The Round Table (Rational Pagans Forum)

Science & The Supernatural: A Discussion of the World Around us - Based on Science with an Interest in the Supernatural ...
It is currently 26 Jun 2017, 05:29

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Forum rules


Please note: Discussion here should be relatively civil. Attack the post, not the poster. Thanks!



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2010, 13:33 
Offline
Adherent

Joined: 24 Mar 2010, 15:01
Posts: 94
Does this kill the concept of original sin and the sacrifice of Jesus?

Does it also kill the idea that sin is passed down to the children and say that if Adam and Eve lost eternal life, that lose is not passed on to their children.


"The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." (Ezekiel 18:20)

This quote seems to clearly say that we are all responsible for our sins and that none of that responsibility can be taken away and remains our own.
It also indicates that no sin, or original sin, is passed on to our children.
This seems a just way to go.

Why baptism then?


“and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

This does not indicate that Jesus can take sin upon himself.
It does say that each of us must carry that load, not a scapegoat Jesus.

If so, then there is no sacrifice on the cross for Jesus and ---why have you forsaken me ----- is answered with, it is not your place or moral to take responsibilities away from those who must carry their own loads.

Does the above change your views of the vicarious redemption of Jesus or original sin?


Regards
DL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2010, 14:05 
Offline
'Lustrous Potentate
User avatar

Joined: 24 Mar 2010, 11:06
Posts: 411
It ought to, but in my experience talking with believing Christians, they find ways to ignore, spin or otherwise disregard passages that contradict their beliefs.

Baptism is symbolic death, as resurrection is rebirth/reawakening.

There are a number of intriguing ways to interpret the words Jesus is reported to have spoken on the cross. Yours is one I hadn't thought of before.

I've read another theory that Jesus (assuming he was an historical figure, which I personally doubt) was attempting to force God's hand, as it were, in order to bring about the liberation of Judea from the Romans. "Why have you forsaken me", in this context, would mean, "oh fuck, I'm hanging here on this cross, and no angelic armies are appearing to save me and kick Roman ass."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2010, 14:42 
Offline
Grand Poobah
User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2007, 11:26
Posts: 5793
Location: Buffalo, NY
I do like that quote, GIA. People should be responsible for their own actions.


IIRC, 'baptism' was borrowed from the local pagan cults because it was 'cool', not because it had anything to do with a Jewish teaching (like, iirc, the candles at shabbat were picked up in Rome because Romans lit candles like that).

Jews do seem to have a substitution sacrifice thought, that would make Jesus count as one, if you ignore that it has to be an unblemished sacrifice (which, it can be argued, he was until he entered the hands of his sacrificers).

_________________
Chloride and Sodium: Two terribly dangerous substances that taste great together!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2010, 14:49 
Offline
'Lustrous Potentate
User avatar

Joined: 24 Mar 2010, 11:06
Posts: 411
Yahweh couldn't seem to make up his mind about human sacrifice. There are a few places in the Tanakh were it was condoned, or at least accepted. But mostly it was condemned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Apr 2010, 09:19 
Offline
Adherent

Joined: 24 Mar 2010, 15:01
Posts: 94
Zebulon wrote:
It ought to, but in my experience talking with believing Christians, they find ways to ignore, spin or otherwise disregard passages that contradict their beliefs.

Baptism is symbolic death, as resurrection is rebirth/reawakening.

There are a number of intriguing ways to interpret the words Jesus is reported to have spoken on the cross. Yours is one I hadn't thought of before.

I've read another theory that Jesus (assuming he was an historical figure, which I personally doubt) was attempting to force God's hand, as it were, in order to bring about the liberation of Judea from the Romans. "Why have you forsaken me", in this context, would mean, "oh fuck, I'm hanging here on this cross, and no angelic armies are appearing to save me and kick Roman ass."


:)
A good analogy and yes I too have played dueling quotes with Christians and yes, theirs always seem to hold more weight
than mine. Go figure.
They do tend to put knots in their tongs to do it though.
Soon followed by a turn or burn as they run away.

Regards
DL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Apr 2010, 09:23 
Offline
Adherent

Joined: 24 Mar 2010, 15:01
Posts: 94
Zebulon wrote:
Yahweh couldn't seem to make up his mind about human sacrifice. There are a few places in the Tanakh were it was condoned, or at least accepted. But mostly it was condemned.


It takes time for Gods to become civilized. With luck their followers do so as well although Christians seem to like the idea of blood.

Regards
DL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2010, 12:04 
Offline
Grand Poobah
User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2007, 11:26
Posts: 5793
Location: Buffalo, NY
Interesting statement.

It would hold with the Baha'i as I understand it--- that the various incarnations of god are all facets of the same god as 'he' slowly reveals to us as we grow better able to understand.

_________________
Chloride and Sodium: Two terribly dangerous substances that taste great together!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2010, 12:37 
Offline
Adherent

Joined: 24 Mar 2010, 15:01
Posts: 94
jess wrote:
Interesting statement.

It would hold with the Baha'i as I understand it--- that the various incarnations of god are all facets of the same god as 'he' slowly reveals to us as we grow better able to understand.


From what I recall of their literature, they are progressive yes, but still tied to a fantasy creator miracle working God.

Regards
DL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2010, 12:54 
Offline
Grand Poobah
User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2007, 11:26
Posts: 5793
Location: Buffalo, NY
Quote:
still tied to a fantasy creator miracle working God.


hmmmm... and if they weren't tied to a creator god?

We recently watched the Gospel of Judas, the natgeo special, where they discussed that in the Gospel Jesus laughs at the apostles because they are worshiping the inferior creator and not the superior god, who sent him. That was a Gnostic teaching.


This is the start of it.

_________________
Chloride and Sodium: Two terribly dangerous substances that taste great together!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2010, 13:30 
Offline
Adherent

Joined: 24 Mar 2010, 15:01
Posts: 94
jess wrote:
Quote:
still tied to a fantasy creator miracle working God.


hmmmm... and if they weren't tied to a creator god?

We recently watched the Gospel of Judas, the natgeo special, where they discussed that in the Gospel Jesus laughs at the apostles because they are worshiping the inferior creator and not the superior god, who sent him. That was a Gnostic teaching.


This is the start of it.


Both the Gnostics and Jesus indicated and believed that God was within us.

This basically tells me that they both recognized that man had dominion here and that we rule and develop law. Not a God.
Do ye not know that ye are Gods says it plainly or the notion that we are all sons of God.

When viewing Gnostic teachings, you should remember that they did not take their own scriptures literally nor those of Christianity. A damned good idea.

All scriptures were for them, just food for thought and debate in the individual search for their internal God.

Regards
DL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2010, 13:35 
Offline
Grand Poobah
User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2007, 11:26
Posts: 5793
Location: Buffalo, NY
As it should be.

But some people prefer to be told what to think. It is easier.

_________________
Chloride and Sodium: Two terribly dangerous substances that taste great together!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2010, 13:53 
Offline
Adherent

Joined: 24 Mar 2010, 15:01
Posts: 94
jess wrote:
As it should be.

But some people prefer to be told what to think. It is easier.


Yes, there are many who are mentaly lazy.
An unfortunate trait.

They will never find or understand our true Godhead. Our next evolutionary step.

Regards
DL


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group