General > Off Topic
Genesis, 2001, and Darwin
Old Henk:
--- Quote ---btw, im not religious, but wasn't Jesus god's son and God himself?
and why does the world need a God for you guys?
notice "FOR YOU"
--- End quote ---
Ok, Here goes. This is basically the christian fate.
Chronologically:
1. God created everything =>Everything is good and nice and perfect and stuff.
2. Eve and Adam (two first humans) eat from the tree 'of good and evil', which God had forbid them to do.
3. Sin comes to world => not so nice and perfect anymore. People die from now on.
4. God promises that a savior will come.
5. Lotsa time passes
6. Year 0: Jesus is born. He is the son of God, and 100% human and 100% God. (Dont' ask me how He did it)
7. about 30 AD: Jesus dies on the cross, and thus pays for all the sins.
8. After that: People who accept Jesus as their savior are saved (goto heaven;good afterlife), as Jesus paid for them. Other people are not saved (goto Hell; bad afterlife), as they have to pay for their sins by themselves, which ordinary humans cannot do.
Ok, This is very very basic but you get the idea. It's all written in the bible, you can read it at www.bible.com
Zelos:
ok, thats how tehy belive, but that doesnt explain why god is needed, and something cant be 200% so that tells against it self. but if you say that he was both son of god and god I can accept it, but not that he is 100% son and 100% god, not accepteble in mathematic
Numsgil:
In my theology:
God, father and overseer. Has a physical body similar, but not identical (his is obviously immortal) to our own.
Jesus, seperate entity, Creator of Earth under the supervision of the Father, eldest spirit child of the Father (quite literally our oldest brother). When he came to Earth he recieved a body (which is necessary for eternal progression) which was physically fathered by the Father, as opposed ot the rest of us, who are only spiritually fathered. Before that he existed only as a spirit.
Also, a matter of personal taste, I hate it when people say: "Jesus died for your sins" because then that sounds like your accusing the other person of sinning. And "jesus died for my sins" makes it sound like he's your exclusively personal savior, which is rather hubratic (is that a word?)
I much prefer "Jesus died for our sins".
Before the fall, the Earth was in a state of innocence, but also spiritually stagnant. Without knowledge, choice and agency was pointless. That's when Adam tasted the fruit, and gained knowledge. Except with knowledge came responsibility, and we were all held accountable for our acts that we committed when we knew better.
Hence the atonement.
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---Before the fall, the Earth was in a state of innocence, but also spiritually stagnant. Without knowledge, choice and agency was pointless. That's when Adam tasted the fruit, and gained knowledge. Except with knowledge came responsibility, and we were all held accountable for our acts that we committed when we knew better.
--- End quote ---
How's this work then?
Before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve could have had no concept of right or wrong. That is what the tree gave them right?
How then could they have sinned by eating it since they were not responsible for their actions prior to doing so?
That is messed up dude! It is like me punishing a 2 month old baby for crapping in his diaper after I tell him not to. What kind of father would that make me?
<_< PY <_<
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---How then could they have sinned by eating it since they were not responsible for their actions prior to doing so?
--- End quote ---
That's where my church tends to diverge from other churches.
We don't believe they did sin. They transgressed, which is different. It means that they had to face the consequences of their choice, but were not damned for doing so (that is, it was automatically covered by the atonement).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version