Re: Mind's Eye New Google Groups is Dumb,but this not the subject

Wikipedia has an article on Original Sin as it relates to various
Christian denominations. (I might have known Paul and Augustine
fiddled around with this-mortal fear of their own concupiscence.) But
don't forget pagan beliefs, Allan. Some feminist scholars have
certainly traced the influence of this dogma, I would think. And it
shows up in Freud- diluted by some of my favorite authors- mostly in
regard to the impact upon males of woman born. Really, it has had a
very real effect upon the subjugation of females throughout history-
even in their own self-subjugation. Even in the USA. How's that for
hype? :-)

On Jul 6, 2:06 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know the adam and eve thing,, a disobedience to God  dogma,,
> Sorry Genesis is an interesting way of explaining creation to an ignorant
> people  and in that it does a good job in doing..
>
> I think it is one of those hypes to keep people in line an living in fear.
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:35 PM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'm too hot to study. I might have something that would explain
> > Original Sin- either the Summa or Divine Comedy (great notes in the
> > Sayer's translation) but let me guess. I'd put my money on the
> > disobedience of Eve and Adam and expulsion from Eden plus its curses
> > which is not unlike Prometheus and Pandora myths and other creation
> > myths. The pattern seems a separation from the creator which has to be
> > repaired through religion/dogma and rituals. But is a baby is born in
> > the state of sin by  the mere fact of it being human? Does science
> > even promote this via genetics, psychology and other theories? Since
> > religion has historically been a linch-pin of human society this
> > theory would ensure a compliant or nervous group to govern either by
> > tribal leaders, politicians or the military, wouldn't it? What do you
> > think?
>
> > On Jul 4, 3:46 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Interesting, I like the RV church ,,  but sorry no one has ever given
> > that
> > > answer .. To me it is a question they want to avoid.
> > > It can be a reasonable examination ,  but the original sin leaves a lot
> > of
> > > question to it's origin.
>
> > > At sometime it may have been understood but lost deep in chuch archives..
> > > Allan
> > >  On Jul 4, 2012 10:09 PM, "rigsy03" <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The Roman Catholic sacrament of Baptism deals with the pre-existence
> > > > of the soul as it is intended to cleanse the soul of Original Sin-
> > > > which means the Church Fathers must have accepted the notion of the
> > > > soul's pre-existence to begin with.
>
> > > > On Jul 4, 8:07 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I am not sure how aggressive it is , the  concept has been floating
> > > > around
> > > > > for eons.. christianity does not want to deal with the concept of a
> > soul
> > > > > and its origin..  the preexistence of  soul is an idea they hide
> > from.
>
> > > > > the reality spirituality is a subject tip toe around and trying to
> > use
> > > > many
> > > > > words and say little..
>
> > > > > As I view it, (it has been a struggle for me to arrive at this view
> > > > point.)
> > > > > this reality is only a way station in a spiritual existence. This is
> > not
> > > > > the end stage. when we are born into this world our should give up
> > their
> > > > > knowledge and are in effect are saying that we know how to live in a
> > > > > physical plain and raise ourselves to a higher spiritual level..  the
> > > > > highest being a level of complete harmony with the Entirety. (or God
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > insist  but actually that is an incorrect concept.)
>
> > > > > I believe the Tibetan Buddhist monks simply abandon the body to
> > nature so
> > > > > it can complete its cycle and return to earth.  It is the soul that
> > is of
> > > > > importance,   I really do not see much difference than the  the soul
> > > > being
> > > > > reborn as...
> > > > > Allan
> > > > > On Jul 4, 2012 10:38 AM, "Vam" <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > This is aggressive stuff, Allan !  Thank you.
>
> > > > > > The hardest thing in context is that we believe we are the body,
> > > > > > empirically. Hence, people find no one, no " I," no possibility of
> > > > > > anything even remotely akin or connected to our self, before the
> > body
> > > > > > is born.
>
> > > > > > Soul to such people is an obscure thing, conceptually and
> > > > > > phenomenally. We therefore find the suggestion, of a soul before
> > the
> > > > > > child is born, fantastic. Ridiculous, in other
> > > > > > words.
>
> > > > > > On Jul 4, 11:06 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > What is so hard about seeing the possibility of the soul existing
> > > > before
> > > > > > > the child is born?
> > > > > > > Allan- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
>  (
>   )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -