Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:29 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): Interaction
[SPEC] SP references, AI personalities, etc.
View previous topicView next topic
Page 2 of 4 [57 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Quote:
Disclaimer for everyone: This is slightly highly [OT]. And it's long

ditto Wink skip this post if you don't care for anything faith-oriented

Phaedra - I'm overly impressed with your knowledge of the different world religions... much more than I know... but just to strengthen some of your definitions, I'll comment on the Christianity related points... though I'll have to tread lightly, since Christianity today is so vague and encompasses so many differing beliefs (some of which are unbiblical)... so I'll describe the Christianity I know, that which I'm very familiar with, and which I believe is the next largest general belief next to catholicism in 'Christianity'

Quote:
Obviously, the Christian view is radically different. G-d can have separate personages, G-d does become man, and according to the Mormons who show up at my door, it's even possible for man to become G-d.

God, being omiscient and omnipresent isn't limited by our understanding of our world. So in essence God doesn't "become man", otherwise he wouldn't be God any more. The Trinity isn't an easy thing to grasp, but the idea is that God came down to our level, and was given birth to supernaturally through Mary, as Jesus. Jesus is God, and God is Jesus, yet by God's own will, was limited in Jesus as we are, excepting that Jesus was perfect and sinless (though not un-tempted), and thus with perfect faith in God as a whole, was able to perform miracles.

So in a sense, God funnelled himself into a man, Jesus, as His own Son. So 'can' God have separate personages? Well, technically, God is separate personages, though one being. semantics Smile The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If going by definition, each have their 'roles'. Certain things are considered to be done by each 'personage'... Jesus, because of his actions here on earth, is now the mediator between us and God in a sense. We were totally unworthy to come to God (which is why God always appeared in visions, or dreams, or events, or through His angels) and why he required sacrifices and offerings, so we could in a sense, earn our way to Him. Obviously that way was not working, and with God's timeless, all-existing, the whole burnt offering requirement BC was intended as a symbol of Jesus' life and purpose to come. In Jesus' death and resurrection, he became the ultimate sacrifice so that there was no more need for humanity to bridge that rift itself, which was not possible. So Jesus' purpose was to become that bridge.

So now we have God as a whole - the Father, and the Son (Jesus, whose purpose is to intercede for us so that we can be with God), and the Holy Spirit/Ghost (basically whose purpose is the supernatural, but I don't know a good enough description of the HS to describe understandably Smile)

And no, man can't become God. Not according to the Bible.

Quote:
I believe there's enough of Him to go around, but many religious scholars and anthropologists would disagree and say that although we all base our conception of G-d on the same basic writings, the G-d each Abrahamic faith worships is actually quite different


The difference, AFAIK, Bible-based Christianity is the only faith that is exclusive... at least to the point that there is only one way into heaven, and it's not by anything that we ourselves can do. And from my experience, that's totally different from pretty much any other belief system out there, which is why Christianity is one of the most hated, misunderstood, and ridiculed faiths in the world today.

Quote:
Perhaps a Christian would be better qualified to comment upon this, but I would have to say that the gospels and Paul's writings are as much or more the fundament of Christianity than the Torah.

Semantics, but I'd say the entire Bible defines Christianity. Any faith calling themselves Christian and Bible-believing, yet picks and chooses which books or scriptures are important and unimportant, even ignoring or removing portions of the Bible, are not in fact Christian beliefs... even the Bible says that no one is change or alter any part of it, because the entire thing is the inspired word of God. (I can't remember the reference that specifically talks about that though, so you'll have to trust me Smile)

Quote:
Take, for example, Genesis 22, the story of Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah. What do you call it? If you're Christian or from a Christian background, I bet that the name that springs to mind is the "sacrifice of Isaac." Yet Isaac isn't actually sacrificed. But Christians see the story as prefiguring the sacrifice as Jesus, and so for them, the significant part is that of a father willing to sacrifice his beloved son.

From my perspective, that story speaks volumes. God knew beforehand that Abraham would be willing to sacrifice his son. So why did God 'test' him anyway? It's a major guide in how to look at problems we face in our own lives... Abraham didn't question God, he knew what he had to do, and he knew beyond the 'physical' world, that he'd see his son again, so, aside from natural urges against sacrificing his own son, he knew he loved God much more than anything else, and thus was willing to obey. I believe God asked him to do this in a sense so that Abraham could prove to himself how much he loved God. It was a way for God to open Abraham's eyes, and in the end, when God told him to stop and sacrifice the ram that was caught in the bushes, really push the point home firstly that God loves him, and his son, and wouldn't have made him kill his own son. Secondly, yes, it was a prophecy in different ways IMO... one, that Abraham now knows how much pain he had to endure knowing he was going to sacrifice his son for the greater good; and two, that God provided a sacrifice for Abraham, so that he wouldn't have to make the sacrifice of himself (God provided Jesus as our sacrifice so we wouldn't have to work constantly in sacrifice to be with God).

That's how I see the story of Abraham and Isaac...

Quote:
Christianity, as I understand it, sees a radical separation taking place when Adam and Eve eat from the Tree, a separation which is not mitigated until Jesus. The separation will not be totally fixed until Jesus returns, yes?

ah, the good one Smile this gets into the deep theological discussion about predestination vs free will Smile... if you've seen Bruce Almighty, it kinda explains it well at the end when Bruce is talking with God about Grace. God, being almighty, wanted someone to love Him, and the only real love is by choice... so by His own rules, he created humanity with free will, the choice to love God. So when He created Eden with Adam and Eve, he didn't create them so all they knew, and all they could ever do was love Him - what's the point? where's the satisfaction, the real love?. So by creation, Adam and Eve were perfect. So to give them the choice to love Him, he created the tree of good and evil, and told them that they shouldn't eat from the tree. So there's the choice - obey or disobey. They chose (being tempted) to disobey, thus separating themselves from God, and ripping open this rift between humanity and God, and it started the ball rolling. At that point, humanity was not worthy to be in God's presence, and we come to the sacrifice and offerings era, before Jesus' life and death and life, and today's era, of simply choosing to believe in Jesus and the Biblical account of all God has done, and His sacrifice for us.

hehe kinda comes together nicely in the end... kule

Quote:
In Christianity, Messiah has other connotations, obviously. Jesus is a bit more than just a human king

I think at that time period, Messiah had the same meanigns you described. But it was used for Jesus in such a special case, that when you say Messiah, the first thing that comes to people's minds (who are fimilar with Christianity) is Jesus Christ. I think it's one of those "nintendo" or "kleenex" type words - use it so much for a specific meaning and it loses its original meaning... messiah has a general definition, but it's now been adopted to specifically refer to Jesus Christ, AFAIK. but I haven't looked up the definition yet Razz

/end religion talk

Quote:
I think an AI is a bit different from a human with a pacemaker. It's not a human with robotic parts, it's an electronic reproduction of human thought processes. But I think the operative word here is "reproduction." The human mind is more than its circuitry, so to speak. There's a qualitative difference in the way people use the term "mind" or "soul" or "spirit" and the way they use "brain."

It may someday be possible to reproduce a human brain electronically. Whether it will ever be possible to reproduce a human *mind* remains to be seen.

Now here's a topic I like, that isn't strictly 'religious'... it is very curious, how 'lifelike' can we make something, and what's the definition of a 'soul'?

I almost come to think of it like ... I dunno... Oakleys and foakleys... Oakleys are the real thing. But foakleys are vitually indistinguishable aside from some marking that separates them. We are human beings - I believe that yes, we may be able in the distant future, to imitate a human brain that's virtually indistinguishable... but will it be a human brain? no. We could theoretically create a fully functioning, self-contained, self-sustaining, actively reacting and thinking lifelike machine that 99% of people wouldn't notice isn't a real human. Is it human? no... So what's your definition of a soul? Is it the impression that an entity gives as being human? Or is it the significance of that little marking that distinguishes a human from an imitation? That little spark of life that we cannot recreate, making us set up immitations...

quite an interesting discussion...
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:38 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
ABoxInABox
Decorated

Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 232
Location: The Future
Nuriko wrote:
Seven Deadly Sins:
The list originated in the Catholic Church, with Pope St. Gregory the Great. Sloth was not in the original list, however sadness was.

People go to hell if they're sad?

*Starts smiling*

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:44 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Kali
Decorated

Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 162

 		a bit off topic

Part 1: Human and Animal Souls
thebruce wrote:


Now here's a topic I like, that isn't strictly 'religious'... it is very curious, how 'lifelike' can we make something, and what's the definition of a 'soul'?

I almost come to think of it like ... I dunno... Oakleys and foakleys... Oakleys are the real thing. But foakleys are vitually indistinguishable aside from some marking that separates them. We are human beings - I believe that yes, we may be able in the distant future, to imitate a human brain that's virtually indistinguishable... but will it be a human brain? no. We could theoretically create a fully functioning, self-contained, self-sustaining, actively reacting and thinking lifelike machine that 99% of people wouldn't notice isn't a real human. Is it human? no... So what's your definition of a soul? Is it the impression that an entity gives as being human? Or is it the significance of that little marking that distinguishes a human from an imitation? That little spark of life that we cannot recreate, making us set up immitations...

quite an interesting discussion...


I'll attempt this one because, as it turns out, I've spent a number of years contemplating these questions.

First, let's begin with the assumption that animals do not have souls. As you'll see, this may be presumptuous, but this is the position of Christianity and Islam (I don't know what Judaism says on the subject) and these are our focus for the time being.

So, what quality do humans have that animals don't?

Well, the answer used to be culture, maybe it still is. But how do we define culture? Ah, now we've found it, the question that will drive you mad, because ask 5 anthropologists and you'll get 5 answers. (For those who don't know, anthropology is the study of human culture and development. archaeology is a subfield, the study of culture through human remains.)

It used to be that what distinguished us is tool use. Ah, not so. Chimps, crows, sea otters and others use tools. Well, maybe what distinguishes us is the ability to teach our young complicated stuff. Any animal that teaches its young how to hunt disproves this one. Okay, maybe it's the creation of and appreciation of art. No, have you heard of the painting elephants? Also, our good friend the chimp can paint, and it's not just random splatters. A reasercher decided to test this and found that the chimp he worked with had a very clear understanding of what it thought was aesthetically pleasing. They would make paintings together and the chimp would go nuts if the artist placed strokes/colors in the wrong spot. He would paint over it if allowed. Finally, most people pull out the language bit. Well, whales and dolphins communicate in ways we do not understand, elephants can find watering holes they've never been to before and of course there are primates capable of learning sign language.(For a longer discussion of animals and culture, I highly recommend "The Ape and the Sushi Master" by Frans De Waal).

To many anthropologists, the line seperating animals and humans has become very fuzzy. It seems as though the difference is not in kind, but in degree, of mental processing. Which doesn't really answer the question, just rephrases it: At what level of mental processing power would a species need to attain in order to gain a soul?

Part two when I get home from work:

The Binary Mind and Creating A.I.s

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:59 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Nuriko
Decorated


Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 172
Location: NORTH COUNTY San Diego

 		Lucky you! I'm an anthropology minor.

This is going to suck for most of you. [OT]

Physically, there are many things that divide us from animals. We have highly unspecialized teeth (we can eat anything we can digest), we have a large braincase, we are the only animals are bipedals (standing up is normal) and we have steroscopic color vision (We have depth perception - now in Technicolor!). Some apes (homo sapiens sapiens is in the Ape family as well) have steroscopic vision but as far as my professor told me, we're not sure if it's in color.

Historically, we as a creature were very animal like, until homo habilis (called "the handy man") is documented to be the first in the genus homo to use tools for specific tasks (hunting, gathering and the like). Homo erectus used tools like homo habilis did but perfected them by using wooden tools and obsidian to make sharper spears. Homo erectus is believed to be the first to control fire. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (cavemen) are believed to have invented clothing, but more importantly, is believed to be the subspecies of homo sapiens to have questioned it's existence in the universe. There are ritual burials and "medicinal" evidence to show that there was thought into what the afterlife might be.
[/OT]

So here is the main shimmy: If you have the ability to know that you exist and there might be something else, than most accept that you have a "soul"

Now, Melissa knows she exists, but maybe that's why they need a human brain to kickstart the AI? Steve?

Oh, and to piggyback the soul thing. I happen to believe all living creatures have souls. Even spiders, which I hate.
_________________
PS: When I am whole again, I do this! Foily!)
Anime Project Alliance - Minitokyo
High Priestess to Her Sleepyness

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:33 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
FreemanCorporeal
Boot

Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 27
Location: i live in beer.

 		Re: [SPEC] SP references, AI personalities, etc. cont'd
Phaedra wrote:
(cont'd)

3. The scene with the Castaway brings up another point regarding Melissa's emotions. There seems to actually be a hint of romantic longing in that encounter.

I wonder what would happen if one of our more charming male members, preferably someone with a good phone voice, attempted to flirt with Melissa?

(Tangent -- I'd be tempted to call her "my little honeybee" myself, just because she's never acknowledged the meaning of her name -- Melissa means "bee," for those who missed it -- but I'm female and she might take it the wrong way, but maybe someone who was actually flirting could get away with it.)

Gentlemen? Any takers?


Aqui. Remember that AIs are created using "Cognitive Impression Modeling" or somesuch process. Perhaps her root mind had an affinity for the Castaway. After all, Cortana was able to pick up on Hasely's affinity for John 117.
_________________
"Kill Kinkel, Volume 1! Coming soon to an axon near you!"

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 7:35 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
Dragonrider wrote:
Also in an out of game point of view, Bungie has been known to throw in rampant amounts of religious mythology and references in their games, for no apparent reason, like the 7's thing. I'm not quite sure where the link is, but early in the forums, there was a lot of spec about this in the General Forum.


It makes sense. Western Culture is permeated with Biblical references, so Bungie can be fairly certain that they will resonate with its audience. And as far as 7s, probably because of that Biblical heritage (seven in Jewish (and later, Christian) thought symbolized wholeness or perfection), we automatically think of seven as a "special" number, one with power or extra significance (so we get the seventh son of a seventh son, seven dwarves, etc.).

Speaking of numbers and their significance, I suggested after hearing the first two forks of the Princess' road home that perhaps the combination of 4-7-12 was important.

I was wrong. That happens a lot.

Four Noble Truths - Seven Deadly Sins - Twelve (eleven?) Faithful Apostles was followed by Four Points on a Compass - Seven Seas (Waves) - Five Points on a Star (or possibly twelve on a Star of David.

I'd suggested that we be on the lookout for other 4-7-12 patterns.

But that was followed by 40 days of rain(?) - 10 Commandments - 7 years of famine/cows.

So apparently, it is just the 7s. I thought maybe we could find a "one of these things is not like the other" pattern as well. Noble Truths and Faithful Apostles are good things, foundations of religions. Deadly Sins, on the other hand, are counter to religious principles. Similarly, stars and compasses are both things by which we navigate, while seas are something upon which we can become lost.

But the last fork seemed to reverse that pattern. The 10 Commandments are something positive given by G-d, whereas the 40 days of rain and the seven years of famine were both bad things. Yet the cows were the answer.

So, apparently it really is just about the sevens.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:06 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

 		[OT] Souls and cabbages and kings
Wildly off-topic

Ahlan wasahlan, Kali.

Kali wrote:
First, let's begin with the assumption that animals do not have souls. As you'll see, this may be presumptuous, but this is the position of Christianity and Islam (I don't know what Judaism says on the subject) and these are our focus for the time being.


Judaism, as per usual, says many things, not all of which are in agreement. The majority consensus seems to be that only humans have souls (which I had thought was the majority Christian opinion as well) but the Hasidim and others who incorporate elements of Kabbalah into their beliefs hold that everything created by G-d, even inanimate objects, contains a divine spark and therefore has a soul of sorts.

Quote:
So, what quality do humans have that animals don't?


Schadenfreude.

Quote:
But how do we define culture? Ah, now we've found it, the question that will drive you mad, because ask 5 anthropologists and you'll get 5 answers.


I thought it was ask 5 anthropologists, get 6 answers.

Quote:
At what level of mental processing power would a species need to attain in order to gain a soul?


Why do you assume that soul is merely a matter of processing power?

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:16 pm
Last edited by Phaedra on Thu Sep 30, 2004 10:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

 		[SPEC] Kamal, Yasmine and Islam
Nuriko wrote:
I would have to say that the images used in Melissa/SP's interactions are Christianity heavy. (I was raised/baptised as American Baptist but since then I have gone to learn and respect all sorts of religious doctrine - probably just enough to get me in trouble?)


Most definitely. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Quote:
Perhaps the heavy Christian influence has to do with the game taking place in (mostly) America. The largest religious population in America is "Christian" (Protestant and Catholic), but in the world is Muslim. Perhaps it's an environmental issue?


Perhaps. The environmental issue is an intriguing one, and one that I'll have to think about further.

That said, I just (finally!) listened to the new .wavs.

Kamal's mother sounds Russian or Greek as far as her accent goes. As far as her comments about Kamal's digestive concerns, she sounds disturbingly like some of my elderly relatives. (Well, probably everyone's elderly relatives.)

However, Islam is making significant inroads in Eastern Europe, so perhaps by the time of the .wavs, it would be a majority religion among cultures that have Slavic roots.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:25 pm
Last edited by Phaedra on Thu Sep 30, 2004 10:51 pm; edited 2 times in total
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

 		[OT] VERY OT. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Profoundly, wildly and sweepingly off-topic. Long. Probably also not for the faint of heart. Still, all are encouraged to jump in at any point.

thebruce wrote:
Phaedra - I'm overly impressed with your knowledge of the different world religions... much more than I know... but just to strengthen some of your definitions, I'll comment on the Christianity related points... though I'll have to tread lightly, since Christianity today is so vague and encompasses so many differing beliefs (some of which are unbiblical)


You flatter me. I know my cat finds me impressive, but other than that...

Again, same disclaimer I gave SuperJerms: I do not want to sound snippy or abrasive, but I can't guarantee how I will sound in print to someone else. So please bear in mind that I am discussing this with you because I find you interesting and think your points deserve a reply, and I view this as, at most, a friendly debate, if not just a discussion. Things can often get heated in even the most initially neutral of religious discussions, and I want you to understand that it is not my intent to criticize your beliefs or (G-d forbid) proselytize.

Okay, that said...

Quote:
Christianity today is so vague and encompasses so many differing beliefs (some of which are unbiblical)


When I discuss Christianity, generally I am interested in it from a demographic/cultural/anthropological view. I am well aware that various sects of Christianity view others as non-biblical or even non-Christian, but from a large-scale, technical viewpoint, it's sort of irrelevant.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews view other forms of Judaism as non-Jewish (well, let me clarify, they think that other Jews are still Jewish, just that what they practice isn't real Judaism). Yet, in any discussion of "Judaism" as a whole, that attitude is going to be largely irrelevant. When people try to get a basic look at Judaism as a religion, they're not going to care about the attitudes of particular sects, they're going to care about the basic beliefs and traditions held by Jews in common. Which is why, when you're browsing through an encyclopedia and look at the "Judaism" entry, you're not going to find a whole lot of discussion of the particular beliefs of Satmar Hasidism.

While it's often difficult for most Americans to look at Christianity from a neutral, general, outside perspective because it's the dominant religion here, and even the consciousness of a non-Christian American tends to be saturated with Christian ideas and imagery, it is somewhat necessary for any discussion of general comparative religion. And from that generalist perspective, it makes more sense, if one is going to divide Christianity into subgroups at all, to divide it into Catholicism and Protestantism (from a historical perspective) or liberal-mainline and mainline-conservative Christianity (from a cultural/doctrinal perspective) than to divide it into evangelical vs. nonevangelical Christianity (since "evangelical" is a term with various definitions and degrees). I understand that to evangelical Christians, it's the most important distinction, but from a more anthropological/generalist perspective, it's not.

EDIT: Leave it to me to forget to actually make my point, which was:

In the context of an ARG, especially, I don't think the doctrinal differences between various Christian sects are really important, unless of course the plot of the ARG has something to do with it. What is important is the symbols and stories Christianity uses, and the doctrinal differences really only come into play if different groups deploy different sets of symbols, and there is a lack of intergroup recognition of the various symbol sets. Think, for example of Elizabethan religious poetry. The Catholics and Protestants were speaking entirely different symbolic languages. Or even today, the use of a rose as a symbol for Jesus, I believe, remains fairly exclusively Catholic, along with a whole host of Marian imagery (star of the sea, tower of ivory, etc.) that is probably not familiar to most Protestants. Or on the other side of the Catholic/Protestant divide, there is the "warrior Jesus" imagery of which certain Fundamentalist groups are very fond, which would seem very foreign to most Catholics.

So, again, the only relevance I see doctrinal differences in Christianity having here is if they affect the recognition of Christian symbology.

Quote:
The difference, AFAIK, Bible-based Christianity is the only faith that is exclusive... at least to the point that there is only one way into heaven, and it's not by anything that we ourselves can do. And from my experience, that's totally different from pretty much any other belief system out there, which is why Christianity is one of the most hated, misunderstood, and ridiculed faiths in the world today.


Actually, most world faiths have triumphalist elements. I am fairly sure that doctrinal Islam believes it's the only way to salvation. The Greek mystery cults believed they were the only way to eternal life/redemption/whatever for their members. I believe Zoroastrianism held out an exclusive promise of salvation. Buddism technically holds that it is the only path to nirvana. I believe even Hinduism technically holds that its rules are the only way to be reincarnated reasonably well.

Even Judaism, which is probably the least exclusivist of major world faiths (you don't have to be Jewish to have a relationship with G-d or go to heaven -- anyone who's righteous, regardless of faith gets in) holds (technically) that all humans must follow the seven Noachide laws to be considered righteous.

So I don't think exclusivism is at all a unique aspect of Christianity.

Quote:
[T]here is only one way into heaven, and it's not by anything that we ourselves can do.


Hmm. I think what you're trying to say here is that the concept of grace is unique to Christianity.

Quote:
...which is why Christianity is one of the most hated, misunderstood, and ridiculed faiths in the world today.


I think you'll find that just about every faith is hated, misunderstood and ridiculed by other faiths, depending on the social and political situation. Islam isn't looking real popular in a lot of places right now, either. The Muslims and Hindus in India despise each other. And most of the world seems unable to distinguish between Zionism and Judaism. Christianity, with 2 billion adherents, is the largest world religion (Islam, with 1.3 billion members, ranks a rather distant second). So, if more people hate Christianity than any other religion, the logical explanation is because it's the largest and most visible.

(cont'd)

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 10:35 pm
Last edited by Phaedra on Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:31 am; edited 10 times in total
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

 		[VERY OT] More
(cont'd)

Quote:
Semantics, but I'd say the entire Bible defines Christianity. Any faith calling themselves Christian and Bible-believing, yet picks and chooses which books or scriptures are important and unimportant, even ignoring or removing portions of the Bible, are not in fact Christian beliefs... even the Bible says that no one is change or alter any part of it, because the entire thing is the inspired word of God.


Again, you're speaking from an "inside" perspective as far as what's Christian and what isn't. As far as I, and most anthropologists, religious studies scholars, sociologists, etc. are concerned, anyone who calls themselves Christian is a Christian.

And really, as a Christian you believe all parts of the Bible are equal? So you keep kosher, then? And refrain from all types of labor on the Sabbath? Smile (Once again, this is intended to be gentle teasing, not criticism -- I personally don't believe you need to follow anything in the Torah.)

Seriously, if Christians weighted all of the Bible equally, Christianity would look a lot more like Judaism and Islam. I understand that you consider all parts of the Bible to be the word of G-d, but clearly you believe some parts are more relevant or important than others, since you think that Jesus abrogated parts of the Torah. If you believed all parts of the Bible were equal in authority, why would you accept the parts that tell you you can eat unclean animals over the parts that tell you you can't and that the laws will never be abrogated? Yet you do (I'm assuming) eat nonkosher food, which means that clearly you consider the parts that tell you you can as more authoritative than those that tell you you can't.

Quote:
(Regarding the Akedah) From my perspective, that story speaks volumes.


You don't need to convince me. <rueful smile> I once wrote 15 pages on two sentences in the Akedah (two Hebrew sentences, mind you, which are generally shorter than their English translations). If I ever had to write on the Akedah as a whole, you'd be able to use the book as a doorstop. There are so many levels, I'm not sure if the fullness of the story is comprehensible by any single human being. Oh well, that's why we're not supposed to study alone.

Quote:
[Adam and Eve] chose (being tempted) to disobey, thus separating themselves from God, and ripping open this rift between humanity and God, and it started the ball rolling.


This is one aspect of Christian theology I've never understood. Why should the sin of two individuals affect all of humanity? Why should it "rip open" a "rift between humanity and G-d"?

In Judaism, there's no such thing as "original sin." Sure, like Adam and Eve, we sin, but not because of them. Sinning is something that we do because we have both a good and an evil inclination, but it's not something we inherit, just a consequence of having free will, which would be meaningless without the possibility (and the history) of disobedience.

Quote:
I think at that time period, Messiah had the same meanigns you described.


Probably. There were a large number of Jews that initially followed Jesus for political reasons, but stopped when he died. Interestingly enough, there was a subgroup who didn't believe he was any sort of divine being, but did believe G-d would bring him back to life (since he had been inconveniently killed, and as Israel was not free, G-d clearly wasn't done with him yet). However, as Pauline Christianity became ascendent, and the divinity of Jesus (rather than just his dynastic qualifications) became the shibboleth of Christianity, they were reabsorbed into the Jewish people. That was probably the point where Messiah began to take on its extra connotations.

Well, that was fun. Thanks for the "inside perspective" into evangelical Christianity.

At the moment, I'm listening to a lovely piece in which a Muslim singer and a Jewish singer, backed by a Christian chorus, sing about forgiveness in Hebrew, Urdu and French. If only life were like music.

I'm going to leave the AI question for another time, since I must sleep. Sweet dreams, Bruce and anyone else who's reading this.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 10:36 pm
Last edited by Phaedra on Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Kali
Decorated

Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 162

 		off topic

Phaedra, Marhaba. Kaif al-hal?

Nuriko wrote:


Physically, there are many things that divide us from animals. We have highly unspecialized teeth (we can eat anything we can digest), we have a large braincase, we are the only animals are bipedals (standing up is normal) and we have steroscopic color vision (We have depth perception - now in Technicolor!). Some apes (homo sapiens sapiens is in the Ape family as well) have steroscopic vision but as far as my professor told me, we're not sure if it's in color.

Historically, we as a creature were very animal like, until homo habilis (called "the handy man") is documented to be the first in the genus homo to use tools for specific tasks (hunting, gathering and the like). Homo erectus used tools like homo habilis did but perfected them by using wooden tools and obsidian to make sharper spears. Homo erectus is believed to be the first to control fire. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (cavemen) are believed to have invented clothing, but more importantly, is believed to be the subspecies of homo sapiens to have questioned it's existence in the universe. There are ritual burials and "medicinal" evidence to show that there was thought into what the afterlife might be.


Of course we are quite physiologically unique from the rest of the animal kingdom, but that is irrelevant to the soul issue. Unless, you mean to say that the development of the soul is directly related to the development of our current dental morphology. Wink Which is an interesting point. Perhaps it is impossible to sell your soul to the devil because the Tooth Fairy already has parts of it. Or maybe SHE's the Devil. Scary thought. Shocked Our generalized dental morphology is the result of changes in dietary habits most likely due to an increased ability to process foods prior to consumption. It was also one of the last morphological changes to occur in our evolution.

We are currently the only animals to be bipedal, however a number of our ancestors (and their relatives) (Australopithicus ramidus, anamensis, afarensis, aethiopicus, africanus, boisei, robustus, and rudolfensis (I'm a lumper, although Klein, as you know, is splitter. I choose to not seperate our ancesters into an additional genus, Paranthropus. I think his splitting tendencies lead him to unwarranted assumptions in his Out of Africa II hyp)) walked on their two little legs without significantly increased cranial volume. Although I surely agree bipedality was vital for the course of early hominid evolution in that it allowed our ancestors to utilize a greater diversity of resources, I don't see how it's relevant to the soul issue, as these creatures were merely chimps that walked upright.

We are not unique in that we have stereoscopic vision; that is a characteristic shared by almost all currently living primates. The noted exception is the lemur.

Several primates have color vision comparable to our own. Genetically, we know that chimps see at least the color red, as that development in our genome occurred prior to the divergence of our two species. The other colors in our spectrum developed later and are on a different chromosome, which is why people who are colorblind can usually still see red.

Of course H. habilis made Olduwan tools, however the robust australopithecines were contemporaries of and significantly outnumbered (at least in their remains) early Homo. Add into the confusion that chimpanzees in the wild manufacture and have rudimentary use of plant tools, as well as using stones AS tools (to open nuts), and it becomes less clear that H. habilis was exclusively the first to create stone tools. (There is, however, little doubt that hominids older than this made tools. Their absence in the fossil record is likely a symptom of their biodegradable nature.)

On a side note about the Olduwan industry, although the tools may have been created for specific purposes, it is unclear what those might have been. The large choppers that are the hallmark of this industry may be nothing more than a core from which useful, multi-purpose flakes could be struck.

EDIT: Chimps have been trained to make stone tools in order to cut things (rope) in a laboratory setting. The problem is not their lack of understanding, but their manual dexterity. The way a chimp hand is shaped does not allow them to easily grasp the stones in order to strike flakes. The chimp doing the experiment solved the problem by smashing the stone on the ground enough times to create a useful flake.

As for the fire, well, who knows. Evidence for control of fire is sketchy as many geological/natural processes can create remains that are indistinguishable from man-made fire.

Regarding the afterlife, and back to the point of all this which was the nature of the soul, we cannot reliably determine which hominid thought of it first. The only evidence that can indicate to us concern for the disposition of the dead is a burial. Until the advent of Neanderthal, however, few, if any hominids were likely to die of old age. We like to think of ourselves as the great hunters, but the fact is that many of our oldest hominid specimens are mixed in with the remains of grazers and other animals frequently eaten by leopards. The current theory is that the assemblages were the result of leopards eating their prey, which included hominids, in trees that happened to be overlooking limestone caverns, such as at Sterkfontein. The bones would then accumulate in the caverns and be nicely preserved. If you don't mind the bite marks, that is.

Neanderthal is the first hominid species of which we have an example of death by old age instead of by predation (and where the body could be protected from scavengers). The absence of burials does not, therefore, exclude other hominid species from considering the afterlife. The reason many postulate that Neanderthal was the first is because we have found burial sites that date from that period and no earlier. Myself, I fully believe they were burying their dead and depositing blue flowers in the grave, despite recent site contamination concerns.

The Point:

Trying to distinguish when an animal crosses the line and becomes ensouled is difficult, at best. We don't even know when that might have happened during the course of our own evolution and we're *certain* it did. Then there's the question of what was the trigger? We have to assume the ensouling event led to humans having something unique that no other animal (living or dead) possesses. Define that thing and what made it possible, and you win a cookie.

Quote:
Oh, and to piggyback the soul thing. I happen to believe all living creatures have souls. Even spiders, which I hate.


This is all predicated on the assumption that you either have it or you don't. If animals are capable of having mini souls, or immature souls, then all of the above is moot. That would, however, not be consistent with Christianity per the Adam and Eve event.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Last edited by Kali on Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:28 am; edited 2 times in total
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Platonix
Decorated


Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 174
Location: Keene, New Hampshire

 		Re: [VERY OT] More
Phaedra wrote:
Quote:
[Adam and Eve] chose (being tempted) to disobey, thus separating themselves from God, and ripping open this rift between humanity and God, and it started the ball rolling.


This is one aspect of Christian theology I've never understood. Why should the sin of two individuals affect all of humanity? Why should it "rip open" a "rift between humanity and G-d"?

In Judaism, there's no such thing as "original sin." Sure, like Adam and Eve, we sin, but not because of them. Sinning is something that we do because we have both a good and an evil inclination, but it's not something we inherit, just a consequence of having free will, which would be meaningless without the possibility (and the history) of disobedience.

First of all, the sin of two individuals affected all of humanity because, at the time, two individuals was all of humanity. That's not what you were getting at, though. Christianity, or at least the Pentateuch religion before it split, believed, as many other religions, that the sins of one man taint not only himself but also his family and descendants. Curses were quite fully heritable as well. And, again, since Adam and Eve were the entire human race at the time of the Original Sin, that means all of humanity has sin in their bloodline.
_________________
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

PostPosted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:41 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
SuperJerms
Unfettered


Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 537
Location: indiana

 		Phaedra, good stuff. Bruce, you too. My point was never to be a rebuttal or tit-for-tat, and no offense meant/taken. I do think some of my points may be understood due to my brevity, but I did not want to get into a six-page-post.

By in large, most of what I was trying to get at has come up in the following discussion. My point is that, while there certainly are rebuttals to individual theological issues, there are also ways to negotiate the differences. For examples, early Christians were still Jews, early Muslims viewed Christians as a sort of spiritual second-cousin. Even now, I believe that the various religions can reconcile the other's faith, viewing them as similar but crucially different. I mean, Jews can hold most of the same beliefs as Christians, but view God's plan of deliverance as more Political than Spiritual, and vice versa. Of course, these differences are "deal-breakers," for the other party...but they are understandable.

A main point I was making was that Yasmine was a really intelligent and really curious individual. Why wouldn't she, as a muslim, know all about one of the world's biggest religions ever? I don't think she could miss these references with all the attention they get in our modern world culture. Furthermore, we are taking stabs at what each religion will look like in 500 years (and rather poor ones at that, IMHO). Just think... Protestantism was not around until around 500 years ago. The sovernigty of Isreal wasn't a reality then. Some of the religions mentioned above didn't even exist that long ago!

Just to take Christianity for example, how different was it from 50 AD to 200 AD? Or the same question with Judaism? How many sects came about in that time? What significant theological developments occured? For that matter, how different is Judaism in the time of Maccabees to the time of Jesus to the time of Atiochus Ephiponies to the time of WW2 to the time of Isreal's formation to now? Hopefully this illustrates my point. God hasn't changed for these religions, but the religions themselves have changed in their understanding of God and the world around them. This has to do with theological developments (Nicean Creed, Gnosticism, Protestantism) and with societal developments (destruction of the Temple, literacy/press, the Holocaust). And we have no clue as to how fundamentalism changes when we discover aliens and AI's.
_________________
"If we could make your toaster print something we would." - Jordan Weisman

PostPosted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:32 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
SuperJerms
Unfettered


Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 537
Location: indiana

 		YMMV
I also wanted to post some response to the other articulations happening here.

The idea of multiple facets to God isn't new to Christianity. Similar to claiming three forms of water (ice, liquid, vapor), it's not equal to claiming three seperate beings. The first instances of it are in eary Genesis. Hebrew ruwach in 1:2 (Spirit), 'elohiym is all over the place (for Father), and Y@hovah in 2:4 (for Son). And there's the 1:26 "Let Us make man in Our image..." I know, you probably don't agree. Again, it's an interpretation issue, YMMV, but there are people smarter than us that think on all sides of this issue.

Same with revelation of God to man in Earthen form. Gen. 16:7 has the Angel of the LORD, who many interpret to be God in manifestation, not one of his right-hand-angels. Again, YMMV. Of course, there's the pillar of fire by night, cloud by day, and on and on.

As came up already, Abraham can indeed be read multiple ways if Jew or Christian. But it's a tad reductionistic to say it can't be read this way or that. In fact, I have not heard many people talk about Issac as a type of Christ. Focus has been, in my own experience, on Abraham and God...with Issac as tertiary to the equation. The thing is, when you start looking for types of Christ, you start finding them everywhere. It comes down to an "All truth points back to the Father of Truth," issue. YMMV.

The fall of man. Once again, file it under "There is no one 'Christian' way of viewing this issue, multiple ways achieve the same desired effect." The point is the same as in Judaism at large...seperation from God. Or closeness with God. Or however else you want to say it semantically. The point is that it lead to a covenant with God, and the fundamental disagreement between Judaism and Christianity is over the nature of this covenant. And, amongst Jews, amongst Christians, between both, YMMV.

On the influence of Pauline epistles on modern Christianity. It is critical to realize that most of mainstream Christian thought views the Bible as a complete whole. If one part seems to be getting "ignored" (kosher laws, I'm looking at you, here), it's because of a more complete understanding of the law. Hebrews focuses best on this, but it comes down to it being an issue of fulfillment, not negation. As it comes to unclean foods, God has made em clean. As it comes to animal sacrifice, God has provided a better sacrifice. As it comes to the law as a whole, it still remains...but as a closer version of it's intent (that meaning that the law was originally made to point out our errors, but now to show us how great a gift was given). And YMMV. I have met Christians who still follow the levitical laws. Most early Christans, even Pauline ones, still followed the same things they did before. It made quite a hairy issue for the Church to grapple with.

Again, these could be picked apart. Importantly, they can also be upheld by some. My point is that each of these religions exist in many forms, because (say it with me!) YMMV.

Adam and Eve and original sin...does it really matter? If we don't bare any inherited curse, we still end up doing evil things. If someone rejects the idea of predisposition towards sin, they still have to reconcile the fact that we as a race always mess up. Because of, in spite of, or even in relation to Adam and Eve, everyone messes it up. Aside from that fact, it's really kinda semantics, isn't it?

We must be careful about making assertions such as, "Jews don't believe this." or "Christians don't believe that." There are certain non-negotiables, and for this reason it is short sighted to group or exclude many people from specific classifications. When you get down to brass tacks, there is a very specific way to define each of these. Within each of the sub-classifications, there will be more narrow definitions (for dealing with each individual theological issue). It seems to me that an anthropologist that accepts anyone's claim that they are a Christian is making an error unless both the subject and the observer have a clear consensus. I think there is an unfortunate lapse in this method beacuse it fails to distinguish between belonging to a social group and understanding/subscribing to a specific set of beliefs. Think about it, would you accept someone's claim that he/she is a baked potatoe?


Oh yeah...and the soul thing. It seems like the whole issue becomes an issue of semantics very quickly. Trying to define soul vs. mind vs. spirit...I don't know that you can get anywhere from an anthropological point of view unless you're referring to the first instance of human belief in a soul. Even from a theological point of view, it's spec that the soul is what was meant by the "image of God" or "breath of God" stuff. I have also heard the speculation that a soul developed around the same time that human precursors started developing evolutionary limitations (loss of fur, introduction of counter-productive emotion, prevalence of monogamy, slow childhood development, etc.).

gah. so much long. :/
_________________
"If we could make your toaster print something we would." - Jordan Weisman

PostPosted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:23 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

 		Re: [OT] VERY OT. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Disclaimer: yeah, standard OT warning, but also please remember as I write that I'm speaking from a Christian perspective, so if I say things like something 'is' true, or 'is' wrong, it's from a Christian viewpoint, or for discussionary purposes, not intended to offend in any way... Wink hopefully I've stayed away from anything like that though... and if I'm wrong about anything from a different belief or religion, then please correct me... I'd hate to mistakenly and unintentionally offend
In the words of SJ: "gah. so much long. :/" Wink (but the last big paragraph is back on topic about AI's and such Smile)

Quote:
It used to be that what distinguished us is tool use. Ah, not so. Chimps, crows, sea otters and others use tools. Well, maybe what distinguishes us is the ability to teach our young complicated stuff. Any animal that teaches its young how to hunt disproves this one. Okay, maybe it's the creation of and appreciation of art. No, have you heard of the painting elephants?... etc

Ah, but how many creatures out there have all of those abilities at the same time? As Christians continually say, if everything is created, the similarities are because of a common designer. If God deems something necessary for life, he'll put it in all he creates. If each animal has their own characteristics, and lacks others, then each animal is unique and theoretically equal. So in wanting a creation that can choose to love Him and be created in His image, he created man, in a sense with every aspect of His creation that will make Him dominant and give him dominion over all creation. Thus humanity is God's only creation that includes all abilities that life able to survive.

Phaedra wrote:
I understand that to evangelical Christians, it's the most important distinction, but from a more anthropological/generalist perspective, it's not.

I see your point... differences exist in all world religions... but I think then yes, the only major distinction really to draw in Christianity in this case deals with symbols and ideals... In which case would be Protestantism/Catholicsm... Fundamentally the beliefs are there, but how they go about their beliefs and the importance they place on different aspects of it make the two quite different. For instance, generally Catholics believe Jesus came to earth and died and rose again, but they tend to focus on the death of Jesus than the resurrection... they put more reverence and divinity (for lack of a better term) on Mary... they put a lot more value in symbolism and required acts (memorizing and repeating certain prayers) and just general awe... but then even Catholics can be divisive when it comes to who's referred to what... I have a Catholic friend who was extremely offended when I talked about fundamental catholicism (roman catholicism, or something, can't remember) when she's more of a modern catholic, and didn't consider her faith to be as restrictive or conforming or rule-bound as others...

So yeah, that division issue will be everywhere...

Quote:
symbology.

hehe... hehe... you said symbology Laughing

Quote:
So I don't think exclusivism is at all a unique aspect of Christianity.


perhaps not in of itself... but most world religions now are moving towards acceptance of other people's beliefs... basically only worrying about your own salvation. I'm may be biting off more than I can chew here, so I'm not trying to be offensive Smile but Christianity is generally offensive because it's considered that if you really are a Christian with the love of God in your heart, then you're in pain seeing so much of the world not knowing the real way to be with God, and you just naturally want to go out and spread the new 'share the Gospel', and all that... so now you get the Christians going out and telling people (from the world's perspective) what's right and wrong... it's not good enough just to know you are you going to heaven, cuz if you just think like that, in essence you're being selfish... keeping the news to yourself, not caring where everyone else is going... so now you have this huge range of people spreading the Gospel - the elitists who stand on the corners and yell and tell people everything in their faces, usually the ones who don't set a good example, and take their belief to the extreme - these are the ones who get in the news, who basically 'define' Christianity for the world as the closed-minded, self-righteous, 'perfectionist', offsensive christians... when that is entirely unbiblical, at least as it comes to how Jesus lived His life...

but anyway, exlusiveness, no I don't believe is unique to Christianity... what I do believe is unique is just the general attitude... you can't be a Christian unless you want to spread the gospel. Not because you have to but because, well, how could you not?! It would just be wrong to keep something so huge and life changing to yourself... that's where I believe the exclusiveness is. And don't take it the wrong way - it doesn't mean Christianity needs to go out and say every other religion is wrong. That's not part of Christianity either... but you can't go out and simply accept that other people can believe whatever they want, and not be concerned for their future... it doesn't mean there's no respect for other religions or faiths, and if someone is disrespectful of them, then they have issues Smile
A Christian who knows everything about other religions is much better of than one who knows only of their own faith. I for one am intrigued learning about religions here... and I'm just trying to get in edgeways some clarifications of Christianity, just for discussion purposes... even if it is OT Wink

Quote:
I think you'll find that just about every faith is hated, misunderstood and ridiculed by other faiths, depending on the social and political situation. Islam isn't looking real popular in a lot of places right now, either

Due to a recent situation that lowered general respect for the culture in the world... but many islam would say that those actions are not representative of the Islamic religion...

Quote:
Again, you're speaking from an "inside" perspective as far as what's Christian and what isn't. As far as I, and most anthropologists, religious studies scholars, sociologists, etc. are concerned, anyone who calls themselves Christian is a Christian.

and that's the problem... the actions of one christian don't necessarily reflect the truth of Christianity... it would be unfair to assume that one portion or sect of Christianity represents the whole... all I'm doing here is clarifying what shouldn't be considered entirely christian, if I can... Smile

[quoteAnd really, as a Christian you believe all parts of the Bible are equal? So you keep kosher, then? And refrain from all types of labor on the Sabbath? (Once again, this is intended to be gentle teasing, not criticism -- I personally don't believe you need to follow anything in the Torah.) [/quote]
hehe well... we're getting into an issue that is a common reason there are denominations... differing opinions on what is biblical, without outright stating of something in the bible. The OT was the first covenant God made with man. Before Jesus' death, many laws in the OT were required in order for man to commune with God... there were also a number of laws specifically for the culture of the time. We believe the New Testament is specifically for us... there are no rules now, and really the guideline we have is to follow the example Jesus led in His life. The strive of Christians today is to be like Jesus, not follow the rules in Leviticus, for example... there's deep theology in which rules/commandments are for humanity as a whole (including why the 10 Commandments aren't simply OT) and all that, which I won't (can't) get into Smile but if you recall, Jesus did many acts himself which betrayed a number of the rules from the OT, this because He was the King of the Jews, so He the right to do so, the authority, which the Jews of the time did not agree with or believe (remember I'm strictly talking from Christian viewpoint - so if you're a jew out there reading this, please don't be offended if I say something like "Jesus is the Messiah" or anything offensive to the Jewish faith - I'm not versed well in what's anti-jew or offensive or not, I'm simply speaking from the biblical perspective, so correct me if I'm wrong). Jesus set an example in the new testament that he, as the new covenant between man and God, had the authority to change the 'rules' now. So the OT and NT are the old covenant and the new covenant between man and God. So the entire bible is fully equal and necessary, not a 'pick and choose' book, but when it comes to issues that deal with man's connection with God, it's the New Testament that's more relevent...
SuperJerms made a good point in his post about this: Hebrews focuses best on this, but it comes down to it being an issue of fulfillment, not negation. As it comes to unclean foods, God has made em clean. As it comes to animal sacrifice, God has provided a better sacrifice. As it comes to the law as a whole, it still remains...but as a closer version of it's intent (that meaning that the law was originally made to point out our errors, but now to show us how great a gift was given)

Quote:
This is one aspect of Christian theology I've never understood. Why should the sin of two individuals affect all of humanity? Why should it "rip open" a "rift between humanity and G-d"?

It's not so much because of Adam and Eve that we sin. By nature we are all sinful, yes. But it was due to Adam and Eve that we were cursed in many ways. Personally, by terminology, I could consider it that only after Adam and Eve 'sinned' could we consider a sinful nature... before that, sinful nature was simply the ability to choose to disobey. After that, God opened their eyes as to the possibilities - knowing good and evil if you will - so that every choice we make now, we can naturally know what's right and wrong, and because of that we're open to temptation and so much moreso with satan being condemned to earth.

Quote:
In Judaism, there's no such thing as "original sin." Sure, like Adam and Eve, we sin, but not because of them.

I agree... it wasn't like sin was born with their choice... they had to make that choice, they were created with that choice. Just as we are created with the choice to choose God... it's almost like God switched us from a whitelist to a blacklist Smile Adam and Eve were perfect, but they had to choose to disobey God. Because of their choice, the punishment was that all their offspring, their family and all future generations, would be condemned (that is quite a condemnation, but they were warned) so that now, instead of having God and choosing against Him, we now have to choose FOR God... that's how I see it anyway, and really I never pictured it that way until now Smile the essence of sin was present in Adam and Eve, as well as us, but now we need to choose God. Before Jesus, it was a matter of works, sacrifice, offerings. After Jesus, it's just a matter of believing all the stuff I've said - that by nature we cannot be accepted by God, but because of God's love for us, he made the ultimate sacrifice so that we don't have to work to get to heaven, we just have to believe in Jesus life, death and resurrection, and the true love of God... that is the essence of biblical Christianity.

back on-topic - AI's...

as for the soul, well, I don't believe the Bible states anything about what has or hasn't a soul... but I believe it's general consensus that as God gave man dominion over all creation, including animals, that in essence man is the only being with a soul. 'Thou shalt not kill', yet we can eat meat... so is that commandment speaking about killing 'humans' or killing that which has a soul? I dunno... as for if animals have souls, I'm leaning more towards no, simply because if God created us to have dominion over animals, why would he also allow us to kill that which He can have a personal relationship with? I guess you could say that the 'soul', or spirit, is the spark of life that is able to connect with God, that which he puts into us so that we, as his major creation, are able to have a relationship with him. A soul isn't strictly life, since life is all around us - organics I mean. The soul, IMO, is the spirit, the supernatural part of us that God imbues, in a sense, on us... like as a kid, I remember dreaming about crowds and crowds of people waiting for God to say 'go' and shooting off into a newborn baby Smile. Can there be life without a soul? ooo now we're getting into cloning hehe... but when it comes to AI's, like I said, we can create immitations, immitations that are seemless and indistinguishable from their real life counterpart... but is it 'alive'? or is it imitating life? You could define life as an organism that in its fully original state was sparked from non-life. A baby wasn't created from non-life, it was born in a living woman's womb from living organics. So what's the origin of the living woman's womb? Trace it all the way back to the creation of man from 'the dust of the earth', non-life. So then, we have 'life' only being what God created from non-life. So can an AI be alive? in that sense, no. Can a clone be alive? Well, there's the rub Smile The controversy lies in whether man create a clone from inorganic material. Right now, clones are made from organic life. So the question is - does a clone from organic life, which grows up as a human, have a soul? THAT is a question I can't answer, and one which I'm following debates and theology quite closely... can it live? I believe so, yes. But like many Christians, the cloning of humans is a very VERY touchy subject, and I'd agree with the majority out there that it's not something we're ready as humanity to explore - the philosophical and theological aspects and implications of that science are out of this world... Razz


Quote:
Well, that was fun. Thanks for the "inside perspective" into evangelical Christianity

no problem... it's fun Smile the best way to learn as well, about your own convictions and those of others, is to discuss... healthy debating has the ability to teach and strengthen your own convictions, as well as open your eyes and change them... crazy Smile

Quote:
At the moment, I'm listening to a lovely piece in which a Muslim singer and a Jewish singer, backed by a Christian chorus, sing about forgiveness in Hebrew, Urdu and French. If only life were like music.

tru dat... right now I'm listening to nothing but my fingers over my keyboard, at home... not at work... Wink

And what, pray tell does YMMV stand for? I'm usually the one telling people the answers to every single acronym out there, but I just cannot figure out YMMV... You Might... that's as far as I get Smile
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:27 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 4 [57 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): Interaction
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group