going to just resurrect the Temple - maybe he would just resurrect himself. But why? Who would want to kill such an amiable guy? The enemy du jour (later) would be Nero, so as the story evoleved they must have decided to give him the Roman death on a tree. With nails, so every congregation would get an extra flight of sadomasochistic voyeurism, or however you say that in Aramaic.
As you see I'm not dwelling on the prevailing belief, but I do wonder about the weird stuff that must have been going through their heads back in the day. How did they assimilate these disparate myths that were dribbling in and out of the area, and how and why did they weave these together to create the Roman-style execution of a sort of psuedo-savior?
I mention Nero because that had to be the ultimate blow, that they stood up to him and got crushed in return. That must have been the worst of demoralizing defeats for the people who were just trying to keep the temple up to snuff. And, as Josephus tells us, the Romans were bringing the Emperor's statue into the Temple for the Jews to worship. What a low blow to such a long persevering and proud people.
So we got a savior killed the Roman way. Who knows, if the Scots had been their enemy, maybe Iesu Xristo would have only had to win the Highland Games, do the caber toss, all of that. Most pipe organs already have a stop that renders a bagpipe, so it wouldn't have been that severe an impact on the guildsmen who came later, and the church services would have been just about as cheery as ever.
It's not ridicule. This is hard thought out stuff. The question is a deep probing one, it strikes right at the heart of the religion, right at the moment of its conception. We know the Essenes had left, gone to the desert to have their pure way of life, to invent baptism, and to stash the Dead Sea Scrolls, which may have been rescued from the temple before Nero flattened it. We know the Zealots were ambushing Roman centurions and getting crucified. And there were Stoics running around - they were probably still ragging about Socrates and the cup of hemlock. What a crazy set of parallels. And Hebrew had gone out of use as their sacred script of choice three centuries earlier, when Alexander stormed through with Hellenization. Who were these people after that, after so many generations? Their culture must have been through a severe paradigm shift. They must have barely resembled the Jews of yore. They had to be something new - but what? For some, it may have been as simple as declaring a new identitiy: they were Xristians - followers of the anointed one.
All they had needed was a brand. And now they had one.
Is lying a sin?
Is it ever moral and rational to lie? Anne Frank is hiding in your attic and the Nazis ask if you know where any Jews are...
Is it rational in a given case? Is it irrational to say "fine" when asked how you are doing, even if not true? Rational can be defined as the best result for the greatest number of those involved. Do the benefits outweigh any detriment? Does saying "fine" harm the person beyond the benefit of being expedient?
So there are no rules, we just have to evaluate every situation for ourselves?
Let's just drop the term sin then, since it is defined, by the Bible, and in many cases not sinning would be irrational.
No, it was perfectly rational for the occupying Romans to kill a young blaspheming revolutionary.
Double check your history, as the Roman's had absolutely no motivation of their own to do so. They didn't care one wit about his "blasphemy", nor was his "revolution" any kind of threat.
I don't doubt that they didn't care about it very much personally, but it was just par for the course. They were concerned in a more general way about intimidating the population and maintaining order.
Site your source.
You first. But this is a separate issue.
Why is death a prerequisite for a savior? It's easy, myths can be much more inspiring than real people, who can be disappointing.
Why is death a prerequisite for a savior? It's easy, myths can be much more inspiring than real people, who can be disappointing.