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

Andy. It is fascinating to speak to someone who thinks similarly to myself but is a theologian to my philosopher.



True but so are infinitely many other opinions. I prefer to follow Occam and not add frills to the basic position reached by pure philosophical analysis. That way lies a mass of confusion. You only have to look at all the 'isms mentioned in this discussion.

toxx

<>

Definitely, I was condemning porn which involves exploitation. (Porn which *doesn't*, I define as erotica).
Adultery, I define not in terms of people technically married (i.e., not divorced even if they are separated for years - I am in that category myself). I am talking about adultery involving a couple who are together, and in that situation, someone inevitably is hurt, betrayed and very seriously harmed! There is an essay C S Lewis wrote about that - in answer to a situation involving people he knew. The husband left to be with another woman, the wife killed herself, and people he knew asked "well, he (the husband) did what he did for , so where's the harm?" The harm was in the betrayal of his commitment, and the callous desertion of his wife, for "luurve" - that's just wrong! Utterly unacceptable.

R. Daneel Olivaw

Because he (Jesus) chose to be "emptied" of his God-like nature and powers (except for his sinlessness.) As a human, he feared death as much as any of us do.

Hi guys,

I've been following this without comment for a few days because it all seems a bit 'angels on pinheads' to me.

I do have a question though: what exactly is or is meant by 'original sin'?

F

"Because he (Jesus) chose to be "emptied" of his God-like nature and powers (except for his sinlessness.) As a human, he feared death as much as any of us do. "

That in itself makes him non-human--after all, he made the choice knowing exactly what the result would be. Humans neither get to chose that state nor know it's results. So by knowing the end result of being human, he knew he would be ressurected and the world saved as a result befroe he chose to be emptied of god-like nature and powers. This makes him non-human or else non-divine. The claim that he is divine and became human doesn't work.

"Howver (in this thought experiment, if you will) the person of Jesus is still God. Hence, as you say, he cannot do evil any more than God can, even though he has taken human nature (or waterfall nature). Is he free? If God is free, Jesus must be, although not to do just anything because he cannot act contrary to his divine nature, which is good. And how does all this allow for his human nature?"

I'm not claiming that a human-and-divine Jesus wouldn't have free will, merely that his free will would be exercised in such a non-uman way that he wouldn't be human.


"Arius tried to get round this, saying that Jesus was not really God uncreated (although he was still special) because he couldn't have been. I think Arius began from the wrong starting point: assuming God exists, he could take on human form; the question is 'how'?"

Interesting, but I suspect that taking on a form inherently different from a God and haveing that for remain itself may come into the catagory of the loically impossible things like creating rocks he can't lift that you Theists usually argue your God can't be expected to do despite his omnipotance.

Well original can mean first so in this sense it meansknowledge of sex.

That's why so many people once they "knew" each othe in the bible had little babies.

Della I take all my commiments seriously but do you mean to say that if I were no longer to see my life as being happy with Liz and felt drawn to somone else I should not be allowed to follow my own heart/loins because it's "just wrong! Utterly unacceptable"?

What about the deserted person do they still have to stick to that vow?

Should I have had to stay engaged to Sarah even after I found out she had a "thing against those Paki's, they're just dirty and creepy"?

Definitely, I was condemning porn which involves exploitation. (Porn which *doesn't*, I define as erotica).

Good to hear you condemn things which rely on exploitation for their production. Do you feel the same about tobacco products? BTW How do you tell eroyica from pawn?

one love

<>

If you don't know, Blinky, I am sorry, I can't help you...

Please excuse the typo eyotica for erotica.

You said:

Definitely, I was condemning porn which involves exploitation. (Porn which *doesn't*, I define as erotica).

Which indicates that you can tell the difference that's what deifne means. Now you are saying you cant:


If you don't know, Blinky, I am sorry, I can't help you...

You could help me buy telling me how you do it.(I am very, very interested in learning.)

Which one is true? They cant both be true.

"assuming God exists, he could take on human form; the question is 'how'?"

For me as a pagan, the problem Christians have set themselves lies in attributing sin to human nature, and in restricting incarnation to a totally human form. IME, the gods can take human form (and shed it) as they please. They choose to appear in a human shape which is recognisable as that particular god, but is not phenomenal and not subject to our limitations. But then, we don't have a concept of 'sin' either. to us, the gods carry as much imperfection and personal responsibility as any other creature; they make mistakes and learn.

We each carry our own burden of effecting our orlog - our personal destiny, within wyrd. our orlog is created from our birth, our body, our upbringing, our own conscience and abilities, our will and past and present actions. All this goes to form our future actions and the effect these will have, in turn, on wyrd, along with the actions of all other creatures, both phenomenally and numinously alive. So we all weave the web of wyrd and are affected by it, and by the actions of others. We all bear personal responsibility and can draw on help from our kith and kin - whether human, spirits, ancestors or gods. As we can help them. our relationships are fully reciprocal, not those of clients within a one-sided power relationship, where we either accept our status as clients or else reject it and are threatened with damnation as a result.

"I am talking about adultery involving a couple who are together,"

Ah. My take on that, Adelaide, is that it is the Christian interpretation fo marriage as both 'for life' and involving 'complete fidelity' which does the harm. If you view marriage as a relationship where sex may be an expression of the love between the couple, but where it is accepted that no one individual can satisfy every sexual desire of their partner (and should not have to bear the burden of feeling they need to), then a lot of the guilt and unreasonable expectations which are ridiculously attached to the modern concept of marriage are done away with.

Why should not an individual be able to love more than one person (is love so limited an emotion?), or be able to express sexual desire in a number of ways, possibly with a number of partners? So long as no one is physically harmed (such as by the passing on of disease), the emotional harm is done by the expectations we invest in 'marriage'.

Our experience, the world over, demonstrates that very few individuals are capable of the lifelong, sexual fidelity to one individual. Very few are capable of a lifelong relationship which confines all their capacity for erotic love. We condone serial marriage in recognition of this but still, IMO foolishly, expect total emotional and sexual fulfillment to be confined to that one relationship. We see the effects of the unreasonable burden this creates all the time. If we stopped being so irrational about the whole thing and set up social systems which recongised and supported people as they are, instead of according to particular socio-religious expectations, I suspect a lot of people would lead far more fulfilling emotional lives and sustain more happy long term relationships with far less grief.

Hi Toxx!

<>

Well actually I'm not a 'real' theologian. But it's useful having philosophers around, because among other things they keep theologians from going off the rails! Actually, they don't always...

As a Christian I don't follow Ockham's razor in everything. That's the result of God having a history. But I agree about the confusion and the 'isms.

Thanks RDO!

<>

That's very well put, and the basic thrust of the early Church councils was to find a solution that is a) coherent philosophically, and b) allows Jesus (who is God) to be human enough (so to speak) for the crucifixion to make sense.

I don't think it is impossible, although some 'solutions' obviously are. And I don't think that Jesus needs to experience *everything* that we do, in order to he truly human (in fact neither did Athanasius and the rest of them back in antiquity). Perhaps those two statements are connected! But the result has to accord with the Jesus of the Gospels, capable of feelings and true suffering (etc). Anyway, the above is just a statement of the question. I think we can agree on what the problem is, at least.

Welcome back, Fathom!
<>

I'm one of the guilty parties. Sorry about that.

<>

I can think of two distinct (related) meanings:
1) The primordial sin of our first parents - or, according to the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve.
2) The effects in us that result from it; we are said to be weakened morally as a result, and prone to do bad - but happily not totally corrupted.
(But careful! This topic could lead to more pinheads and more angels.)

Andy. You're as 'real' a thologian as ya wanna be. Just as Noggin is a philosopher, although he seems to say that he doesn't have a higher qualification to his name. Actually he beats the hell out of me on sheer knowledge, but I suspect that I have the edge when it comes to actually *doing* philosophy.



Hey, if that's so, then there has to be a book in it. "A Brief History of God"? May I co-author it? It should make millions!

toxx

<>

Sounds sensible to me.

<>

What's wyrd?

Andy.

My take on 'original sin' is rather similar to the above. However, for me it's that we have (were created with) freewill. The evidence would be just the same as that which supports your view - but once again I appeal to Occam/Ockham, and his blade.

toxx

Dammit E&C; I'm sure Coren must know this. Alternatively, why not try Google? Alternatively, you could run a search on the backlog here.

toxx

Er, Coren doesn't know anything more about Earth than I do, seeing as he's from Middle Earth. So... I guess I'll go search the backlog. *s off to do so*

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Wyrd
try here