Dogma of Original Sin Revisited

The original sin was not having Faith in God (something that they didn’t do…trust). It remains today the same old story just thousands of years later with more people who lack Faith.

I understand polytheism was prevalent at the time the Book of Genesis was written … certainly throughout the Egyptian, Greek and Roman Empires.

The truly radical and unpredictable break with tradition (the “unwind”) is the conclusion that a woman wrote the Book of Genesis … and this amidst a staunchly patriarchal society. That the patriarchs would give the Book of Genesis … written by a woman … the anchor position in a staunchly patriarchal religion is truly astonishing. Amazement grips me!

Many theologians and scholars give credit to the Hebrew peoples for the introduction of a monotheistic God. I’m not convinced (The “unwind”)

The life span of the “dog eat dog” attitude seems eternal … the “menace”

more emerging thoughts …

Are all Abrahamic religions simply branches of the “Pagan” tree? (the Unwind)

If true … this would make Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code book the equivalent of a fart in a windstorm. :astonished:

The Unwind?

The Unwind = Omega Point

When you post a quote, you’re supposed to say where you got it. That lets other people verify the source, the context and the contents.

It is highly unlikely that the Pope said those words in that way. And though not totally unbelievable, I hope that he didn’t state that particular translation of the literal. Too many very informed people know better than to be that simple minded.

Very interesting, and its kinda how I see it. I would add that divinity was around before and after Christ, so ‘the bible’ is still being written. This as if there were something akin to the bible but the universal version of it [history in the akashik perhaps], and concerns all peoples and all their stories too. Religion is shown in very ancient artefacts.

…back on point though;

Is this true; there is at least the set of informations specifically derivative in causal info of the material world, as well as >a given info set of divine/other origin<,. if existent.?

to me the answer must be yes.

The next question concerns application; what percentage of our thoughts and actions derive from that set. Next; what proportion of the remaining derives from the divine. Then finally; what proportion is neither divine nor causal [sets] and is therefore directly responsible to the individual.

Sin I must conclude, is in the material. Moreover in an ever-changing world those instincts are constantly meeting with unexpected situation and events. Sin is in and of the world imho. We inherit it because we inherit everything we are.

The Adam and Eve metaphor may represent [ehem, somewhat archaically] how a soul being born into this world, WILL inherit sin.
_

edit; i think the root of any given evil can be found to be illusory. our instincts aren’t necessarily good or evil, but simply effective. ergo sin itself has no basis.

It being a spiritual belief and a scientific speculation spans the huge chasm between religion and science, but I guess that is what he was going for, but at the very least it’s a beautiful concept.

It is plausible that very ancient man started out with one God and expanded the concept through a growing need to reconcile their place in the world through an ancient brain with a complex world they found themselves in.

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not a magician with a magic wand…

independent.co.uk/news/world … 22514.html

If you wanted to create a religion everybody would embrace, how would you do it:

Perhaps make it more mainstream, perhaps invite leaders of other religions from all over the world and make it clear you consider all these religions to be valid as well and all that unscientific stuff about God creating the world in six days and creating man out of the dust of the earth is to be thrown out.

The following are some of the Pope’s statements.

-“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so.”

-“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.”

-“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Really?

Pope Francis says there is not any room for 'fundamentialsm" in Christianty.

He said “A fundamentalist group, even if it kills no one, even it strikes no one, is violent. The mental structure of fundamentalism is violence in the name of God.”

But what is 'fundamentalism?"

A google search gives this definition

“a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.”

It would seem the Pope has a problem with people that believe the Scriptures are literally true.

  1. The source is included in the quote … “now defunct Critic Magazine”

  2. My source is Rev Roger Karban … I subscribe to his weekly scripture commentary. fosilonline.com/index.php?pagekey=roger#0305

  3. ""Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said” Thomas Kempis

The “simplicity” of the words is the “beauty” of the message. For me … words that are served up in exquisitely adorned vessels are much more suspect.

No it isn’t. The entire quote can’t have been published in a “defunct Critic Magazine”.

The author of the quote does not give the issue of Critic Magazine which served as his source.
We are unable to verify his statements.

He does not give his sources either.

:-k Seems to be a trend.

That’s why fake news and fake stories proliferate like the plague. People end up believing all sorts of nonsense.

If people verified the sources, fake nonsense would be nipped in the bud.

Phyllo … you make a very valid point … yet … you also infer the entire Bible … the entire Sanskrit Scriptures … the entire Quran … the entire Buddhist Scriptures and so on … are also “Fake News”. Who can verify their source?

Well, yeah. A lot of people think it is fake. A fair amount of effort goes into trying to figure out who wrote what, when and why.

The bottom line is that you can’t depend on what’s written in those books. You have to be prepared for the possibility that all of it is fiction.

Fortunately, life is not a book.

Yeah … even when we are able to state the 4 w’s unequivocally … we remain unable to confirm the source ergo … God, Krishna, Abba, Yahweh and so on.

Perhaps … yet practically speaking … so much over such a long period of time … in such a diverse geography … suggests there may be some ‘truth’ in all of it.

Really? For me … life is a ‘book’ … with paragraphs(days) … pages (weeks) … chapters (years) and so on. The quintessential challenge is to greet each new day as a “blank page”.

God either exists in your life or He doesn’t. The books are irrelevant. At best they give you good ideas, at worst they give you bad ideas.

The ideas are tested by living.

Make it effective.

Or perhaps, given the right situation, provide the proper understanding behind those words.

That is true, the “Sky Daddy” concept.

As far as I can tell, the only reason that the BB is promoted is to promote that requirement. The BB never happened and God is the reason that it never happened.

That’s true.

I can’t argue much with that, although “not any room” might be a bit too strict.

Well du-uhhh…

Anyone with any real education concerning the scriptures knows that the words were never to be taken literally. A “tree” is not a tree. “Bread” is not bread. “Water” is not water. The book is about SPIRIT, not OBJECTS. And more importantly, it was written for and by people of an entirely different culture, language, and concern than those of today.

A “Biblical Call” is not a phone call! :laughing: