Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Bluefinger

The Part of Us that Died

42 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

In the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2, God told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Critics say that the story suggests that Adam and Eve did not die. Why?

In the second creation account, God first made the flesh out of dirt. Then God breathed life (spirit) into the man and he became a living being (a soul). Christians argue that the part of mankind that does not recognize he is dead is the part of him that actually is dead. The flesh recognizes it is alive while the spirit does not. This can be argued another way.

In the first creation account, mankind was made in God's image. Since the rest of the Bible argues that God is invisible, that could only mean that mankind was made in the invisible image of God; made known by the things that the flesh does. The flesh (body), therefore, acts as a mirror; reflecting the nature of the spirit within. Therefore, a body will produce acts of righteousness if the spirit in him is alive while a body while a body will sin if the spirit in him is dead. Paul argues in Romans that a person who has been made alive in the spirit no longer satisfies the desires of the flesh. This makes sense if the inside man is in control of the outside man. The man has therefore died to sin and has been made alive in the spirit.

What do you think? What spiritual status does your body reflect? Life or death? Why?

Edited by Bluefinger
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am alive because my parents created me, when I die I will cease to be, I hope. I don't think I have ever felt 'spiritual' even when I had a faith I just feel me.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There are two creation stories combined together in the bible. The text clearly states that- Let us make man in our image and after our likeness. That creation refers to the later day groups of people coming into existence by way of genetic engineering and nation building by the much older groups of people.

Now one thing I will agree on is the material world is death within itself ! When we make our transition(die/death), we come back to LIFE because everything was spiritual before it was physical.

Edited by Spore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There are two creation stories combined together in the bible. The text clearly states that- Let us make man in our image and after our likeness. That creation refers to the later day groups of people coming into existence by way of genetic engineering and nation building by the much older groups of people.

Now one thing I will agree on is the material world is death within itself ! When we make our transition(die/death), we come back to LIFE because everything was spiritual before it was physical.

In the first creation story, where all the material world is made, God called everything good. God then subjected it to mankind, whom He also called good. So I don't think that we need to escape the material world.

I think the material world is dying because its stewards (us) are spiritually dead. We certainly can't restore the material world if our spiritual nature is dead. We have to be born again in the spirit. In the book of Romans, Paul described creation as being subjected to futility until the sons of God are revealed. If we are born of the Spirit, then we are children of God.

Edited by Bluefinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Bluefinger. Ecclesiastes, as a prelude to the New Testament,

would have one believe all is vanity save for the word's having

subsequently become flesh. Thence, it is the plurality of your

statement that interests me.

Please quote Paul's describing "creation as being subjected to

futility until the sons of God are revealed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi, Bluefinger. Ecclesiastes, as a prelude to the New Testament,

would have one believe all is vanity save for the word's having

subsequently become flesh. Thence, it is the plurality of your

statement that interests me.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what you are saying. In a common man's language, what are you getting at?

Please quote Paul's describing "creation as being subjected to

futility until the sons of God are revealed."

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:18-27 ESV)

Edited by Bluefinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the very first breath one takes after leaving a womb one's soul begins to rot till one returns to a tomb ~

Que Sera Sera ~

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bluefinger, my habitually viewing the word as living

lends me a sense of timelessness that overlaps

contexts. For example, the Son of God's being

revealed involves the same for sons of God; but,

while a son of God is a son of God, the context

that you provided is conditional within a given

timeframe.

third_eye,

Granted that we are born into original sin,

Christians believe one's rejecting evil

makes him rot resistant.

0:-) MGby'all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bluefinger, my habitually viewing the word as living

lends me a sense of timelessness that overlaps

contexts. For example, the Son of God's being

revealed involves the same for sons of God; but,

while a son of God is a son of God, the context

that you provided is conditional within a given

timeframe.

third_eye,

Granted that we are born into original sin,

Christians believe one's rejecting evil

makes him rot resistant.

0:-) MGby'all.

I'm still not understanding what you are saying.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bluefinger, my habitually viewing the word as living

lends me a sense of timelessness that overlaps

contexts. For example, the Son of God's being

revealed involves the same for sons of God; but,

while a son of God is a son of God, the context

that you provided is conditional within a given

timeframe.

third_eye,

Granted that we are born into original sin,

Christians believe one's rejecting evil

makes him rot resistant.

0:-) MGby'all.

How is it conditional? Just because humanity is a contingent being, operating from within the framework of the equally contingent time and space; this does not mean that mankind is not without an infinite nature or without an eternal purpose. I mean, is this not the GOAL? In Revelation, it is stated that there will be a new heavens and a new earth. This suggests an infinite duration or an eternal present just like what you are implying. It is 'appointed for man once to die the death' but if death is merely a doorway from one method of being to another; how is it conditional to time simply because it takes place IN time?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it conditional? Just because humanity is a contingent being, operating from within the framework of the equally contingent time and space; this does not mean that mankind is not without an infinite nature or without an eternal purpose. I mean, is this not the GOAL? In Revelation, it is stated that there will be a new heavens and a new earth. This suggests an infinite duration or an eternal present just like what you are implying. It is 'appointed for man once to die the death' but if death is merely a doorway from one method of being to another; how is it conditional to time simply because it takes place IN time?

Perhaps he means the phenomena of those who die in our present go to be with The Lord, whom dwells in eternity, while we are here on earth and restrained by time?

That is a little off topic of what I was writing about though.

I only meant to insist that those who are spiritually dead don't realize it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marcus Aurelius: How is it conditional?

CAT: The revealing of sons of God is conditional within a given timeframe,

insofar as God alone knows when we shall stand before Him as Judge.

Bluefinger: I'm still not understanding what you are saying.

CAT: My belated thanks for your posting Romans 8:18-27 ESV in regard to

creation’s longing for the revealing of the sons of God--the revealing of the

Son of God, his apostles and, with the Final Judgment, those redeemable.

Though the last part is cause for concern, a true Christian must believe the

suffering of the sacrificial lamb and, consequently, mankind not in vain (i.e.

unworthy as is any of us of the blood of Christ, the Sacred Heart was drained

to the end that penitent sinners be forgiven).

Bluefinger: I think the material world is dying because its stewards (us) are

spiritually dead.

CAT: Universal is entropy, i.e. the life of things runs its course.

Bluefinger: We certainly can't restore the material world if our spiritual nature

is dead.

CAT: Decadence is a process, too. Insidious, it is much like an infectious

disease in that it is difficult to contain. Once it has become rampant, God

alone can empower any man to combat the result: systemic corruption.

Bluefinger: We have to be born again in the spirit.

CAT: In view of the spirit of this era, absolutely.

Bluefinger: If we are born of the Spirit, then we are children of God.

CAT: Being that children are born innocent, I take it that you are still

speaking of the necessity of adults’ being spiritually reborn. We are ever

beginning anew until, God willing, we may lay down our burdens for a last

time--a prospect that I tend to too much welcome for the futility of merely

wishing creation rid of evil and, all the while, begging patience in awaiting

divine intercession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some parts of us need to die. When we experience a spiritual rebirth it is obvious and not something that we can deny. To deny it I suppose would cause that new life to die before it gets a chance to grow, and this is what the parable about the seeds getting eaten by the crows is all about. The good news is that spiritual rebirth is available to us at all times. Sometimes it is spontaneous, as it is a natural occurance, just as a flower is prone to bloom, we are also... but we can also do so willingly and cognitively by giving up something, letting that die and walking in the new life.

Many people discredit christianity but its core teaching, or application rather is exactly this process of redemption. Now they may have taken this valuable spiritual mystery and put a cap on it or tried to monopolize it in ways that would prevent an individual for accepting this as something that belongs to everyone.. but the function and action of the redeemer are real and will continue to have its effect on those who are exposed to its reality.

The curse in the garden was that we would be seperated from god and indeed many do feel seperated by god, if that is true, there is but a small skin that seperates us which is easily broken.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

[...]The curse in the garden was that we would be seperated from god

and indeed many do feel seperated by god, if that is true, there is but

a small skin that seperates us which is easily broken.

Greetings, SpiritWriter.

Some define hell as separation from God.

<Edit>

Let die that which separates us from Him.

We are won in Christ.

Edited by aka CAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more East Asians with knowledge in non-Abrahamic reasoning in this forum. (sigh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

We need more East Asians with knowledge in non-Abrahamic reasoning in this forum. (sigh)

Seek, and ye shall find a forum more suited to your liking.

Edited by aka CAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more East Asians with knowledge in non-Abrahamic reasoning in this forum. (sigh)

I agree that well rounded spiritual insight is a very good thing. Whatever you have been exposed to which is pertanent here I think you should contribute..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support Bluefinger's right to host a discussion

in regard to Judeo-Christianity here

without his and other participants' being insulted

for stating their beliefs for a simple reason:

persons critical of such discussion

are offered too many alternatives online

to excuse blatant trolling.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that well rounded spiritual insight is a very good thing. Whatever you have been exposed to which is pertanent here I think you should contribute..

Thanks.

In Asia, different religions were FORCED to get along so they ended up supporting each other when it comes to theology and doctrines. Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, and other belief systems eventually intermingled with each other. Still, Christianity is growing really fast in one region and rapidly declining in another region, in Asia as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

In Asia, different religions were FORCED to get along so they ended up supporting each other when it comes to theology and doctrines. Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, and other belief systems eventually intermingled with each other. Still, Christianity is growing really fast in one region and rapidly declining in another region, in Asia as a whole.

Impertinent is the introduction of Far Eastern religions in this discussion,

particularly because you are at liberty to begin your own discussion on the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impertinent is the introduction of Far Eastern religions in this discussion,

particularly because you are at liberty to begin your own discussion on the topic.

I was indirectly pointing out the massive problem that the concept of Original Sin caused. Even without it, Christianity could have been a great moral guidance without fear-based submission. But...

Such kind of kinder Christian sects got all died off by the time when the Church ruled Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I was indirectly pointing out the massive problem that the concept of Original Sin caused. Even without it, Christianity could have been a great moral guidance without fear-based submission. But...

Such kind of kinder Christian sects got all died off by the time when the Church ruled Europe.

Your indirectness is noted.

Original sin, consequent to the evil whereinto we are born,

is a reality to all whom recognize wrong doing

as counter to civilized mankind.

Christ's message is neither of fear nor doom

but of loving forgiveness--

something indigenous people regularly practice

in not blaming Christ for hypocrites.

Edit:

To whom it may concern,

My last statement is in regard to ambelamba's signature,

an accusation attributed to Chief Pontiac.

Edited by aka CAT
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was indirectly pointing out the massive problem that the concept of Original Sin caused. Even without it, Christianity could have been a great moral guidance without fear-based submission. But...

Thanks. I agree with aka CAT, I think you should be more direct, especially if you have something to comment on whether or not people can be spiritually dead. How the East might comment on it would be of direct interest to this conversation. Do you have anything to add?

Such kind of kinder Christian sects got all died off by the time when the Church ruled Europe.

That seems like a topic for another forum, but it does seem to lend credence to the topic of this post. What is spiritual life and what does it look like? Where does it come from and how may one obtain it. That is a more fitting discussion for this topic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

We need more East Asians with knowledge in non-Abrahamic reasoning in this forum. (sigh)

Again, you're welcome to practice the said reasoning in another discussion

versus imposing nonsense upon non-consensual others, e.g. myself.

Edited by aka CAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have a feeling that many early Christian sects existed happily without the belief in Original Sin. But they seemed to be unfit to be the basis for a state religion.

I've seen some theologians trying to dig up some really obscure OT-era documents to justify the concept, but then why aren't Jewish people sold on Original Sin? Chances are it did exist but was never popular among Israelite.

EDIT: Some of you might have noticed that I use a very conversational writing style, for a non-native speaker. I certainly don't want to sound like some disembodied ghost. So please be considerate if I sound rather unintelligent. As someone who studied acting, I follow Chekov-method (by Michael Chekov, a star student of Stanislavski) and this affected how I convey my emotions through wordings, gestures, and facial expressions. Just sayin'.

Edited by ambelamba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.