Parallel Worlds

[Catholicity]

Humanity did have an infancy accompanied by needless grief and violence stemming from theological confusion that I detailed which was inherent in the natural world.

I would like for you to detail with 100 percent accuracy how human violence originated only with violence of theological origin as opposed to territorial violence, violence for food, violence for a mate etc. To support this you must use exclusively non biased university case study stemming from anthropology or well respected anthropologists only. I would also like you to support "most scientists and epistemologists" Since science is such an extensive field including anatomy, biochemistry, astronomy, meteorology, chemistry physics and more.

[pancreasman]

I would like for you to detail with 100 percent accuracy how human violence originated only with violence of theological origin as opposed to territorial violence, violence for food, violence for a mate etc. To support this you must use exclusively non biased university case study stemming from anthropology or well respected anthropologists only. I would also like you to support "most scientists and epistemologists" Since science is such an extensive field including anatomy, biochemistry, astronomy, meteorology, chemistry physics and more.

I suspect Whag is talking at least in part about the extra layer of grief added to the 'ordinary' suffering of life by some religions which view sin as making a god angry or cutting one off from communion with a god.

[Whag]

I would like for you to detail with 100 percent accuracy

With 100 percent accuracy? Are you kidding?

how human violence originated only with violence of theological origin as opposed to territorial violence, violence for food, violence for a mate etc.

I'll be happy to cite sources, but first let's see where your head is at. For all I know it's permanently in the clouds and you have no sense of prehistory. Primitive cultures experienced frightening natural events like droughts, famines, and earthquakes which they attributed to animal gods and celestial objects--the things that daily threatened and sustained them and caused them awe. We agree on this, yes? They did something about that to gain a sense of control over these animals, objects, and phenomena. When animal sacrifice predictably didn't produce the results they wanted, more precious gifts were offered in the form of girl virgins and human babies. Occasionally these sacrifices aligned with events they prayed for, reinforcing the illusion of the correlation. Many times it did not, but that didn't make them stop (in the same way that Catholics today pray to Mary for help, get no Marian intervention, but continue to pray anyway).

I'm not going to waste my time if you don't show me you have a connection to reality that will enable you to process the forthcoming citations. You make me wonder about that connection when you ask for 100 percent accuracy, since that is not possible in ANY methodology, and isn't even necessary.

To support this you must use exclusively non biased university case study stemming from anthropology or well respected anthropologists only.

You'll have to define those so I don't waste my time.

[Catholicity]

For all I know it's permanently in the clouds and you have no sense of prehistory. Primitive cultures experienced frightening natural events like droughts, famines, and earthquakes which they attributed to animal gods and celestial objects--the things that daily threatened and sustained them and caused them awe. We agree on this, yes? They did something about that to gain a sense of control over these animals, objects, and phenomena. When animal sacrifice predictably didn't produce the results they wanted, more precious gifts were offered in the form of girl virgins and human babies

Um it depends on the culture, the heirarchy the mythology we are studying now doesn't it? Each culture had its own rites unique to its religion. Asian mythology was different than european. In Native American we find tribal variances amongst practitioners, not all cultures sacrifice humans. The generalizations you make don't hold with history.

Many times it did not, but that didn't make them stop (in the same way that Catholics today pray to Mary for help, get no Marian intervention, but continue to pray anyway).

Don't poke around with a stick something you know little to nothing about. especially the way theology works unless you'd like an actually discussion.

I'm not going to waste my time if you don't show me you have a connection to reality that will enable you to process the forthcoming citations. You make me wonder about that connection when you ask for 100 percent accuracy, since that is not possible in ANY methodology, and isn't even necessary.

If you make a statement be prepared to back it up with accuracy. In science and studying in research we have a saying about accuracy, something can be completely accurate without being 100 percent precise. There are things to be left to be discovered, it doesn't mean what we don't know isn't 100 percent accurate. So you made a statement regarding ancient civilization. Back it up 100 percent. Use unbiased studies produced from universities. North Carolina State University has a fantastic Cultural Anthropology Dept. If you don't understand by now what non-biased university studies or well respected mean (e.g non atheist, non theist, out for information only) As in What you can study, understand, see or visualize without a bias. If that is not understood, then I doubt you will be capable of understanding.

[Whag]

Um it depends on the culture, the heirarchy the mythology we are studying now doesn't it? Each culture had its own rites unique to its religion. Asian mythology was different than european. In Native American we find tribal variances amongst practitioners, not all cultures sacrifice humans. The generalizations you make don't hold with history.

Don't poke around with a stick something you know little to nothing about. especially the way theology works unless you'd like an actually discussion.


If you make a statement be prepared to back it up with accuracy. In science and studying in research we have a saying about accuracy, something can be completely accurate without being 100 percent precise. There are things to be left to be discovered, it doesn't mean what we don't know isn't 100 percent accurate. So you made a statement regarding ancient civilization. Back it up 100 percent. Use unbiased studies produced from universities. North Carolina State University has a fantastic Cultural Anthropology Dept. If you don't understand by now what non-biased university studies or well respected mean (e.g non atheist, non theist, out for information only) As in What you can study, understand, see or visualize without a bias. If that is not understood, then I doubt you will be capable of understanding.

You're delusional if you think this wasn't a universal problem in prehistory.

Here's the wiki entry. It's all you deserve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

[Catholicity]

You're delusional if you think this wasn't a universal problem in prehistory.

Here's the wiki entry. It's all you deserve:

I don't think you have an idea of what you are talking about if you can't produce the data to back up something, don't make the statement in the 1st place. And I don't think you know much about prehistory beyond the generalizations you find in your local dawkins propaganda.

[pancreasman]

Going back to the OP, is it possible to imagine a sentient organism with self reflective consciousness ever doing nothing that arouses a sense of regret? If it isn't, then I believe the point is that 'sin' is inevitable and in Christian terms every species like this would need to be 'redeemed'.

[Catholicity]

Going back to the OP, is it possible to imagine a sentient organism with self reflective consciousness ever doing nothing that arouses a sense of regret? If it isn't, then I believe the point is that 'sin' is inevitable and in Christian terms every species like this would need to be 'redeemed'.

Its an interesting thought. I read once Dr Michio Kaku's theories (which can get quite interesting) on parallel universes and quantam physics. Can there potentially be multiple worlds? How many would there be? What are they? IS the Human race the only religious or would others be religious? Would the problem of evil exist in one and not the other? One can merely speculate which would be which, but the evidence for the existence is of such other worlds lacks

[Whag]

I don't think you have an idea of what you are talking about if you can't produce the data to back up something, don't make the statement in the 1st place. And I don't think you know much about prehistory beyond the generalizations you find in your local dawkins propaganda.

Actually, you're right. Human sacrifice was rare in prehistory and had nothing to do with the gods or perceptions of nature. ;)

[Doug Shaver]

This is rather amibguous, letting someone else doing the defining.

Ambiguity has nothing to do with who is defining the word. If someone else's definition is clear enough, then I can use it without ambiguity. If the definition is not clear enough, then it is ambiguous no matter with whom the definition originated.

Lets take Civil Law.

When I was a believer, I did not equate sin with violation of civil law and did not know anyone who did. Many actions that my church regarded as sinful also happened to be illegal, but that was not always the case.

Now the entymology of the later english word Sin comes from the Old English Synn: Which literally means a crime associated with malicious intent.

The current meaning of any word is determined by current usage. Etymology is sometimes enlightening but never controlling.

Now its inclusion in Scripture is associated often with Divine Law as a general rule, however this tends to be an NT surface only interpretation. It is also included in the OT as transgression against the Civil law and Divine. (Hebraic Society began as a Theocracy)

You Christians can argue all you want among yourselves about the relationship between OT and NT, but I think you're making my point that sin is a theological concept.

It does not matter to our discussion whether the ancient Hebrews made any distinction between divine law and civil law. Nowadays we do, at least in those parts of the world where most of us live, and in those parts of the world, people do not talk about sin except in theological contexts.

[Doug Shaver]

Your "either moral religious or legal" qualification is not in the scriptural definition, and considering the context, I see no reason to suppose that the author intended such a qualification. The only law he was thinking of was God's law.

And your evidence to support that is?

I already told you: ". . . and considering the context . . . ." The context is my evidence.

[ZackMartin]

If we go back to the original Greek of the NT, sin is ἁμαρτία (harmatia), which doesn't have the many of the religious connotations that English "sin" has. It means missing the mark, error, fault, failure. The Greek poets used it to refer to the tragic hero's fatal flaw. Given that, I don't think "sin" as the NT originally meant it was an exclusively theological context, because the same word was used in non-theological contexts. The word "sin" in English has developed into a very religious sounding word, that would rarely be used in secular contexts, but the original NT concept wasn't so exclusively religious.

[Whag]

If we go back to the original Greek of the NT, sin is ἁμαρτία (harmatia), which doesn't have the many of the religious connotations that English "sin" has. It means missing the mark, error, fault, failure. The Greek poets used it to refer to the tragic hero's fatal flaw. Given that, I don't think "sin" as the NT originally meant it was an exclusively theological context, because the same word was used in non-theological contexts. The word "sin" in English has developed into a very religious sounding word, that would rarely be used in secular contexts, but the original NT concept wasn't so exclusively religious.

Fm93 has pointed this out, too. As it relates to the OP, it's very clear that perfection is impossible and hence absurd to demand of the human species or any parallel species. We never had the equipment to achieve such a state.

[JimL]

Going back to the OP, is it possible to imagine a sentient organism with self reflective consciousness ever doing nothing that arouses a sense of regret? If it isn't, then I believe the point is that 'sin' is inevitable and in Christian terms every species like this would need to be 'redeemed'.

Which I believe defines sin as a state of mind, or subjective rather than objective. But of course, ones mind turns upon the culture that nurtured it.

[Whag]

Which I believe defines sin as a state of mind, or subjective rather than objective. But of course, ones mind turns upon the culture that nurtured it.

Religionists are also very selective about what sin actually is. To the Pope, masturbation is a sin. Teaching that Lourdes is a special place where the infirm receive healing, not so much.