h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Nature is simply *what* something is, and it's such a simple concept it means no more than that."

Hmmm, Aquinas again, I think. But if the nature is the essence of what that thing is, then you are postulating original sin is the essence of being human. In that case, surely, neither Adam, nor Eve, nor Jesus were human in that they did not have human nature which, in your view, includes original sin.

" We humans get our nature from our first parents as efficient cause (i.e. causally), which is where the transmission comes in. But Jesus was the result of a miracle, and you might say he was a fresh start - the new Adam, in fact."

Well, either he was or wasn't human. Chalcedon (451) accepted he was, and that was the last word so far.

I'm sure any number of theologians have attempted to square the circle of how someone wholly divine *and* entirely human could, nevertheless, lack an essentail part of human nature. And I'm sure you might be able to recount some of this, Andrew, but, I would still find it completely risible and unconvincing. it seems to me that Christian theologians really tie themselves in the most unconvincing knots about this one, in an attempt to have it both ways.

"I believe Justin the Preature's explanation was that the sin is passed on by sex."

Oh dear, RDO - back to Christianity as a death cult which abhors any hint of SEX. No, dear me, no - no sex please as it's *dirty*. LOL!

I'm so pleased I'm pagan....

John Kerry did not write the facts found in the scriptures, so they are believable. Just yesterday it was reported that a cave was found by archeologists that they believe was used by John the Baptist. The evidence in the cave was very conclusive and seems to go beyond a doubt.

Hi HS!
<>

I missed this bit, I hope the earlier post explained that the spirit is not the problem. But you are right, I think, in proposing that God could except people from original sin if he chose: according to Catholic belief he has in fact done so: Mary, Jesus's mother (because she was mother of God). So he could similarly intervened in the case of everyone. In fact there are other ways in which God could conceivably have saved mankind.

Thanks Alji
<>


Sorry about the confusing post. I don't think DNA is relevant to original sin at all. That's why I don't think Mary's DNA is relevant.

Hello Toxx
<>

I think he was incapable of sin, although he had free will. The essence of his freedom would lie in the manner of willing - i.e. in willing without the will being moved by anything other than itself. Would that make sense to you?

Hi RDO!

<>

Original sin is passed on by generation, whatever the precise means. I don't suppose IVF is any different in that regard. I don't recall the connection between IVF and original sin being made before, but if Justin said so...

Hi HS!

<>

It's fallen human nature that has original sin, not human nature per se. And it was not transmitted to Jesus.

Hi Andy.

Contradiction in terms, old boy. What's the point of freewill if you aren't capable of doing anything wrong. That isn't any kind of real choice! Come on, you're doing casuistry squared!



Nah. Surely, after a moment's reflection you must see that it's a load of bullshit. If he didn't have contradictory human motivations, then he would have been an angel - which defeats the whole object of his incarnation.

toxx

<< - back to Christianity as a death cult which abhors any hint of SEX. No, dear me, no - no sex please as it's *dirty*. LOL!>>

HS, Christianity is *not* a death cult which abhors sex at all - that's simply what some people here choose to assert it to be! Christianity (in common with Islam) simply abhors the misuse of sex, and the use of it in inhuman and inhumane ways. (Rape, pornography, incest, adultery etc.)

But why, then, are the church officials of (some) variants of Christianity forbidden from having sex.

Also: <>
That's good, of course. What about homosexuality? Does that get grouped in with the above?

I think that god is both fiction and reality. Fiction in a sense that the our ancesters made him up to understand the world they hade little knowlege of, unfourtunently what this did was create mass fear and anger between differing ideals thuse breeding war hatred and death. My grandma used to tell me and my sister that if you belived in something enough it becomes real and if it dosen't become real one tends to make it real by any means nessacary. I think this is the case in the reality of god. Or something vary similer.

hi toxx,

<>

Scary? Anyhow, is there any real difference between being considered masculine as opposed to male? Other than masculine being more of a concept and male being a physical trait?

Christianity still ends up being a patriarchally-based religion, based on the 'maleness' of God the Father. Doncha think?


az

<> (me)

<> (Della)

Yes, of course they are both assertions, Della. My question to you is why yours is more right than mine is? Other than we both choose to believe in our separate assertions.

<<(and it is always a Him).>> (me)

<> (Della)

No, he doesn't have a physical *sex*, but he *does* have a masculine gender thing happening. And while I might agree with you that there have always been pockets of Christians who think the way you say they do, not thinking of God as 'Him', I doubt the Vatican would agree with you.

<> (Della)

How is this *evidence*, Della? Surely these were just opinions held at the time the bible was written by the people who wrote it?


az

ps

toxx and Della,

Sorry for replying so late to your postings but, you know, I'm sorta on holiday at the moment.


az

<> (Della)

<> (android)

I would say, android, that unfortunately homosexuality *is* included in that list. For no good reason. The bible does not have anything to say against homosexuality per se, though it does make its point against the priesthood indulging in such activity. And I also doubt the bible said anything specific against pornography as such.


az

hi Edward,

Welcome to the god thread. At least this is the first posting from you that I'm aware of.

I'd say that you are right in our ancestors having made up religion for some of the reasons you suggest, but not necessary that they made up 'god(s)'. My take is that various god concepts become surrounded by man-made religions to the point that they end being quite unrecognizable, as religions do seem to be rather self-serving and political things.

Meanwhile, it sounds as if your grandma and Terry Pratchett would get along quite well.


az

Toxx good point well put, as usual, and put in a way that *I* actually got it this time.

Hi sis (...e-mail?...sanctuary?...)

The church used to allow padres to marry but made them all take vows of chasity after a certain point as som many of them were causing scandals by sleeping with women in their parishes!

Yeah that'll work, a vow of chastity. Surround them with paintings of naked women with big booties on clouds and see what will happen. Wonder what kind of affect pictures of naked cherubim and seraphim has had on all those "celibate" men? Obviously all the churches paintings of nude men, women and children were done before the Victorian Brits created the concept of pawnography so they are works of art and not pawn

Of course the church takes vows to the bigG very seriously and when it finds a padre has been buggering young boys breaking his vows *AND* the law. They take the stringent action of moving them to another parish.

Of course if the scandal gets out padres are convinced to retire.

The big message is do it but dont get caught. So you can be an onanist, gay, adulterous, bestial, incestuous either individually or all at once if your flexible enough as long as you say you're sorry and feel ashamed of it its OK.

one love

<>

Yes, you have that right, blicky. At least within the Catholic religion. You go to confession, say a few Hail Mary's or Our Father's as penance and bob's your uncle - your soul is pure again.


az

ps
the email address is in the mail!

Thanks Toxx

<>

As HS rightly said earlier (I think), we Christians tie ourselves up in knots trying to explain this... but, hey, it's fun!

What I did was to take Aristotle's definition of freedom and apply it to Jesus's will: he says 'that is free which is its own cause'. I have heard this before, but I don't know whether it applies here. However, earlier we agreed that God would do nothing sub-optimal, even though he could - at least in theory. So is freedom defined by choice? Or, in the case of someone who (hypothetically) could do no wrong, might it be in the manner of willing to do right, which is the proper object of the will? (Maybe there is circularity here.)