Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 16:40:42 GMT -5
I thought that the concept of Original Sin, meant that a baby was separated from God, by birth. Yes, the baby is "separated from God by birth".
In an earlier post, I recounted my observation of a 6 year old boy and his father at the golf driving range. Seems to me the kid has split from his dad the way an amoebic cell reproduces by splitting itself into two amoebas. Same sinful protoplasm. Chip off the old block. And what is the source of this.. ' Seems to me' state?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 16:42:25 GMT -5
And I'm saying that's one interpretation, a philosopher's interpretation. The philosopher's interpretation can be defended intellectually based on a vision of "Christ" that is an interconnected set of parts. There's also an emotional appeal that's possible: the innocent isn't born a sinner, but their sinning is an eventuality. That's not my belief (although I do discern threads of relative truth woven in), I'm just 'splainin' it. I say rather, "God falls into her own dream" in complete innocence, and the philosophers know not what they do. Even the new-ager's who base their beliefs on Hinduism aren't free of this TMT, as they argue that you do actually choose to be born. Yeah.. yeah, that's what I hoped for. Thanks By the bolded do you mean an idea of Christ, taken from varying descriptions? I mean Christ in the nondual sense that is hidden in plain view of the sacraments: all are the body of Christ, only one Jesus though. The philosopher's fist step is to objectify Christ. In secular terms, the phenomenal, objective Universe. There's a hierarchy of composition: the baby is a part of humanity, humanity is a part of the Universe. The Christian philosopher's draw their dualistic line between God and man. So they connect innocence to original sin by the composition of the baby with humanity, but they have God shaking his head sadly at Eve in the orchard. It's really quite hilarious, but the humor of course has it's dark edges around it in terms of the 'pilgrims collective subconscious and the dynamic of shame, not to mention the underlying theme of misogyny.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Aug 22, 2022 16:44:41 GMT -5
Yes, the baby is "separated from God by birth".
In an earlier post, I recounted my observation of a 6 year old boy and his father at the golf driving range. Seems to me the kid has split from his dad the way an amoebic cell reproduces by splitting itself into two amoebas. Same sinful protoplasm. Chip off the old block. And what is the source of this.. ' Seems to me' state? I guess it's from the depth of emptiness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 16:45:39 GMT -5
And what is the source of this.. ' Seems to me' state? I guess it's from the depth of emptiness. You guess wrong.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2022 16:45:39 GMT -5
Ok, so now we're deep into TMT but I bear responsibility for offering you those interpretations of the pointing. You and a bunch of other past philosophers - some I'm sure far smarter and more learned that I am - you've focused on this question "is a new born baby a sinner"? It's overthinking things. It's the mind going mad with the butcher blade, chopping the world up into these little pieces in an effort that is vain in both senses of the word. The clear, commonsense answer is that no, of course a baby isn't a sinner. That's why we refer to babies and even younger toddlers as "innocents". I'm quite content to stop there. I've got no need to philosophize about Church doctrine. Not interested. But, on the other hand - and I'm only writing this to demonstrate what is underlying this particular Sisyphean endless mind spin - I can understand why the philosophers attempted to reconcile "original sin" and "innocence", and the material reconciliation in this instance is quite clear. The baby's life has a relative causal context. Leave it out in a field in a basket and it will get eaten by wolves. It's not the individual form of the newborn that is a sinner, it is humanity, as a whole, that will inevitably imprint the newborn with the cultural knowledge of good and evil. So the argument would go that you cannot separate the innocence of the newborn from humanities original sin. The endless mind spin here is the question "why would God allow evil?". A typical Christian without the time, and perhaps without the intellectual and/or emotional capacity to benefit from the philosophy is probably far better off never being exposed to that philosophy as it will only confuse them. I thought that the concept of Original Sin, meant that a baby was separated from God, by birth. Yes, that's correct. Then the theologians have to invent epicycles so as not to send a baby that dies, to hell, like Augustine did. He said unbaptized babies that happen to die, go to hell. So theologians invented the age of accountability. If a child happens to die before the age of accountability, they get a pass, get a free ticket to heaven. My point is that ministers get this stuff taught in seminary, and most of them beat their congregation over the head with it. Baptists do anyway, Southern Baptists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 16:46:30 GMT -5
Yeah.. yeah, that's what I hoped for. Thanks By the bolded do you mean an idea of Christ, taken from varying descriptions? I mean Christ in the nondual sense that is hidden in plain view of the sacraments: all are the body of Christ, only one Jesus though. The philosopher's fist step is to objectify Christ. In secular terms, the phenomenal, objective Universe. There's a hierarchy of composition: the baby is a part of humanity, humanity is a part of the Universe. The Christian philosopher's draw their dualistic line between God and man. So they connect innocence to original sin by the composition of the baby with humanity, but they have God shaking his head sadly at Eve in the orchard. It's really quite hilarious, but the humor of course has it's dark edges around it in terms of the 'pilgrims collective subconscious and the dynamic of shame, not to mention the underlying theme of misogyny. Lol.. it's all gone a bit dark in here.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Aug 22, 2022 16:46:43 GMT -5
I guess it's from the depth of emptiness. You guess wrong. What is the source then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 16:49:04 GMT -5
I thought that the concept of Original Sin, meant that a baby was separated from God, by birth. Yes, that's correct. Then the theologians have to invent epicycles so as not to send a baby that dies, to hell, like Augustine did. He said unbaptized babies that happen to die, go to hell. So theologians invented the age of accountability. If a child happens to die before the age of accountability, they get a pass, get a free ticket to heaven. My point is that ministers get this stuff taught in seminary, and most of them beat their congregation over the head with it. Baptists do anyway, Southern Baptists. Yeah, I understand.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2022 16:50:19 GMT -5
And what is the source of this.. ' Seems to me' state? I guess it's from the depth of emptiness. It's just the way the cultural self is formed. The baby and the small child stores the data in their neural structure, connections between nerves, learned from their parents and caregivers. But sree is exactly correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 16:51:34 GMT -5
You gotta do the work yourself. Other people's answers will just continue your hyper criticisms.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Aug 22, 2022 16:52:38 GMT -5
Yes, that's correct. Then the theologians have to invent epicycles so as not to send a baby that dies, to hell, like Augustine did. He said unbaptized babies that happen to die, go to hell. So theologians invented the age of accountability. If a child happens to die before the age of accountability, they get a pass, get a free ticket to heaven. My point is that ministers get this stuff taught in seminary, and most of them beat their congregation over the head with it. Baptists do anyway, Southern Baptists. Yeah, I understand. Do you really understand? The age of accountability is 18 here in the US. By that age, most are able to and some do break all the Commandments. Even the Supreme Court would find them guilty as charged.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2022 16:53:25 GMT -5
I guess it's from the depth of emptiness. You guess wrong. He's correct, in the Buddhist sense of emptiness, dependent origination. All things link together and have multiple causes. Emptiness means nothing exists in and of itself, nothing. But I don't think he meant that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 16:56:22 GMT -5
He's correct, in the Buddhist sense of emptiness, dependent origination. All things link together and have multiple causes. Emptiness means nothing exists in and of itself, nothing. But I don't think he meant that. He's correct, but you don't think he meant that? Can we get some clarity around here please?
|
|
|
Post by sree on Aug 22, 2022 16:56:30 GMT -5
I guess it's from the depth of emptiness. It's just the way the cultural self is formed. The baby and the small child stores the data in their neural structure, connections between nerves, learned from their parents and caregivers. But sree is exactly correct. I don't see the human being as an organism. Consciousness is what we are: all one, for better or for worse, and never do we part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 16:57:02 GMT -5
Do you really understand? The age of accountability is 18 here in the US. By that age, most are able to and some do break all the Commandments. Even the Supreme Court would find them guilty as charged. I understand that you're talking about something else, yes.
|
|