Posts by myelaine

47

If there is such a thing as ORIGINAL SIN what does that do to "morality"?

by Terry in

"it is the concept of original sin that negates morality.. if man is guilty by nature, he has no choice about it.. if he has no choice, the issue does not belong in the field of morality.

morality pertains only to the sphere of man's free will -- only to those actions which are open to his choice.. to consider man guilty by nature is a contradiction in terms.".

augustine had the mistaken view that many metaphysicians had at that time: all humans were "nested" inside of adam like those russian dolls that fit inside each other.

myelaine

it is only outside the garden that a "moral code" is addressed.

what kind of moral code do you think was needed between A&E in the garden?...or was it introduced, as learned, by the parents as "family" increased outside the garden?

xo

25

Is the story of the Garden of Eden simply a Rabbinical puzzle of SQUARING the circle??

by Terry in

1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.

myelaine

dear Terry...

I'm not "chiding" at all...I'm stating my opinion.

please don't be one of "those guys"

does the text say anything about adam's pursuit of knowledge besides the "tree encounter"?...no...you are imposing that on the text.

in actuality the pursuit of knowledge is seen as a NEGATIVE in this scenario.

love michelle

25

Is the story of the Garden of Eden simply a Rabbinical puzzle of SQUARING the circle??

by Terry in

1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.

myelaine

dear Terry...

my point is, without knowledge of the "big world" you wouldn't be threatened you would be warned...as adam was.

my point is not moot...the biblical text doesn't say that it was God who "tested"...it was satan who deceived...

love michelle

25

Is the story of the Garden of Eden simply a Rabbinical puzzle of SQUARING the circle??

by Terry in

1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.

you said: "In no way was the first man presented as the end of a long rational process of learning, weighing, deciding over many years time in testing situations to hone skills for making a LIFE OR DEATH FIRST DECISION!"...

exactly!...so why are you forcing it into the text with a statement like this: "In the Garden of Eden the newly created homo sapien must struggle with the TENSION between the CHOICE to pursue KNOWLEDGE rather than TO SURVIVE!"...???

love michelle

25

Is the story of the Garden of Eden simply a Rabbinical puzzle of SQUARING the circle??

by Terry in

1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.

myelaine

dear Terry...

you said: "The threat of death FROM GOD is something man did not survive because of the contrived "test" of his ability to deny human nature in the first place!"...

why is it a "threat" to you and a warning to me?

when you were a little one were you threatened with death if you went and played in traffic?

there is no place in the bible that says that this WAS a testdesigned by God...in fact the bible says that God DOES NOT test with evil!!

love michelle

p.s. I hope you're not twisting the scriptures to your own destruction

25

Is the story of the Garden of Eden simply a Rabbinical puzzle of SQUARING the circle??

by Terry in

1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.

myelaine

dear Terry...

you said: "In the Garden of Eden the newly created homo sapien must struggle with the TENSION between the CHOICE to pursue KNOWLEDGE rather than TO SURVIVE!"...

the expulsion from eden was a "game changer"...it was only after A&E left the garden that life became one of fighting to survive...ie. toiling.

you said: "I n the Garden of Eden the Creator God demands that Adam NOT exercise his human nature of relying on acquired knowledge because---God will break the connection by sentencing Adam to DEATH!"...

or, more logically...death was the natural consequence of not being allowed to eat from the tree of life that sustained them.

love michelle

47

If there is such a thing as ORIGINAL SIN what does that do to "morality"?

by Terry in

"it is the concept of original sin that negates morality.. if man is guilty by nature, he has no choice about it.. if he has no choice, the issue does not belong in the field of morality.

morality pertains only to the sphere of man's free will -- only to those actions which are open to his choice.. to consider man guilty by nature is a contradiction in terms.".

augustine had the mistaken view that many metaphysicians had at that time: all humans were "nested" inside of adam like those russian dolls that fit inside each other.

myelaine

dear Terry...

you asked: " I have to ask you what KIND of choice is a non-moral choice (4.) when it entails disobedience to God"...

Adam could easily have made many non-moral choices. everything was handed to him, he wasn't put into a position where he had to choose between obedience or disobedience (it was only the immediate introduction of such a choice that was his downfall)...it seems to me from reading the text...he'd never had a "moral" dilemma in which he could excersise his free will in this way before.

I never suggested anything about magical power but adam did have some realisation of his fall from grace.

you asked: "What benefit is there to a "moral code" in humans with a "fallen nature"? If Adam would not be obedient with his nature why would Adam's offspring possess greater ability in their own nature?"...

A&E fell from grace (they were no longer allowed to eat from the tree of life), they had the same "nature" both in the garden and out of the garden. that is the manner in which they took their "original sin" with them out of the garden, romans 5:12. the only way re-introduce the grace of God is to listen to Him...john 8:24

you asked: "What benefit is there to a "moral code" in humans with a "fallen nature"?...

I thought that we agreed that the moral code is taught/learned not something that is "in" us, per se.?...it is helpful to know your rights AND obligations within a community.

you said: "The "unity" of the people of God could only have reality if they ceased to have human nature."...

it is a new creation, a divine nature, one in which the old nature is overcome (with the help of the Holy Spirit) by imitating the heart and mind of Christ...in that "being of one mind" IS unity of the Spirit.

love michelle

5

Was Jesus admonition to remain no part of the world good advice or not?

by tootired2care in

in thinking about my own life, i think i can safely trace most of my excluded outcast childhood to jesus words in the bible to: "remain no part of the world".

sure the wts in their legalistic thinking probably mis-applied this text, but it's still a prominent belief for other groups like the amish too.. no doubt many of us ex witnesses have issues with our childhood, who doesn't, right?

still, that admonition from jesus in my opinion has so much wrong with it.

myelaine

dear tootired2care...

I think that Jesus was saying in essence that generally, the "world" drifts away from God (and godliness). He says that His followers are in the "world" but are no part of the "world"... ie. they don't drift away from God(and HIS precepts).

It is good advice to "stand" for something instead of drift along with the current.

love michelle

39

Need Help - Parent in ICU

by AudeSapere in

df parent is in hospital icu and surgeon wants to give blood.

parent is df for almost 20 and firmly refused blood for personal reasons (spiritual).. .

my concern is that parent is taking strong stand based on outdated jw gb hlc guidelines.

myelaine

dear Aude Sapere...

have you thought about calling in the JW Hospital Liaison Committee and confronting them with the "official" documents on blood fractions etc.? Then they would HAVE to advise your parent regarding the availability of some course of treatment using blood (or risk their own "blood guilt" don't forget to mention that!). This might ease the parent's mind and in so doing allow them to make the best choice.

I hope for the best for both of you.

love michelle

47

If there is such a thing as ORIGINAL SIN what does that do to "morality"?

by Terry in

"it is the concept of original sin that negates morality.. if man is guilty by nature, he has no choice about it.. if he has no choice, the issue does not belong in the field of morality.

morality pertains only to the sphere of man's free will -- only to those actions which are open to his choice.. to consider man guilty by nature is a contradiction in terms.".

augustine had the mistaken view that many metaphysicians had at that time: all humans were "nested" inside of adam like those russian dolls that fit inside each other.

myelaine

in this way moral codes can be seen as societal, taught by parents, the group etc...apart from obedience to God.

but...in conjunction with these codes...some parents teach the need for obedience to God.

societal moral codes and obedience to God are not the same...romans 2:23,27

that is why moral codes will not bring about "unity" of the people...but obedience to God will bring about "unity" of the Spirit in the people of God (romans 2:28-29).

love michelle