Religious Question...

[bandXtrb]

God would never need to send his son to do his own work.

 

[linuxboy]

God would never need to send his son to do his own work.

hence, the idea of the Trinity and of the Son, being the Word, or logos from the father.

Cheers !

 

[dpk777]

In the Old Testament if someone sinned they would have to sacrifice an animal such as a sheep to die for their sins...thus the word "scapegoat". The penalty for sin before Christ was death.

Jesus, God's one and only Son, was sent here to ultimately die for our sins...He was the ultimate sacrifice.

Through Jesus we gain a new relationship God.

 

[Moonbeam]

The difference I was thinking of was that there's no difference or one can't, in some ways, distinguish a difference. If my real sinfulness is the result of the fact that I act sinful out of a feeling that I'm no good, and I think that's just exactly how somebody who feels sinful does act, or has a continual urge to act, then if he is forgiven by some outside source and really feels forgiven, then that impulse, compulsion, or magnitizing idea ceases to exist. There would follow the feeling of grace. On the other hand, if through psychoanalysis, for example, a person is able to discover within him or herself the final core experience in which a false feeling of sinfulness was inculcated and expose it as a lie, there might follow an experience of liberation, a sureness that one is OK. Naturally the latter would imply that something about the notion of original sin is ascue, or goofy. That might be that the notion of the corrupting knowledge granted by eating the apple of the tree of knowledge is corrupting, and universally or originally so, only because knowledge of a thing, out linguistic capacity categorize, create duality, to is not the thing itself. Words about the now are not the now. Sin is separation that had its origin in language. Whether you call it separation from God, the Self, or Being is pretty much just semantic, if you ask me.

I guess if somebody wanted to know what I think is the important point to take away from the question posed by this thread is that, one way or the other, we are either forgiven or there's nothing wrong with us. It would be nice to know it.

 

[gopunk]

thus the word "scapegoat".

interesting.. where did the scrape part come from? or do i not want to know...

 

[vi edit]

Scape as in a variant of escape.

To escape from one's sins.

 

[linuxboy]

The difference I was thinking of was that there's no difference or one can't, in some ways, distinguish a difference. If my real sinfulness is the result of the fact that I act sinful out of a feeling that I'm no good, and I think that's just exactly how somebody who feels sinful does act, or has a continual urge to act, then if he is forgiven by some outside source and really feels forgiven, then that impulse, compulsion, or magnitizing idea ceases to exist. There would follow the feeling of grace. On the other hand, if through psychoanalysis, for example, a person is able to discover within him or herself the final core experience in which a false feeling of sinfulness was inculcated and expose it as a lie, there might follow an experience of liberation, a sureness that one is OK. Naturally the latter would imply that something about the notion of original sin is ascue, or goofy. That might be that the notion of the corrupting knowledge granted by eating the apple of the tree of knowledge is corrupting, and universally or originally so, only because knowledge of a thing, out linguistic capacity categorize, create duality, to is not the thing itself. Words about the now are not the now. Sin is separation that had its origin in language. Whether you call it separation from God, the Self, or Being is pretty much just semantic, if you ask me.

I guess if somebody wanted to know what I think is the important point to take away from the question posed by this thread is that, one way or the other, we are either forgiven or there's nothing wrong with us. It would be nice to know it.

I like the point made here. From the perception of one grounded in a cultural subjectivity (the position I took in explaining), there is a difference of perspective. But from the position of knowing, this is "pretty much just semantic", as you said it because ultimately experience is shared. Even if context influences the interpretation of experience, or someone's awakening, that does not invalidate the meaning of experience itself.

I think another lesson we can learn is that when focusing on discovery of truth, we must not be so quick to jump on a bandwagon but validate it in our own lives because chances are, there is a real "core experience".


Erm, I think our little side discussion has strayed us from the initial question. So, I must apologize and welcome further on-topic discussion.

Cheers !

 

[ArmenK]

you said it man, no body fvcks with the jesus