Redykeulous,

Thanks for the questions. I will try to elaborate for you. Again these
are my thoughts only.

Adam and Eve were created in perfection. When they sinned, they lost
that perfection and became natural imperfect creatures. When Christ
came, he came and left this world in perfection thus re-instating the
true role of mankind. The new Eve, being his mother, lived a simple and
perfect life. As the first 3 councils in the church stated, she is the
only feat that Satan and sin have. They could not penetrate her thus
making her the perfect new Eve. Death could not conquer the
supernatural state as it contained immortality. The natural life
consists of being mortal and therefore allows death to conquer it.
God’s plan is to allow us into his paradise and, therefore even in a
state of sin, we are allowed to return to Him as his love for us is so
great. But there has to be perfection and therefore we are called to
rebuke sin and be forgiven because this natural state does not allow us
to be perfect.

Part II – God has always placed signs either for His sake or for ours.
Not sure yet. But Cain had a mark place on his head so the “others”
would not kill him for his crime. Sampson had long hair to show his
strength. Baptism places an indelible sign on our souls to show that we
have accepted the new covenant between God and man and therefore is a
sign or a pass into heaven. It is the mark of acceptance, which shows
that we decline being born under the original sin and therefore removes
it.

Hope that’s clearer. lol

jeanc200358 wrote:

I am sure there are some of Spider's points I would disagree with but,
by and large, he presents a FAR better argument for his case than much
of the other contrived suppositions I've seen on here. Certainly seems
to know what he's talking about, at least.

==========================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

Thank you Jeanc. I would like to engage you in a discussion on the
points you disagree with me on. Send me an email if you would be
interested in doing that.

I saw here something about the anti-christ. Hmmmmm, I for one; don't
care a hoot about the anti christ. BECAUSE....it will be painfully
obvious when the REAL DEAL comes. So if the anti christ were to come
about and try to be HIM, he had better be a magician. Therefore no
reason for one that reads and understands the word as written, to worry
about a false Christ.

I am comfortable with what If I am wrong. Nothing to lose. But, what if
my belief is right?
I continue to pray for us all.
Kat

Ohh...Spidey, actually, I was just speculating. I didn't have anything
specific in mind. I was just "C'ing My A," so to speak, just in case I
went back later and read something you wrote that I would disagree with.

From what I've read thus far, I definitely do agree with you.

Tricess, Thanks, I totally missed the New Eve concept being Mary. That
really is a new one for me. Interesting.

As far as baptism, goes, there is still some confustion. Perhaps your
particular faith baptizes when a person is on the age of understanding,
in that case it makes sense. But in many religions, baptism is the
adults promising to raise this child with the knowledge of God, or
pledging that this child will accept God while the child is too young to
do so themselves. This is supposed to last until the kid is confirmed.
Confirmation is the affirmation of belief by the individual, versus
baptism in which the child is spoken for. It does get confusing.

Redykeulous wrote:

Tricess, Thanks, I totally missed the New Eve concept being Mary. That
really is a new one for me. Interesting.

As far as baptism, goes, there is still some confustion. Perhaps your
particular faith baptizes when a person is on the age of understanding,
in that case it makes sense. But in many religions, baptism is the
adults promising to raise this child with the knowledge of God, or
pledging that this child will accept God while the child is too young to
do so themselves. This is supposed to last until the kid is confirmed.
Confirmation is the affirmation of belief by the individual, versus
baptism in which the child is spoken for. It does get confusing.

====================================================================================
SpiderCMB wrote:

To my knowledge, only Catholics practice infant baptism. Baptism is
supposed to be an outward sign of an inward commitment. Baptism is
symbolic of our death to sin.

I know that AB and Abra and a couple others see what I see in these
posts. And this one, this post, is an outstanding example.

If all of you have read all the posts, for content, not with feeling,
you will see one unquestionably consistant troublesome area.

Every person, claiming belief in Jesus as Christ, therefor, and likewise
in, God, in other words ALL CHRISTIANS, hold different beliefs.

How did all these differing views, beliefs, ideas come about?

My theory, and of course as usual it's just my opinion -
they come about because the book that is suppposed to be the one and
only primer, the one and only guide, is left so extremely wide open to
interpretation, that any creative thought process can change so
drastically what the words, verses, ideas of this book MEAN to convey.
So by what merit can anyone give it creedance? Either one of you is
correct or none of you are correct.
Do any Christians fear that their actions, based of their belief,
might just be wrong - is that not sin? Does misinterpretation of the
Bible designate sin?

To teach others wrongly, would that be a sin? Of course, this question
can fall back onto Abra's argument for intent. But obviously there is
intent to misrepresent the words you read, it must be so, for clearly
you can all seen that there is a differnce, enough of a difference to
form over 200,000 sects of Christianity. How can you feel righteous
enough to teach something to others that can not even be agreed upon
within the "Christian whole"? But then again your faith give you an
automatic out, for you can say what you will, teach what you believe and
no matter where it is in error, you have only to ask for forgiveness.
How fortuitous of God to send Jesus.

I can see why Christ was necessary to your faith.

Red>

I have noticed the same thing with other faiths. Why else do you think
the followers of Islam are killing each other. Each branch has a
diferent view of the words of the prophet.

All have forgotten they are but the leaves of one tree.

The members of the most great branch.

So true AB. Any time there is a set of rules relayed in parable or
story and told over many generations, it begins to evolve. It may not
have been clear to what extent they evolved as they often changed as a
result of growth in the world and in human development. Once put in
writing, the changes are more difficult to make. The Jewish and all
it's branches had only one basic set of rules which included morals to
live by. It was written early and therefore did not bend as readily to
the human condition. Though, it was found to be in dispute, and
division did occur.
Now consider that some portion of one of the Jewish faiths writings
were 'condensed', I guess is the word, and added to it was a whole new
book that was not written for many hundreds of years. In that time both
new and old testaments were relayed by word of mouth or using writings
whose authors could not even be traced. Men compiled the Bible, men who
were the privileged of society, for they were educated. In their
superior minds, it seems, it never occured to them that one day, the
masses would also be educated and would actully get a hold of this
Biblical text and tear it apart until it fit thier own ideas.

Redykeulous,

Thanks for your response. The bible translations have created havok
throughout the decades as the english language has many meanings for the
same word. In the latin vulgate, during the last supper, Christ said
this is the cup of my blood, of the new and everlasting convenant, which
will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. In the
latin text the word "multis" could mean many and all in the english
language. Therefore some bibles state that Christ said "shed for you
and for all" instead of many. This is an example of what has caused
many to think that the Book has faults. It is due to translations,
mainly in the english language.

The Catholic faith believes, as I have stated before, that baptism
removes original sin and allows the believer to enter the gates of
heaven. Therefore they baptized the infants early in fear of death
prior to adulthood. Which makes sense as no one would want damnation
for their own children. Then confirmation allowed those same infants in
adulthood to make that acceptance for themselves. Better safe than
sorry I guess. I personally don't think that baptism is just a symbol
of faith. My logic is that it is essential for a believer to have it as
part of membership to their faith. You cannot join a club and break
their rules as they would revoke your membership. The same goes for all
things including a person's faith. Either accept that religion in its
entirety or find something else, I say.

Take care

I've been trying really hard to come up with an original sin. I'm
thinking maybe poking random in line, that's fairly original.

The TRUE fact is that God is everywhere all of the time. Even in sin. I
believe that most all of religions say this. Some say it, and the
opposite, thus bringing fourth contradiction. For the most part,
contradiction is the definition of mostly all reglions. I don't believe
in religions, I believe in God.
In truth.

I do have a question though, if someone can help.
I thought that the very reason for punishment is for us to learn from
our mistakes so the we want do them again.
According to some religions, punishment for 'sins' is death by eternal
fire.
How can we learn from this?

netuserlla,

The Christian answer is this:

Hebrews 9:27
---------------------------------------------
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes
judgment
---------------------------------------------

Life is a test. You get one chance at the test, pass or fail. If you
pass, then you will join Jesus in Heaven on the new earth. There you
will help do God's work, while God rests (sits back, God doesn't really
get tired) and takes pleasure in His creation. (There is disagreement
on this next part) If you fail, you cease to exist. God's logic is that
if you choose to not serve him in life, why would you choose to serve
him in the afterlife? God is allowing each of us to make our own
decisions. If your decision is to obey God's will, then you will live
forever. If your decision is to disobey God's will, then you will die.

When we physically die, we will KNOW all of the truth.
Alive, we know not the whole truth.
How can one be judged for ignorance.
That's not just, of a true just God.
That's like a blind man being punished for believing that the sky is
completly yellow when the truth is that it is blue.
He doesn't know better for himself. He only knows what he was taught.
Should he be punished for that?
You see, my whole belief is that there is no hell.
It doesn't make sense.
It is a scare tatic of religion.
How can a Being, that is so loving, be capabale of such an act?
We punish our children because we love them and want them to learn from
thier mistakes so that they can better themselves.
So you cain't learn from a Hell punishment, therefore that cain't be
love. Straight up punishment that cain't be learned from is not love.
(witch is something God is supposed to be in pure form (love))
SO logically there cain't be a hell.
It is a contradiction.

netuserlla wrote:

When we physically die, we will KNOW all of the truth. Alive, we know
not the whole truth. How can one be judged for ignorance. That's not
just, of a true just God. That's like a blind man being punished for
believing that the sky is completly yellow when the truth is that it is
blue. He doesn't know better for himself. He only knows what he was
taught. Should he be punished for that?
You see, my whole belief is that there is no hell. It doesn't make
sense. It is a scare tatic of religion. How can a Being, that is so
loving, be capabale of such an act? We punish our children because we
love them and want them to learn from thier mistakes so that they can
better themselves. So you cain't learn from a Hell punishment, therefore
that cain't be love. Straight up punishment that cain't be learned from
is not love. (witch is something God is supposed to be in pure form
(love)) SO logically there cain't be a hell. It is a contradiction.

=============================================================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

I didn't mention hell. I don't believe the concept of hell is supported
by the scriptures. That is why I said "If your decision is to disobey
God's will, then you will die."

I don't know that we will know "all of the truth". I'm sure many
answers will be given, but I don't think any of us could ever know all
of the truth. But that doesn't matter. In John 9:41, Jesus taught "If
you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your
sin remains." You are only judged for those things you know, so a young
child will be found completely innocent. Someone with a mental illness
or disability will be judged on that basis. But if you are capable of
discussing the issue of religon in rational terms, then you will
probably be judged by the whole law. In Psalm 14:1, we are taught that
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." God has ensured
that no person can deny the existance of God. God has given history and
prophecy to prove that he is the real God, to convince anyone who
believes in false gods. The Bible is very clear that God has left no
doubt in anyone that He does not exist and assures us that we will only
be judged based on what we know.

"...Your take on the concept of Original Sin?"

It is a concept, and only a concept IMO. It doesn't exist. It is an
invention of men, represents a corner piece of particular good and evil
dogmatic view of ehtical living. It was invented by men at a time where
barbaric ways were not only accepted, they were the norm and the rule.

This dogmatic concept of the good way of living together, and the bad
way of living together did not exist at the time. It was a novel
approach. It may have been useful and pertinent for barbaric times.

To keep insisting today, on the same 'maybe' useful means of more than
2000 years ago is to keep insisting that we are still 'barbarians'
today. That human thinking hasn't evolved. That our collective
knowledge isn't enhanced by lessons learned and transmitted by our
ancestry.

Maybe so? Maybe as a whole, human beings haven't evolved enough 'yet'
to be free from living in fear. Maybe as a whole, humans still need to
resort to primitive tribal rituals to deal with this fundamental fear of
the other (the cutthroat ennemy) that truly exists for them. Maybe we
haven't raised above our barbaric ancestry.

Since I have no proof today, that we have raised above our barbaric
ancestors, I only have faith in a totally loving and accepting force
that we are loving and thus free from fear 'NOW'! (It takes a whole lot
a faith!!!)

Faith in ourselves as single beings or faith in the human race?

invisible,

IMO, in faith, the two are inseperable.

They're paradoxically 'one'. It's US in one, and one in US through
faith. The kind of impersonal faith which illuminates life and
eliminates fear, thus displacing momentarily the illusion of separation
(ego), leaving only 'whole' and 'one-all-everything'.

voileazur,

I do understand that I can't have faith in the whole when I don't have
faith in myself.
But having faith in myself doesn't necessarily mean, that I have faith
in the whole, does it?
Because that would be asking me to have faith in the great imponderables
so to speak.

Invisible>

Have faith!!!

Mankind has not yet its full stride.

Our future is still being revealed as the sun of reality has dawned
above the horizon of uncertiantity and childish obediance.

We as a species are now begining to see our effect upon our environment.
The more of us that become aware, the more that will advance to the
future and the brighter that future will become.