Pelagianism
12 Dec '08 09:43Originally posted by vistesdThe aesthetics of Genesis is vastly underrated.
I do not argue with that choice...
12 Dec '08 10:04Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt ain't one way or another so
In addition to the choices offered above -- I contend that the Eden episode was pure theatre.
12 Dec '08 10:04Originally posted by vistesdsorry i think that i have created confusion by including propensity by which you mean the inclination natural or otherwise towards sin. this i do not advocate. what i did mean was that as free moral agents they had the potential to sin, rather than any type of inclination. sorry for that. therefore whether it is conventional or not i cannot say, but quite clearly before they choose to grasp at moral independence they remained sinless, afterwards they did not. i could try to argue that while they had the potential to sin, they did not have the propensity to sin. this as is evident was introduced by a third party and up until this point they remained sinless and blameless. what is interesting is that eve was clearly manipulated, in the original language the ancient record states that the fruit was 'desirable to look upon', in that it looked good for imparting knowledge. so what the serpent actually did was not appeal to her senses, but to her intellect and being a perfect women, alas the only one! she had an intellectual capacity that was limitless. her husband on the other hand was fully aware of his actions and his was a deliberate act of disobedience, not one of manipulation, but i digress, sorry for the confusion, clearly i meant they had the potential for sinning, not any natural inclination, this must have been as a result of severing their relationship with god and as a consequence of their punishment. interestingly there is no biblical record that they ever repented!
It seems that you have released the dilemma by essentially choosing (1). Which means that you are opposed to those who say that the propensity for sin (or “sin nature” ) was the result of eating the tree. And that has seemed to me the conventional view of “original sin”: that the inherent human propensity for sin is inherite ...[text shortened]... g “preachy”, just expanding the point along your own theological lines. No problem.
12 Dec '08 10:051 editOriginally posted by black beetleach beetle yah blether!
It ain't one way or another so
particularly when you follow your own piece of advice and you walk the path to It as it flares through the Mirror
thus
as a response too
to your question "let's see what happens without questioning"
this is exactly what happens
for qeter is the malkhut of ain soph aur afterall
and the distortion took place when the Second Path was still not connecting the 1 and the 2
😵
12 Dec '08 10:09Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo many words! Words is the sickness of the Mind ye leggedy beastie robbie!
sorry i think that i have created confusion by including propensity by which you mean the inclination natural or otherwise towards sin. this i do not advocate. what i did mean was that as free moral agents they had the potential to sin, rather than any type of inclination. sorry for that. therefore whether it is conventional or not i cannot say, ...[text shortened]... uence of their punishment. interestingly there is no biblical record that they ever repented!
12 Dec '08 10:14Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, both literalist/historicists among religionists and those “secularists” (for wont of a better term; perhaps I should just say non-religionists) who accept literalism/historicism as the norm fail to appreciate the power of story (in all its aesthetic dimensions) to inform how we live out our existential condition. I think that both sides underestimate the aesthetic intentions of those who told/wrote/redacted these stories. Someone who can compose literature at the level of the author (or author/redactor) of the “J” narrative in the Torah cannot simply be dismissed as a “superstitious” primitive, on the one hand, nor treated as a simple recorder of “history” on the other.
Please say more. Your agreement probably carries more with it than what I think I mean.
12 Dec '08 10:181 editOriginally posted by robbie carrobieI need to think about "propensity" versus simple "potential" a bit. I'm making this argument as I go, so to speak, and am happy to rethink it...
sorry i think that i have created confusion by including propensity by which you mean the inclination natural or otherwise towards sin. this i do not advocate. what i did mean was that as free moral agents they had the potential to sin, rather than any type of inclination. sorry for that. therefore whether it is conventional or not i cannot say, uence of their punishment. interestingly there is no biblical record that they ever repented!
12 Dec '08 10:22Originally posted by vistesdSoon I will be off line until Monday; I am happy that I will have a break from my everyday chores even for three days, which I will share them in full with my beautiful Maria
Well, both literalist/historicists among religionists and those “secularists” (for wont of a better term; perhaps I should just say non-religionists) who accept literalism/historicism as the norm fail to appreciate the power of story (in all its aesthetic dimensions) to inform how we live out our existential condition. I think that both sides undere ...[text shortened]... ralist/historicist view simply dismiss such fables as prima facie meaningless and absurd.
Back to Top