[extropy-chat] Original Sin was Bioethics Essay

Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
Wed May 25 14:11:05 UTC 2005

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > Terrible theology Dirk. Jesus corrected his fathers action and gave
> us
> > everlasting life, as any Christian knows. He died to reopen the
> gates
> > of heaven to man, which man had been barred from since Adam was
> cast
> > out of Eden. That was the whole point of Christ dying on the cross
> for
> > man.
> >
> Many Christians do not hold to such an interpretation. It makes God a
> bloody unforgiving tyrant who would hold his own known design flaws  
> in the creation of humanity against humans forever.  All this  
> nonsense about demanding a blood sacrifice and so on! 

God is all about conditional love and blood sacrifices. Til his hippy
dippy kid came along, he was not THAT much different in 40 BC than he
was as a minor Sumerian god, outside of having a lot more personalities
crammed into him. God made Jesus because he realized his own flawed
creation and devised his son to join him in the trinity and thus
balance and correct his personality.

>  Jesus died  
> because he threatened the religious and secular order of the day.   
> That it was used  as good memetic theater to attempt to get the  
> Jewish people over their perpetual guilt trip and rule of the law  
> stuck-ness is true enough. 

That Jesus was nailed to a tree instead of stoned, and that he was
killed by the Romans for political dissidence rather than by the
Pharisees for blasphemy, is immaterial to the Heavenly level politics
going on between him and god. Men and governments of men were mere
tools in the game going on at a higher level.

> But the dying on the cross for man stuff 
> was added long (over a century iirc) afterward.    Crucifying such a 
> one needs a powerful explanation if it is not to produce massively  
> more guilt.   Personally I think the guilt would have been better  
> than the evils of this interpretation.

Crucifixtion was the Roman punishment for slaves who rebelled, not the
jewish punishment for blasphemy (that was stoning). Theologically
speaking, Jesus was, in fact, rebelling against the draconian rule of
his father in excluding man from heaven. God, being the dysfunctional
inquisitor that he is, demanded Jesus make the sacrifice to get what he
wanted, just as many fathers test or demand performance of their kids
before giving them what they want.

That it took men a century to understand the significance is also immaterial.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list