What is Original Sin?
The bible makes it clear that the "original sin" is the quest for knowledge.
Getting past the writings which claim that Eve was at fault for tempting Adam - when it was Adam, not Eve, who supposedly ate from the tree of knowledge, making it his fault if we accept the idea of personal responsibility - it's pretty clear that the quest for knowledge is what the bible describes as original sin.
The story claims that after Adam ate the apple, he and Eve recognized their nakedness, and were ashamed, and grabbed some fig leaves to cover themselves with. Therefore, many people think lust and sex are the original sins ( without which, the human race wouldn't exist - because if Adam and Eve hadn't realized their sexuality, they'd never had had children, so we'd have two people wandering around some garden for eternity, and no other humans would have existed).
The idea that Adam and Eve were innocent as animals is rather amusing, since all animals procreate. Even amoebas procreate - they are the closest to God, because they can reproduce without all that nasty genitalia stuff going on, and therefore they can remain virgins for life. Sex is not a sin. But for the men who put the bible together, knowledge was heresy, because the more illiterate the populace was, the more sheeplike they were.
The quest for knowledge is original sin.
Tags
I've seen this movie before. It's long, drawn-out movie that doesn't end until the logical people in the room walk away with a migraine.
I've seen this movie before. It's long, drawn-out movie that doesn't end until the logical people in the room walk away with a migraine.
It's long, drawn-out movie that doesn't end until the logical people in the room walk away with a migraine.
Dealing with other peoples, shall we say "willful ignorance," does give me a headache sometimes.
This has already been explained to you, both by myself and TiG. At this point, your continued inability to grasp the simple concept of logic is like us talking to a wall.
i'm definitely not sure at this point whether to 
or to 
Which is why I just can't deal with him anymore.
Best to not take him seriously ... obviously this is a game of some sort. Not sure I can appreciate how this might be 'fun' but quite an unfortunate number of people engage in feigned obtuseness.
'Implicitly this would mean that all formal systems are flawed since all are founded in logic.'
'We should all back away from our computers....now...slowly....
You're cute. I like you.
Best to not take him seriously ...
How can anyone take him seriously, especially after all that tripe regarding logic he posted?
obviously this is a game of some sort. Not sure I can appreciate how this might be 'fun' but quite an unfortunate number of people engage in feigned obtuseness.
I suppose some people are not interested in actual discussions. They just want to argue for argument's sake.
I believe in God. I don't care if they do or not. I am never going to be trying to change their minds as it would be a total waste of time. But the childish names--"bible babblers" and "Flying spaghetti monster", etc. should stop.
You remind me of someone I used to debate, a guy who insisted that everyone capitalize the word "god". He was quite irate that he couldn't control how other people referred to his silly superstitions and that they wouldn't buy into his assumption that one and only one invisible sky fairy existed. His superstitions demanded respect!
You remind me of someone I used to debate, a guy who insisted that everyone capitalize the word "god".
I think I remember someone like that, although the name escapes me. He got pissed at me every time I didn't capitalize "god." He actually demanded I capitalize god.
His superstitions demanded respect!
But they (and he) deserved none!
I don't CARE how you term God for yourself. I think it is in extremely poor taste and very rude to refer to Him as such,
Apparently, you do care. Otherwise, you wouldn't criticize Skrekk for how he refers to god or emphasize "care" so much. He's not wrong either.
I think it is in extremely poor taste and very rude to refer to Him as such, but, hey, whatever gets you off.
Can't your imaginary friend speak for Himself? If He's offended then He can text me or send me an email rather than burning a bush.
So because I believe in God, I don't "deserve" respect?
Wow, a tad sensitive, aren't we? That's not what I said. I said the belief itself is not automatically deserving of respect. But I do respect your right to believe whatever you want.
Logic: noun - reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
What I think you're trying to say is that there can be differences of opinion on the "validity" of something. One has to agree on a set of facts in order to make logical deductions. The problem is some refuse to accept some things as fact that most other persons do.
For example, if you believe without evidence that the decay rates of most radioactive materials have changed dramatically in the last few thousand years, you can dismiss the conclusions others have drawn about the logical age of the earth and universe. You could defend a young earth creationists view by dismissing what most others consider facts. Debating such a person is pointless because if they won't agree to work with the same set of facts then you cannot come to any logical conclusions.
'The "Waaaah!" was added to demonstrate the tone I hear in many of those comments.'
Funny, that's what I hear too.
We??
"We" as in "you."
You got a mouse in your pocket?
No, just 37 cents in change. Ooh, a quarter.
Y'all are just plain rude.
How so, especially considering the previous comments were not directed at you?
I'll pray for you.
Don't bother. I neither want nor need your prayers.
have a nice day.
Thanks. I usually do.
What does what I believe in affect you in any way, shape or form?
It doesn't, at least not as long as you don't vote to use the state to enforce the sharia laws of your particular cult and you don't otherwise use your superstitions to harm other people. After all you do live in a state run by conservative bible-babblers who do use the secular government to enforce their sharia laws.
But I wonder why you think my views about your imaginary friend affect you, particularly since I fully support your right to believe whatever superstitious nonsense you like. Are you uncertain in your faith or do you expect it to be unchallenged merely because it's a common superstition?
.
So because I believe in God, I don't "deserve" respect?
Certainly those superstitions don't deserve respect per se, they merely deserve legal tolerance just like the superstitions of Scientologists and Raelians.
You were being patronizing to me. I won't stand for that without calling you out on it.
I will pray for whatever and whomever I want--with or without YOUR blessings.
I am also quite free to post on here if I want. Deal with it.
or not.
I don't care what you do.
I will vote for whatever and whomever I choose to vote for, and there isn't a thing that you can about it.
Only loons worry about the mythological "Christian Sharia laws".
it must be rough living in fear all the time that someone somewhere might vote based on their own personal beliefs and principles.
You were being patronizing to me.
How so?
I won't stand for that without calling you out on it.
More like I called you out for contradicting yourself.
I will pray for whatever and whomever I want--with or without YOUR blessings.
It's funny how you complain others are being rude, when you're doing the exact same thing.
I am also quite free to post on here if I want. Deal with it.
I never said you weren't free to do so. I simply said you didn't have to post if you can't deal with it here.
I don't care what you do.
You certainly seem to care what others do or say.
Only loons worry about the mythological "Christian Sharia laws".
Considering it's mainly certain Christians that want to impose their religious based beliefs into our laws, such as no abortion or no same sex marriage (among others), I'd say those "Christian sharia laws" is not as "mythical" as you seem to think.
Only loons worry about the mythological "Christian Sharia laws".
Strange then that just to gain equal civil rights so many minorities have had to fight against the Christian sharia laws which conservatives in your Jim Crow state passed.
And it's very revealing that the bigoted bible-babblers who control your state government have adamantly refused to repeal those Christian sharia laws even after the federal courts struck them down as blatantly unconstitutional. Some of those bible-babblers have even recently tried to get new Christian sharia laws passed with the help of your governor and Lt governor.....like their attempt to deny standard employment marital benefits to same-sex spouses.
Using "we" as you did was patronizing.
we (wē)
pron.
1. Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject: We made it to the lecture hall on time. We are planning a trip to Arizona this winter.
2. Used to refer to people in general, including the speaker or writer: "How can we enter the professions and yet remain civilized human beings?" (Virginia Woolf).
3. Used instead of I, especially by a writer wishing to reduce or avoid a subjective tone.
4. Used instead of I, especially by an editorialist, in expressing the opinion or point of view of a publication's management.
5. Used instead of I by a sovereign in formal address to refer to himself or herself.
6. Used instead of you in direct address, especially to imply a patronizing camaraderie with the addressee: How are we feeling today?
Have a good day.
If by using "we", you meant me and you, then you wouldn't have responded to my comment "Do you have a mouse in your pocket" like you did. So you meant it to be condescending
You are reading into it way too much. Oh well, see my post 6.1.245.
There are five, to be sure, who love to contradict anything and everything to do with Christianity.
It seems that you feel that you are being persecuted for your beliefs.
Are there other theistic religious beliefs that get a pass for believing in unproven gods when Christianity is criticized?
Tell you what--if you don't like Texas, please stay out of it.
Sorry but your state richly deserves all the ridicule it gets on civil rights issues. Its continuing efforts to enact and enforce Jim Crow laws against certain minorities are truly reprehensible.
All of them as I don't other religions unless they are violent. And, then, I judge the person.
Harry Potter is fiction, so no, a credible, sane individual wouldn't consider that as a source on magic.
Are zombies now a fact, or did Jesus rise from the dead just because you believe that the Bible is true, despite any corroboration?
Would you also consider the The Walking Dead to be science fiction or is it now a documentary?
I will pray for your enlightenment on those questions!
What I asked is not a stupid question. I am testing the validity of your beliefs. Why is it that you state that Harry Potter is fiction but turn around and believe that the miracles and the resurrection of the Bible are factual, despite any corroborating proof of either the various miracles or the resurrection of Jesus on the 3rd day?
If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead then why can't other people rise from the dead and exist as zombies?
Epistte is illustrating that the Bible, like other books, is first a book just like Harry Potter, The Iliad and the Odyssey, The Book of Mormon, etc. Its demonstrable flaws suggest that it is the work of men and not the inspired word of a perfect god. That is, the Bible itself serves as evidence that it is not divine. Conversely, there is no evidence that the Bible is divine - people believe it is divine simply because the Bible claims itself divine and human beings claim it is divine. Claims sans evidence of any kind.
Yes of course they are.
Logic tells us so !
Is arithmetic subjective? Does 1+2 = 3 for some but something else for others? Logic (the universal formal system) is at the core of all other formal systems (e.g. arithmetic).
Interpretation is subjective, not (formal) logic itself.
Your second premise is unsupported. You would have to prove that logic itself is imperfect. For example, prove modus ponens itself wrong or faulty. Do that and I predict you will be famous.
He'll never understand this statement.
Conversely, there is no evidence that the Bible is divine - people believe it is divine simply because the Bible claims itself divine and human beings claim it is divine.
That argument is a textbook example of a circular argument. "The bible is true because it says that it is true."
How is it possible that the Bible is a literal work of a divine god when the various books were written, compiled and edited by mortal men who had never met god?
Saying that it is inspired by God is an unproven attemp to cite the divine.
Harry Potter is a series of fantasy novels written by British author J. K. Rowling.
How is the Bible also not a fantasy novel? There is no empirical proof of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god. Many of the letters of Paul are fictional as well as Revelations. Genesis is obviously fictional, despite your belief.
The Bible is the best selling work of historical fiction ever written. It has also caused millions of deaths by people who incorrectly believe that it is factual.
And I'll keep praying for your enlightenment!
What form of enlightenment do I lack? I doubt that you are referring to me becoming a bodhisattva.
Maybe you should pray to your god that I stop being a humanist. Check back in 4 weeks to see if your prayer was answered.
And what I pray for is enlightenment--that you find the answers you seek. No matter what it is you are seeking answers to.
Don't try to be obtuse because you are not that good. This attempt to divert attention is a common tactic of yours and it doesn't work.
If you didn't make claims regarding the bible then you would not have been so outraged when I said the Bible and Harry Potter were not different. We were not discussing Harry Potter until you brought it up. The discussion is about the concept of original sin as referenced in the Bible.
And what I pray for is enlightenment--that you find the answers you seek. No matter what it is you are seeking answers to.
This idea is illogical. I do not seek religious enlightenment and intelligence isn't gained by prayer.
I never made any claims about the Bible. I believe you are projecting again.
Is it your standard practice to accuse someone of statements they never make, and then argue it?
Please list all the claims I have made about the Bible. Please include what pot of mine they came from. Since you claimed I did it, I am POSITIVE you'll be able to back your claim up with facts.
I would NEVER pray for someone to have a spiritual awakening or enlightenment. And what I pray for is MY business--not yours.
Please list all the claims I have made about the Bible. Please include what pot of mine they came from. Since you claimed I did it, I am POSITIVE you'll be able to back your claim up with facts.
You logically cannot discuss God, original sin or the Christian religion without referencing the Bible, so go try to sell your spin elsewhere because I'm not buying it. I don't care how mad you get or how outrageous your claims are so you most certainly were referncing the Bible unless your replies were off-topic. . You have forfeited any claim to rationality.
I'd prefer that you don't pray for me, but knock yourself out if you choose to do so.
Like I stated earlier---list ANY posts where I have referenced the Bible as you claimed.
Since you can't, it must not have been a true statement.
Which, of course, I already knew.
And I don't see anyone mad here.
You must be projecting, again.
Sigh.
SOSDD
Irish Catholic ( until as one said, I reached the age of reason), if we were not born guilty then the Nuns did a fine job of making us so.
It was in the Freewill Baptist church I grew up in.
The only way to avoid going to Hell was to repent your sins, and you were sinful from the time you were born. Period. You might not be held accountable for those sins until you were considered old enough to understand them, but you were sinful, whether you knew it or not. That church taught that Jesus didn't cry, because a baby's crying was sinful.
I know they're not all like this but I think one of the churches which recently decided not to perform a wedding for a mixed-race couple was a Free Will Baptist.
To me that would qualify as "original sin."
That wouldn't surprise me.
Most of the churches Mom took me to as a child were Baptist of some sort, or nondenominational with Baptist leanings. And they were all the hellfire-and-brimstone sort, where even if you'd committed no outward sin, you surely must have had sinful thoughts, and therefore deserved to roast. And avoiding outward sin was damn near impossible. You could be the "goodyest" goody-two-shoes that ever was, but you were still going to Hell, because you were born evil.
It was in the Freewill Baptist church I grew up in.
It was that way in every Protestant church I ever went to. That's the basis for Christianity, otherwise, what was the point in Jesus sacrificing himself for mankind?
"Getting past the writings which claim that Eve was at fault for tempting Adam - when it was Adam, not Eve, who supposedly ate from the tree of knowledge, making it his fault if we accept the idea of personal responsibility"
"4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." - Genesis 3:4-6
So first, Eve supposedly did eat of the fruit first.
"12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Genesis 3:12
I find it interesting that Adam, having apparently just learned how to sin, is already blaming God for his sin by saying "It was the woman YOU GAVE ME".
So the original sin, according to the bible, was disobeying God as he gave them only two things they were not supposed to do, eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad or eat of the tree of life. If they had eaten of the tree of life, according to the bible, they would have become immortal.
"After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life." Genesis 3:24
Now supposedly, because both Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, all their children inherited their "original sin" and thus mankind was born into sin and thus all humans (until Christ was born without a human father) inherited this sin and thus had a need for the redemption sacrifice Christ would make washing our sin away with his blood.
The primary problem I find in this premise, especially for Catholics who baptize their babies as quick as they can so that if the baby dies it will have its inherited sin washed away and be able to go to heaven, is that it conflicts with evolution and the theory that Genesis is an allegory. If Adam and Eve were not the very first humans directly created as is by God, and as our DNA shows the human race never got below several thousand during our evolution, then sin would not be inherited to all men since many would be descended from other ancestors, not just the two who sinned. That means there is no inherited sin for all and Christ's ransom sacrifice is unnecessary and pointless.
That means there is no inherited sin for all
Or it's just so diluted that it's minuscule and doesn't even matter
it's just so diluted that it's minuscule and doesn't even matter
I suppose one could imagine that perhaps the Neanderthals were Adams offspring and most humans have between .5% to 4% Neanderthal DNA. So those who believe that can go get their DNA checked and find out how much sin they inherited.
I've always wanted to write a fictional alternate based on the Genesis account, the "what if?" account of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of life instead of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. We'd have some immortal humans who would have no clue what was right or wrong. The end objective of course would be eventually gaining the fruit from the tree of knowledge and having their eyes opened, truly becoming Gods in their own right, immortal and being able to choose good or bad.
One might wonder at Gods supposed wisdom of placing those two trees within humans reach, it seems pretty irresponsible to me.
It was a test. Gods are always testing humans
It was a test. Gods are always testing humans
"Teste teste, one two..."
Speaking of which, Genesis claims that Adam was created first and was alone for a time before Eve was created from Adams rib because Adam was lonely and saw the other animals with their mates and wanted a mate of his own. So my question is, when did Adam receive his genitals? If Eve was an afterthought, what need would Adam have had for genitals with no Eve? That would be like creating a lamp with an electrical plug before inventing the electrical wall socket.
So either Adam was created as a eunuch and God added the hardware while he took Adams rib, or we're supposed to believe that Adam was created with a vestigial organ.
... and why did the other animals have mates and not man?
So my question is, when did Adam receive his genitals?
It does not take much logical probing to find reasons to question the divinity of the Bible (and other holy books).
Maybe the Neanderthals were the people in the land of Nod? But then, where does that leave the Denovesians (sp?)?
Maybe the Neanderthals were the people in the land of Nod?
Could be the Denisovans might have been the descendants of Adam while the Neanderthals were the children of the Nephilim. The bible claims they were all wiped out in a global flood but there is no geological evidence of a global flood in the last 175,000 years so at best it was likely a regional flood. Of course, if Neanderthals are the descendants of the Nephilim, that means most humans have a small amount of alien DNA. There's nothing more alien than a demon coming to earth and mating with the daughters of man. Technically the bible is claiming alien creatures came from the sky and probed humans long before the National Enquirer could report on it...
that means most humans have a small amount of alien DNA.
Perhaps that is the result of Emperor Xenu bringing billions of his people to Earth from the Galactic Confederacy. 
Perhaps that is the result of Emperor Xenu bringing billions of his people to Earth from the Galactic Confederacy
That's just as likely as demons mating with humans making half-breed demigods. There are other cultures and religions that made similar claims, I mean, what was Hercules if not a Nephilim?
If Eve was an afterthought, what need would Adam have had for genitals with no Eve?
The genitalia are for his buddy Steve to enjoy.
That's just as likely as demons mating with humans making half-breed demigods.
Or the traditional 7th Day Adventist claim that black folks are the product of sex between humans and other animals, an "amalgamation."
That's just as likely as demons mating with humans
Someone actually told me once (and they were completely serious too) that demons mating with humans is the reason why sin exists in humans. I swear I am not making that up.
Not to mention, if man was created in god's image, then does god have an umbilicus? An appendix? Genitals himself? Ect.
I usually get told I'm disgusting when I bring that up - but if god is a "he" then he would have a penis, one would think. Just as Jesus would most likely have been married and had sex - and why would that matter? Some people act like they couldn't worship him if he had had sex.
Or the traditional 7th Day Adventist claim that black folks are the product of sex between humans and other animals, an "amalgamation."
Weren't black people the punishment against white people who failed or refused cleanliness? Because of their refusal, God "cursed" them to "look dirty" forever? I do not remember which denomination held that particular view. That's about as wacky a religious view as demons mating with humans is.
Weren't black people the punishment against white people who failed or refused cleanliness?
I think the most common religious belief about black people was that they were somehow the "Sons of Cain" who had murdered Able his brother and was "cursed by God" to wander the wilderness that they assume was Africa. There are some religious groups who still hold to that belief. It helps them cope with pretending to be caring, loving Christians while also being monumental racists.
Well, that is as absurd a belief as any other.
Don't you know, that's because sex is sinful and dirty.
"Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His chest at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray You?” John 21:20
The only thing worse to most Christians than implying Christ may have been married is pointing out he wandered around for several years with a small group of men who he was apparently very friendly with...
Well, that is as absurd a belief as any other.
"At some point after the start of the slave trade in the United States , many Protestant denominations began teaching the belief that the mark of Cain was a dark skin tone, although early descriptions of Romani as "descendants of Cain" written by Franciscan monk Symon Semeonis suggest that this belief had existed for some time. Protestant preachers wrote exegetical analyses of the curse, with the assumption that it was dark skin."
"The Curse of Cain was often conflated with the Curse of Ham . According to the Bible, Ham discovered his father Noah drunk and naked in his tent, but instead of honoring his father by covering his nakedness, he ran and told his brothers about it. Because of this, Noah cursed Ham's son, Canaan by saying that he was to be "a servant of servants". ( Genesis 9:20-27 ) One interpretation of this passage states that Ham married a descendant of Cain, who was black, so that the descendants of Canaan were both marked with black skin and cursed to be servants of servants. While there is no indication in the Bible of Ham's wife descending from Cain, this interpretation was used to justify slavery and it was particularly popular in America during the Atlantic slave trade "
That's seriously ignorant stuff some Christians have believed to justify their own evil.
Someone actually told me once (and they were completely serious too) that demons mating with humans is the reason why sin exists in humans.
I was told on the Vine that that's how diseases were introduced to humanity - we originally had "perfect" DNA, whatever the hell that is, and therefore had no diseases (cuz all diseases are genetic, ya know) and long life spans.
Weren't black people the punishment against white people who failed or refused cleanliness?
Or they bear the "mark of Cain".
That's seriously ignorant stuff some Christians have believed to justify their own evil.
Couldn't be. Faith is a gift, remember?
"Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His chest at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray You?” John 21:20
I find I am often misquoted in the Bible and beyond.
If we're thinking of the same person the last weirdness I saw from him was that disease was the result of Earths sins (whatever that means)
If we're thinking of the same person the last weirdness I saw from him was that disease was the result of Earths sins (whatever that means)
yes, somehow the "Earth" had sinned and we got diseases as a result, but he never answered my question on how a planet (non-sentient as far as we know) could sin.
I was told on the Vine that that's how diseases were introduced to humanity - we originally had "perfect" DNA,
I remember hearing that too. I couldn't believe (no pun intended) that someone would actually believe that nonsense.
This was a woman, but yeah, I believe the person you're probably thinking of said something similar.
Adam and Eve were both created without genitals. Don't even get me started on where their kids and grandkids came from.
Ok....stop.
God cursed Eve and said she would bring forth children in pain and sorrow (or something like that).
He must have crafted genitals after they were thrown out of the Garden of Evil, otherwise, Eve wouldn't have suffered in childbirth, correct?
So many questions.....
I still find the concept of sex with one's own transgender clone a bit disturbing, even if it meant one only lost a rib rather than a critical part of the body like a foreskin or something.
Anatomy is disgusting?
Maybe it's because some folks think the umbilicus (belly button) is something else?
Lol I know, but generally he doesn't answer a lot of questions so no surprise.
I like this part of the story, it comes BEFORE the creation of Adam.
27
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Oooops.
OK guys this original sin thing, you do realize is specific to Christianity?
Jews do not believe in original sin. They believe that people are born sinless.
Now what? Do you go back to the bible and rethink things?
Now what? Do you go back to the bible and rethink things?
Please!! If there is a God I am convinced that genuine, serious critical analysis of the Bible will reveal that God is definitely not described therein. The God as described by the Bible is a logical contradiction and thus logically does not exist. IMO it would be better to believe in a God who is entirely unknown (and likely unknowable) than to worship (and abide by the rules of) the invention of ancient men with pens.
Boo!. Bad fish changes TiG quote to make joke. 
I don't actually believe in the concept of sin - to me, it's a religious construct which implies doing something that pisses off the Abrahamic god.
I recently read a book about medieval times and it discussed how the spread of literacy was so challenging to the church, which is what made me think of this.
Made a pot of chili the other day just chock full of apples. Sinfully good!
One of the reasons that I am no longer a believer is the absurdity of the Adam and Eve story. It is the antithesis of any logical thought about a god. God made man in his own image, then decided that he screwed up, then allowed a major screw up {which may actually have been a blessing} and banished both man and woman from the garden of eden. He then made them mortal and allowed the acquisition of knowledge and the ability to procreate. You would have thought that any god would have been smart enough to perfect his creation without such a major revision or would have figured out what would happen earlier on. The other part of that would be, if he made man in his own image, he would have made him with knowing that he would seek knowledge. Nothing in this story makes any sense and is never explained adequately by clergy.
I'm curious, why do you think most biblical stories are illogical absurdities?
Because they're myths (some of which are borrowed from older myths) which lack any evidence or logic, or can otherwise be picked apart. The Adam & Eve story is one such story, as DocPhil pointed out above. Not to mention Adam & Eve as biblically depicted is completely discredited by what we know about evolution, including the evolution of homo sapiens.
I'm sure that the great flood happened. Geological records show evidence of many 'great floods' throughout time.
Problem being that there is only a finite amount of water on this rock floating through space.
The biblical 'great flood' never happened except locally.
I'm curious, why do you think most biblical stories are illogical absurdities?
Should I explain why the great flood could not happen because it ignores the laws of physics?
Where did the water possibly drain when the earth is covered with 40' of water. Water drains downhill and the atmosphere was obviously already saturated.
How did terrestrial aminals from the Americas, such as a sloth, and Australia get to the middle east to get a place on the ark?
This was before the age of flight so they didn't take a non-stop El-Al flight.
As cjcold pointed out it was a local event that got embellished over time, look at Mt. Ararat from the satellite view, travel west to the Black Sea, the Black Sea is shaped like a funnel to the east and on the west there appears to be remnants of a landslide below the surface. A tsunami from that large of a landslide would be quite devastating and everything would wash up somewhere around Mt. Ararat. Now as told, Noah built the ark on dry land anticipating a flood and got quite a bit of ridicule for doing it and when the flood did happen he saved all local animals 2 x 2 and his family, but that was actually ancillary to the more amazing thing, How Did He Know?
The idea of a great flood can be traced back to before the Abrahamic religions. It is first mentioned in the poem Gilgamesh. My guess is that there was a period of great rain and flooding in the Tigris and Euphrates valley between Baghdad and Basra.
As cjcold pointed out it was a local event that got embellished over time
Genesis was written by Moses after freeing the Israelites from Egypt. The entire account of Adam, Eve, Cain, Able, Noah, Abraham, all of it up until long after the Israelites had been supposedly enslaved, was written by Moses. He claimed he was getting the details directly from God by divine inspiration, how else could he have known so many details and the lineage names linking Adam to Abraham. So supposedly God told Moses this:
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. [ e ] [ f ] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. " - Genesis 6:17-23
So if the tale told by Moses was divinely inspired as most Christians want to believe, then why did God make such a claim when it can now be proven demonstrably untrue as there is no evidence that a global flood has occurred and as most geologists and earth scientists caccept, would not be possible with our current understanding of physics.
Now, Moses was apparently taught Egyptian mythology, since he was raised as a prince of Egypt. The Egyptian mythologies claimed that man was born from the first God to rise from the lifeless waters of chaos called Nu where a pyramid shaped mound appeared and this first man-God was called "Atum" from whom all humans were to be created. His grandson Set fought with his brother Osiris over their fathers affection and the throne given Osiris driving Set to murder his brother. Sound familiar? Now obviously there are many differences, but to ignore the many similarities seems intentionally ignorant.
It would seem more likely that Moses borrowed pieces of Egyptian mythology to create a fictional tale that would tie the Israelites together and give them a direct line back to the first human giving them a sense of purpose and belonging that would keep the several hundred thousand member group together instead of splintering over the 40 years they spent wandering the wilderness. But that shatters the possibility that Genesis was divinely inspired meaning Adam and Eve didn't exist, there was no original sin, and thus no need for a ransom sacrifice.
Most ancient cultures do have a tale of regional flooding so your comment about that region experiencing a great flood is likely accurate, and it probably wiped out many of the first major homo sapiens cities shrinking the population down to a few thousand which our DNA actually bears out. It also makes sense that the homo sapiens who survived moved north and bred with Neanderthals who were moving south to escape the intensifying mini-ice age called the "Last Glacial Maximum" which started about 22,000 years ago.
Interpreting the Bible literally demonstrably yields contradictions and other clear flaws. However, literal interpretation IS logically consistent with the notion of divinity. That is, if one is to hold the Bible as the Word of a perfect God then on what grounds does one take poetic license?
Further, when one takes poetic license how can one know their interpretation is correct? Given the undeniable plethora of inconsistent and often contradictory interpretations - all of which are considered to be truth - at what point does common sense kick in? When do people realize that since there is no single interpretation that nobody really knows what they are talking about?
Where did the water possibly drain when the earth is covered with 40' of water. Water drains downhill and the atmosphere was obviously already saturated.
God
How did terrestrial aminals from the Americas, such as a sloth, and Australia get to the middle east to get a place on the ark?
God
Lol see how easy that was
Doesn't that thought apply to all human thought?
Bodies of worldwide knowledge exist that, even though human in origin and requiring translation into many natural languages, are interpreted with great consistency.
For example, consider the architecture, engineering and subsequent construction of high-rise buildings, ocean vessels, etc.
One can pick from a large set of examples where human beings are able to consistently communicate (interpretation) with great precision and detail evidenced by the production of working complexity.
Compare that level of consistent, detailed precision with the fuzzy, general content of the Bible and the abundance of conflicting biblical interpretations on rather basic concepts (relatively speaking).
see how easy that was
Indeed. That answer was so easy, I didn't even have to think. It's like the La-Z-Boy recliner of thought.
Nothing in this story makes any sense and is never explained adequately by clergy.
When I questioned a priest, I was told that these are "mysteries".
If you have faith, you have no need to question beyond the mere existence of these so-called mysteries. Faith does not need to be explained or proven, it just is.
This is why I am a recovering Catholic.
Welcome back! None of us were born theocrats.
If you have faith, you have no need to question beyond the mere existence of these so-called mysteries. Faith does not need to be explained or proven, it just is.
Once you begin to ask questions instead of believing it is all downhill from there for pew occupants.
So many questions. Here is a starter question. God is omniscient and omnipotent so He knew all along that his creations (He made them what they were) Adam & Eve would eat the forbidden fruit. Yet He was surprised and disappointed that they disobeyed Him and, accordingly, imposed punishment on them and all of their descendants for all of time. How is an omniscient entity -knows everything- surprised by the behavior of that which He (an omnipotent entity -can do anything-) created?
Original Sin = The Divine Setup
About as cruel as punishing an infant for soiling itself.
About as cruel as punishing an infant for soiling itself.
You're not supposed to think that through. We are told that he is a loving God, but he also demands complete obedience and for his creations to praise and worship him. Why does a deity want or need imperfect beings to worship him?
I'm seeing many sociopathic tendencies in the supposed actions of god. I continue to come back to the idea that the actions of religious believers are evidence of the Stockholm syndrome. Theistic religious belief is not mentally healthy.
For some, studying the Bible (actually studying ... not 'Bible study') convinces them that it is not divine - merely the work of ancient men with pens. For other, however, they read the words and then substitute at times extraordinary interpretations that contradict what is written. It is as though they refuse to accept anything that violates the fundamentals of their belief - even if that something is written in the Bible itself.
The idea that Adam and Eve were innocent as animals
Like the bonobo monkeys?
For instance, when a group arrives at a new feeding tree, there is tension over who is going to make the richest pickings. “The females will have lots of genital contact with each other and that will relieve the apprehension of this feeding competition,” says Clay. “Once they are calm they can actually feed together in the tree and be quite peaceful.”
Females will also often use genital rubbing to defuse tension between two rival groups, avoiding the kinds of violence seen in chimp wars.
And how about better male courtship rituals? Why did Yahweh go to such lengths to give female birds the right to choose the mates that worked to impress them the most and then make female humans the property of male humans?
Courtship, or the process by which an individual selects and fights for his or her partner to reproduce with, is one of the most remarkable processes in the ecological world. Though the trait ranges widely, from performing an eloquent dance by flailing the bluest of feet (Blue-Footed Bobbies) to constructing elaborate nests of seduction (Bowery Bird), males work tirelessly to advertise their strength, overall health, and mating desirability.
Hummingbirds do a "dance" during mating season. You've probably seen this at hummingbird feeders. They do a "swoop" underneath the female
SP: The title of the article is "What Is Original Sin" I give my opinion ( Which was satire) and you say it's off topic. I guess you its off topic in your opinion because you didn't like it.
I've seen you delete many comments made by conservatives as off topic only because you personally didn't like them. Someone as far left as you are has no business being a monitor.
SP: The title of the article is "What Is Original Sin" I give my opinion ( Which was satire) and you say it's off topic. I guess you its off topic in your opinion because you didn't like it.
The only person who can flag off topic is the seeder, which happened in this case. The we look at the content of the comment and see if it has merit and if it does, we remove it. In this case it does, since the author wants serious discussion ( I surmise).
I review all moderation and SP has equally moderated liberals and conservatives, even suspending a liberal today. Just FYI.
Human beings creating the idea of divine being such as some sort of a God is the Original Sin. It has caused more death and war and torture and sicking atrocity then any other sin and has caused more destruction and disease or any other form of hate or disagreement or mass murder in the history of the world. It is the leading cause of death in the history of mankind. The concept of a god has been the greatest plague on humankind of all. Nothing in the history of mankind has harmed and held back the advancement of mankind then the concept of a god.
The Apple is a symbol of education, a computer company and of original sin and is a healthy fruit, this is interesting. 3 good things and the original bad thing.
The Apple is a symbol of education, a computer company and of original sin and is a healthy fruit, this is interesting.
It's funny (and a little sad) how some religious minded individuals equate knowledge (or the pursuit of it) with sin.
Who is online
56 visitors
Interesting thesis.
We all know another "origin of knowledge" story: Prometheus, the bringer of fire (symbol of knowledge and progress). It's interesting to compare the two stories; to compare their authors' methods.
Fire, it seems to me, is a much better stand-in for "knowledge". As you say, having sex doesn't require knowledge, but using fire certainly does.
So why did the Eden author write about sex? Wouldn't it be simpler, for us the readers, to assume that the author meant exactly what he said: that becoming aware of sex was the problem? As long as sex is just a physical act, with no social baggage, there's no problem. It is the social baggage that causes problems.
If we enlarge that idea, then it isn't "knowledge" that is sinful. It is loading that knowledge with extraneous baggage that is wrong.
Why would a perfect higher power create an imperfect object. Knowing humans would fall short and "miss the mark" makes the whole "creation" of them pointless and sending a "flood" to destroy them ridiculous.
For the answer to this statement you would have to ask the Mesopotamians since they are the ones who originated the flood story.
I'm reminded of something the late, great, Gene Roddenberry once said: "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”
I have no idea.
(And I don't know why you're addressing this question to me... I'll tell you my ruminations, but I do not pretend to know God very well. It has been a long time since She spoke to me...
)
I think this notion of "perfect" is... imperfect. An all-powerful god could perhaps create beings who never do anything wrong... but would they be "perfect"? Is "doing good" an accomplishment if it is impossible to do evil? Can a being without free will be considered "perfect"?
And of course... if there is free will, then there will be evil. Sometimes people choose to do stuff they know is wrong.
In what context are we operating? Are we eternal? Or is there nothing after this life? Why would a "perfect god" create such ephemeral creatures as we? And... if we are eternal, then it probably is impossible for us to evaluate our behavior over our three-score-and-ten as compared with eternity.
I don't think there are any one-line answers, here...
After my two days of vacation I'm thinking that original sin is whatever PH decides it is.
IMO "original sin" is a sin that nobody's thought of before.
Heh. Good one! Are there any left?
Catholics say that you get extra points if your sin is original.
How many points do you get for "mortal sins?"
I remember 2 things from grade school..........
and...
Well, maybe a few more, but the milk bottles and nuns were the scariest !
/s
Even worse than the flying monkeys in The Wizard of OZZ!!!!
And indulgence makes it a moot point.
Original sin is a guilt trip that most conservatives Christians readily accept because they would rather suffer than to think rationally.
Conservatives are outraged when the idea of black people are owed reparations because of the past actions of slave owners and those who oppose equal rights for blacks, but these same conservatives have no problem accepting original sin that we cannot prove ever happened and it is almost certainly a myth.
I would appreciate if you did not use a reply to my comment that did not disparage anyone in order to launch a dirty smear against a group of people.
I was not aware that there are groups of people whose opinions or beliefs cannot be criticized.
If you post a list I will do my best to not mention them in a disparaging light.
Are there liberal Christians who believe so differently from conservative Christians?
Obviously, there are liberal Christians who believe differently than conservative Christians. If that wasn't true then we wouldn't have conservative and liberal Christians. They would all be the same. Conservatives seem to be more focused on sin, punishment, and judging while the liberal strain seems to be more focused on helping people and teaching tolerance and forgiveness.
What are liberal Christians' views on original sin, and how do they differ from conservative Christians' views on it?
What denominations are considered conservative and liberal?
You should ask them. I thought that the idea of original sin was silly, but I felt that most of the Bible were myth and parable instead of being fact. You can take that however you want because I'm just a wacky Humanist.
"Progressive Christianity is a "post-liberal movement" within Christianity "that seeks to reform the faith via the insights of post-modernism and a reclaiming of the truth beyond the verifiable historicity and factuality of the passages in the Bible by affirming the truths within the stories that may not have actually happened. Progressive Christianity represents a post-modern theological approach, and is not necessarily synonymous with progressive politics. It developed out of the Liberal Christianity of the modern-era, which was rooted in enlightenment thinking.
Progressive Christianity is characterized by a willingness to question tradition, acceptance of human diversity, a strong emphasis on social justice and care for the poor and the oppressed, and environmental stewardship of the earth. Progressive Christians have a deep belief in the centrality of the instruction to "love one another" (John 15:17) within the teachings of Jesus Christ. This leads to a focus on promoting values such as compassion, justice, mercy, and tolerance, often through political activism."
I was raised in the ELCA and that's pretty much what they teach. I don't recall anyone fretting about idiotic notions like "original sin."
Your comment was not at all relevant to mine. You never had any trouble before making disparaging remarks about groups without attaching them to others' decent comments - when you attach your filthy comment to a comment where I made no criticism of anyone it makes me want to take a shower.
I figured you had insight since you cited what you thought were conservative Christians' views.
My mistake. Sorry.
The Southern Baptists I've met are what I would consider to be Conservative Christians - whereas Episcopalians are liberal Christians. But there are so many sects within each, so that's probably an over-generalization.
Yes, churches vary, even within one denomination.
it isn't very surprising.
I know of an LGBT friendly sect of the Catholic church, even if they are not officially recognized by Rome.
I think the story of the forbidden apple is allegorical for man's ascent in evolution to a state of self-consciousness.
Without self-consciousness there is no concept of hate, jealousy, intent to deceive, intentional cruelty, or vanity. Animals appear cruel or deceptive at times, but only to the human eye. Of course self-consciousness has it's benefits too, but I think 'the fall' represents self-regard.
... and many other things. One could (and people do) read all sorts of divine lessons from biblical allegories. That really is the problem. The Bible (and other holy books) can and does mean so many (and contradictory) things to so many people. Sans a consistent interpretation, none of the interpretations can logically be seen as truth. Yet, a human mind is capable of ignoring this obvious fact and holding that its personal interpretation is THE true one.
Or... there may be many truths.
Many contradictory truths? How does that logically work?
It would seem that of late, truth is in the eye of the beholder.
But is that valid reasoning? Truth is whatever an individual deems as such?
In fact, no. The truth is the truth, there is nothing else.
But having said that the fly in the ointment is how one chooses to interpret the truth.
Good point - I should have added "IMO" at the end of the article!
I'm just glad that we can blame women for the fall of man. Of course that also means that women are smarter than men.
Do you think that might be happening anytime soon?
According to Heinlein we are all god...Grok?
It would certainly make more sense that the "apple" was really some psilocybin mushrooms that awakened man from his animal mentality and allowed some early primates ancestors to evolve self-awareness. Without being self-aware you really can't know good and bad, just fear and safety, fight or flight, as most animals function on.
I think that "Original Sin" is making the assumption that you are the same as a god or, in the case of Christians, the same as Yahweh, you are the creation of the gods, not the god. It is like a car assuming that it is the same as the man who created it.
I read an interesting short story recently in Asimov's Robot Dreams about a robot who dreamed it was a man - and was terminated because of that.
God couldn't stand a little competition eh? Satan tries a hostile takeover and god loses his $#!t. Seems like god is the one with the pride problem.
Do you believe that there is a God?
I "believe" you have asked me that question before and I have answered. So why ask it again? And what difference does it make?
It is either a yes or no answer--not what you typed.
Why is that question hard to answer for you?
If you don't believe, why do you spend so much time trying to convince others that what they believe is so wrong?
And I have answered before in other discussions.
What is the point to your question? Especially as it pertains to my original comment?
When have I tried to do that? That is not my intent. Nor do I care what others believe. People can believe whatever they want.
When have you tried to do that?
Have you READ your comments regarding religion and the people who have one?
i don't remember every person who posts here positions on everything--which is why I asked politely.
Sue me.
Yes, and I have not tried to convince others their beliefs are wrong or that they should abandon their beliefs. I simply challenge said beliefs or the claims based on them from a logical standpoint.
And yet you seem to remember my comments to others regarding religion or people who have religion? Interesting. And I politely asked what difference does my "belief" (or lack thereof) has, especially with regards to my original post.
There is absolutely no point in challenging what one believes or doesn't believe about God unless you are trying to change someone's mind or belittling them for what they believe.
Maybe you don't think there is. But then, where in this discussion have I challenged anyone's belief about god or belittled them?
Your rather snarky comments have been duly noted.
Carry on.
Snarky, how? You implied there was no point. I simply pointed out that was your perspective. You have also not addressed any of my questions.
Post #6 and post # 1.1.2 on this thread.
On another thread ("The more we evolve...."), posts # 4.1.17, 4.1.18, 9.1.36, 9.1.43, 10.3, 15.2.25, 15.2.27
What is your point in challenging anyone's beliefs about religion or God?
I believe in God, but don't care if you do or not. I am not trying to change your mind, convert you, or telling you that you are wrong.
Can you not show folks the same courtesy?
How is that a challenge to anyone's beliefs? It's a different perspective and a logical analysis. Or do you simply view any question, view or perspective about god, religion, beliefs, ect. as a challenge or attempt to change someone's beliefs?
What is your point in asking if I believe in god or not?
Right back at you.
you seem rather defensive. Where have I been discourteous? See my first statement.
I am deeply sorry you don't ( Deleted ) recognize your own snarky comments.
Carry on.
Skirting {SP}
Now who's being snarky? Carry on!
I suppose the difference is that I recognize my snarky comments (and yes, it was MEANT to be a little snarky), and you don't recognize your own comments .
I see you have no real interest in a discussion then. I don't really care how you (erroneously) recognize my comments. It makes no difference.
They are what they are.
Again, I don't care how you see it.
i honestly disagree - i don't challenge anyone's beliefs to change them, i try to understand how/when/where they acquired those beliefs. I want to understand the mindset, how someone arrived at their conclusion that a particular thing (in this case God and/or religion) is something worthy of their belief. there has to be a thought process (we are all humans after all) behind it - so i am curious to know what it is.
Good!
There are thousands of books to explain the thought processes.
books are subject to interpretation, correct ? so why couldn't i just get the information "straight from the horse's mouth" ? Why is it wrong to ask someone how they arrived at their conclusion and get the information straight from them ?
it seems that a lot of people hold these beliefs but don't want to explain how they arrived at those beliefs - as if it's a big "secret" that nobody can know.
Nothing like hearing it straight from the source.
People are entitled to believe as they wish. You aren't owed any explanations.
Well, gee, wouldn't a book be straight from the source?
Books do not answer questions. Books do not engage in discussion.
Is Harry Potter a good book source to learn about magic? Otherwise, what TiG said.
And you accuse me of being snarky? How hilarious. And hypocritical.
Harry Potter is fiction, so no, a credible, sane individual wouldn't consider that as a source on magic.
Don't you already know that?
I really don't care what your opinion is.
So is the bible.
Likewise. But I've stated fact, not opinion.
i didn't state that i was owed any explanations. (i'm not sure where you got that from or why you are being so defensive) are you saying i don't have any right to ask anyone about their beliefs ?
I see you noticed his defensive posture too, especially when beliefs are questioned and/or challenged, or when he otherwise thinks they are.
it doesn't make sense. I have the right to ask questions and question people about their beliefs - just as they have the right to not answer if they choose or to answer them if they want to. It also seems as if, when it comes to religion, there's no free speech allowed if it in any way/shape/form casts anything possibly negative on the religion.
You seem to say that a lot.
The fact that you feel the need to tell so many people you don't care what they think, only proves that you do.
not really.
How many people have I said that to? List them!
Many people are so emotionally tied to their religion that any hint of a negative connotation, including challenges, sets them off.
No one has stopped you from posting what you wish.
Anything to do with religion sets him off. There are five, to be sure, who love to contradict anything and everything to do with Christianity.
yes, there are.
Anytime religion or God is mentioned, you can expect the usual suspects to show up.
What kills me is that they attempt to couch their arguments as strictly logical and they want to "know" how other came to the conclusion that there is a God.
I believe in God. I don't care if they do or not. I am never going to be trying to change their minds as it would be a total waste of time. But the childish names--"bible babblers" and "Flying spaghetti monster", etc. should stop.
I never said anyone did.
I guess it sets off our BS meters.
Meanwhile, the "other" has no logical argument to give, much less a logical conclusion.
This article isn't the place to start a petty fight. Let's drop it, please.
Not a problem for me. it is your seed, and I will respect your wishes.
Does that mean everyone else is supposed to drop it, too?
Yep - I'm assuming that if you drop it, it will end. If not, I'll ask others to stop as well.
I don't get it. Why are we the petty ones when the usual crowd march in giving opinions?
I believe in God!
The whole purpose of this place is for people to give their opinions and discuss things - I know the "usual crowd" (which probably includes me) upsets those who don't want their views challenged, but that's what discussions are for. Nobody's forced to read articles or comments that they don't like.
You're the ones who seem to take offense or get defensive whenever religious views or beliefs are challenged.
Good for you. And?
In case you forgot!
I happen not to know what the original sin was nor is it important to me. With all that is going on today it would take a backseat.
I have had my say!
I did not mention anything about original sin. I merely commented on a claim regarding original sin.
There is no point to all of this.
Let them have their fun amongst themselves.
As you can tell from some of the posts, some people have no respect for those who believe in God.
Would you feel the same if we were all pointing out flaws in the Koran?
Yes, I would.
But then again, you aren't doing that, are you?
I believe there are miniature hippos with wings flying around, but we can't see them because they are invisible. Do you respect this belief of mine? Do you respect belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
believe whatever you want. I don't care what anyone believes.
I am not here to convert anyone, nor have I ever tried to convert anyone regarding God or religion.
Nor have I made fun of anyone's beliefs.
i don't know if i'm "logical" but i am asking to "know" how others came to their conclusions, in fact i've had a nice discussion with a few people on that topic already and they answered my questions - for them it was a personal experience and that's a perfectly great answer. Plus, i didn't tell them to change their beliefs or that their beliefs were "stupid" or anything of that nature, go figure huh ?
thankfully some people aren't so sensitive and are kind enough to answer questions
Good for you!
I didn't ask if you cared, I asked if you respected these beliefs. I was responding to your complaint about god belief not being respected.
I respect your right to believe whatever you want. While I may not agree with you, I won't disparage your personal beliefs regarding God.
If you do not agree you can always engage in discussion or debate on the differences. Learning often comes from engaging in differences.
Sorry, but others' opinions of my opinions doesn't interest me.
How about other's opinions on existential questions? That is what I was referencing.
So as a believer which do you fear worse, god or the devil?
Look at the posts. Most people posting who don't believe in God aren't asking existential questions-they are far more likely to be demeaning God and/or religion. I don't have the patience for that, and don't care what their beliefs are. I have no need to explain myself or my beliefs, and have never tried to convince someone that what I believe is right.
When people can speak like decent human beings, I might feel like engaging them. Until then, no.
I fear neither. Why would I fear a loving God? And why would I fear the devil when I have God?
You should also look at your posts. You picked a fight and got it. I can pretty much guarantee no good discussion will come from complaining that people are opining on a particular topic.
I didn't pick a fight. That isn't remotely true.
More than one in the last day or so that i read. Who knows how many more that i didn't read
You know who they are. You did it.
That's all he does.
My complaint wasn't that people have different opinions. It is the demeaning and degrading of those that do believe in God. it is the silly name-calling like "Flying Spaghetti Monster" etc. that I take offense with.
Not to worry--I will pray for all of you!
Neither are you.
Pray for yourself. I'm good.
So let's try this. I have a hard time recognizing the Abrahamic God as loving. The Jesus hypostasis clearly fits the bill, but Yahweh is profoundly different. Christianity fuses the two with the Holy Spirit into the monotheistic trinity construct. So to hold that the God of the Bible is a loving God one would have to ignore the Old Testament.
And I am not speaking of old and new covenant. That is not the point. I am speaking about the rules and the actions of the God of the OT (who by Christian definition is also the God of the NT).
To be very specific, here is one of many examples:
Note that I do not include this to discuss its particulars but only to show an example of acts sanctioned by a God of Love stated in His divine word. The Bible is replete with contradictions and factual / logical flaws so it is not unusual that skeptics would question why anyone would hold this to be the divine word of a loving, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent creator.
You first.
I haven't asked a single person on here why they believe as they do--because, yet ONCE AGAIN--I don't CARE what others believe, it isn't any of my business.
Now, what part of this aren't you getting? I can't make it any plainer.
I will pray for whomever I wish.
Please list ONE single post of mine where I have questioned someone's belief.
You seem well-versed on the Bible. Figure it out on your own. I can not explain what others believe, and don't care to attempt it.
Personally, it makes no difference to me what you believe as far as God goes--whether you believe in Him or not, or whether He is a loving God or not.
I am not converting anyone. I have never said once that what I believe is right. What I claim is that what I believe works for ME. Period.
Take it or leave it.
As noted, I offered an example from the Bible as evidence that the biblical God as described contradicts 'God of Love'. This is a prelude to a thoughtful discussion.
I suspect you would not (honestly) consider your response to be one that would encourage anyone to have a thoughtful discussion with you on this topic.
I simply do not wish to change your mind. It doesn't matter to me what you think.
I will not attempt to change your mind, and you can not change my mind regarding God.
No discussion as to what MY personal views are is necessary.
Statement needs qualified - Most people posting (and in the world) do not believe in your gods - Yahweh and its mortal/immortal son, Yeshua.
My statement stands. That some don't believe in God wasn't really the point. The point is that many who don't believe are incredibly rude.
Not a thing to do with how many people believe or don't believe in God.
Not the point I made.
Oh well.
Sue me.
Rude is certainly better than dealing with the Christian zealots who have tortured, roasted, beheaded and went to war with fellow Christians over which sect was the one true representative of Yahweh/Yeshua on Earth.
Rude is certainly better than dealing with the Christian zealots who seek to force their sect's beliefs on others via government law.
Rude is certainly better than dealing with the Christian zealots who seek to indoctrinate children into their religious sect via public school systems.
In fact, rude is only possible because we live in a nation governed by secular law instead of religious law like countries like Saudi Arabia where a person can be beheaded for blaspheming religious belief.
it seems as if some people want to limit "Free Speech" when it comes to religion unless that speech is in support of the religion and not questioning anything or possibly casting doubts upon it. These discussions (some) are not an effort to get anyone to change their mind or criticize - they are an effort to understand viewpoints better, how people can reconcile things that don't seem to make logical sense, find out their thought processes - but i suppose that's just a "big secret" that non-believers aren't supposed to know and not ever try to find out ?
I have always tried to be polite but there is rudeness both ways
I think that maybe some don't want to admit that there is no logic in their faith. What they don't understand is that faith doesn't require logic, in fact, it pretty much discourages logic. They can't explain why they believe the way they do and don't understand that faith is logic-free.
"Logic" is in the eye of the beholder.
Drama starts where one wants it to.
i can understand that. I've already asked a couple on here a few questions, they were nice enough to answer and for them - their faith and how they got to it are solely personal experiences that happened in their life, which is a perfectly great answer. I'm just curious, that's all, but it seems that this "curiosity" is considered by some to be a "personal attack" or "persecution" or "denigrating" and they refuse to entertain any kind of discussion unless it is "pro-religion".
Then why are they posting on this article if they feel they are under attack?
That's a rhetorical question, btw.
Deleted skirting the CoC {SP}
1. No direct or indirect derogatory references to other members
Not the case with formal logic:
Well, personally, I have never done anything like what you have described, and in no way am I responsible for any of that.
It is rather silly to try and equate what I have posted with any of that.
yes, there is. And if you believe I have personally been rude to you, I humbly apologize. Please let me know what I posted offended you so that I may take care to not do so again.
C-3PO (See-Threepio) isn't the norm.. Human thought processes ARE !
Please tell me more of what I believe and what God I worship.
There is no excuse for rude. No good ones anyway. In that regard i've known few "nice" Atheists. Most are sanctimonious, condescending pricks. Look no further than NT for proof of that.
That said it's disingenuous as hell to intimate that Christians in general today are as you describe above. Yeah it's a good sound-bite for your basic hater of Christians but thats about it. Most Christians are peace loving, live and let live people. Same as the majority of religious folks But if you are really looking for religious zealots to worry about, the ones chopping heads off and such today, it's not Christians you should be worried about.
But i get it, Christians are the big kid on the block, so they're usually the one the little kid on the block with an inferiority complex goes after. So ..... carry on!
Removed for context {SP}
Because he has the temerity to disagree with the real drama queens.
Major case of projection going on by his accuser, MAJOR case ...... SOSDD
Thank you.
Nope, not me.
Thank you.
Deleted Skirting {SP}
2. No taunting or bullying
No, it's not. That would make it illogical.
And I will continue to pray for you.
Still no.
I asked for a list. Even a number would help. Since you are unable to provide either, then your statement is just BS!
Wrong! That's all you've been doing with each post. otherwise, you would actually answer questions or challenges posed and not get so defensive.
Clearly you don't understand what logical thought is.
In "Whose" mind ?
Indeed. It's quite evident too. And we're not the only ones who see it too.
I've watched "Star Trek" enough to know...."Logic" isn't what it's all cracked up to be.
You have every right to feel any way you personally choose.
Carry on.
Removed for context
Anyone capable of logical thought and analysis.
In other words, you dismiss logic because you don't understand it. Duly noted.
It's not about how I feel. it's about what is factually true. And others see it too!
Sure.
Glad you agree.
It would be like an atheist getting all butt hurt about the religious claiming they believe in God.
"Hey! Why do you keep denigrating my non-belief with your claims that there is a God? Why do you keep attacking non-believers by suggesting there is a God and telling them how your God wants them to behave? Why are you so mean?! Waaaah!"
Get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat. Why come to these boards and profess your own beliefs if you can't stand to hear anyone disagree with you?
The reality is atheists are used to it, we live in a world where the vast majority have some form of belief in God even if they can't explain why. We're used to being told we must be vile sinners who have no reason to act properly without an invisible deity watching us.
Sure as in I am sure that is what YOU believe.
belief doesn't equal fact.
I've made no mention of my beliefs.
I have never posted anything even REMOTELY close to that. I haven't seen on this comment thread where someone else has either.
Is that what I did ?
Was that your "Logical" opinion ?
"Logic"...."Opinion".... two words that don't seem to go together do they.
So...what is "Logic" in the realm of human existence when it comes to real life living matters, for that matter anyway.
Does opinion equal belief?
Your opinion is that I picked a fight.
I chose to say that means to me that you believe it.
Do you NOT believe that?
Whats wrong with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, are you trying to bash someone else's religious beliefs because they do not conform to your own idea about religion?
Do you have an issue with anyone denouncing the people who did and still do use religious beliefs to control, to harm and to kill others?
If that is what people believe in, I don't have a problem with it, as anyone who has read my posts can attest to.
When they use that term as a substitute for God, in an attempt to belittle others' beliefs, or call people bible-babblers, then, YES, I take offense.
How many times and in how many ways can I make this clear?
I DON'T CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE BELIEVE IN. I AM NOT RECRUITING ANYONE. I AM NOT TELLING ANYONE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN IS WRONG OR ILLOGICAL. I AM NOT CRITICISING ANYONE FOR HOW OR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT WHAT I BELIEVE IN IS RIGHT FOR ANYONE ELSE. IT WORKS FOR ME---PERIOD.
IS THAT REALLY SO HARD FOR SOME TO GRASP?
I am responsible for MY actions, thought, and postings--not others. If you have any objections to what others post or do, please take it up with THEM.
I am no more responsible for past or future actions of others than today's Democrats are responsible for Jim Crow laws in the South before the Civil Rights Bill was passed, or Republicans of today are responsible for Nixon's illegal activities.
Thank you.
apparently it is - same as it's hard for you to grasp that I DON'T CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE BELIEVE IN. I AM NOT RECRUITING ANYONE. I AM NOT TELLING ANYONE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN IS WRONG. I AM NOT CRITICIZING ANYONE FOR HOW OR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN. I am simply asking questions about how they arrived to their beliefs and their thought processes behind it etc.
"It is the demeaning and degrading of those that do believe in God. it is the silly name-calling like "Flying Spaghetti Monster" etc. that I take offense with."
"Your rather snarky comments have been duly noted."
"I suppose the difference is that I recognize my snarky comments (and yes, it was MEANT to be a little snarky), and you don't recognize your own comments "
"Why are we the petty ones when the usual crowd march in giving opinions? I believe in God!"
"As you can tell from some of the posts, some people have no respect for those who believe in God."
"When people can speak like decent human beings, I might feel like engaging them."
I do when they use those beliefs to control, harm and kill others as has happened throughout history and is still happening in the United States and the Middle East.
Various sects of the Christian religion are vying to be top dog in the US. Various sects of the Muslim religion are trying to annihilate one another in the Middle East.
Our Christian reps, in the US government, are selling high tech weapons to Saudi Arabia - the most oppressive Muslim controlled country in the world. Saudi Arabia is using US weapons to kill their Muslim rivals for power in the Middle East.
In reality, most conflicts revolve around men wanting more power and more money. Religion is just a useful tool to mobilize the zealots from pray to slay mode.
So by 'logic' you mean 'logic + human bias'? Probably should not label that 'logic' then.
Why not ?
"Tradition" does not make ones logic better than another's.
What possible difference could it make to you?
And the posts of mine that you quoted--I stand behind them 100%.
I never told anyone they were wrong or stupid to believe as they wish. I never told anyone they were doomed to hell if they diodn;t believe a certain way. I never told anyone to change their mind.
Well, that's all within your rights. Since I don't espouse those views you are disagreeing with, I am left wondering why you are addressing me on those issues that you seem to have with others.
And I never accused you of doing so.
I switched believer and non-believer positions for my example:
"Hey! Why do you keep denigrating my non-belief with your claims that there is a God? Why do you keep attacking non-believers by suggesting there is a God and telling them how your God wants them to behave? Why are you so mean?! Waaaah!"
So if switched back it would read:
"Hey! Why do you keep denigrating my belief with your claims that there is no God? Why do you keep attacking believers by suggesting there is no God and telling them how it doesn't matter how my God wants us to behave? Why are you so mean?! Waaaah!"
You see, I didn't accuse believers of telling others they "were doomed to hell" (though there are some who do), I pointed out how believers often say they feel they are under attack from non-believers for suggesting there is no God which is basically what you said:
"It is the demeaning and degrading of those that do believe in God. it is the silly name-calling like "Flying Spaghetti Monster" etc. that I take offense with."
The "Waaaah!" was added to demonstrate the tone I hear in many of those comments.
Because logic fails when infected with emotions.
It's not just my "opinion." but you can deny it all you want.
id I stutter?
I offered no opinion.
Considering your apparent lack of understanding about logic, you hardly seem qualified or capable of making such a determination.
Logic is a process of formal reasoning and based on rational thought. it ceases to be logic when emotion is introduced.
who said it made a difference ? who said it had to have a purpose ? i'm not allowed to be curious now ? should i ask for your permission first to be curious about something so you can make sure that there could be a "possible difference" made with my curiosity ?
it's amazing that you seem to be stating that you've never been curious about anything. Curiosity doesn't always make a "possible difference" to a person or about a subject, sometimes a person is just curious about something.
Sure thing. Just curious.
OOOOOOOkay.
i'm most certainly well aware of my motivations and reasons for my questions - certainly much better than you will ever be. can you point out to everyone any of my posts that are telling a person their beliefs are "stupid" or "wrong" or anything of that nature ? it'd be nice if you'd actually provide proof. i suppose if you can't - then you'd actually be wrong about my motivations and reasons for asking questions and that the reality does it exist that i just might be asking because i'm just curious.
now, is there anything else that i'm doing that you would like to complain and whine about or is it ok with you if i continue to just post and ask questions at my leisure ?
Do whatever you wish--by all means.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that anyone had stopped you from posting whatever it was you wanted to post.
Shame on them!
If something makes no difference to you, and doesn't have any purpose, what is the point of posting?
wait - it has to have a point all the time now too ? seriously ? does that mean every article has to have a point to ? what if there's no point - am i still allowed to post or will you still whine and complain about it ?
wow... there just seems to be some people out there who have to control everything others do and make sure there's an approved purpose and point to everything...
well you certainly seem to be trying to do so by trying to bully me into not posting and whining about my questions.
isn't it ironic that you are allowed to have your own personal reasons (that you won't explain, which is perfectly alright) for your religious beliefs and won't tell them to anyone (which is perfectly alright) but i'm not allowed to have my own personal reasons for asking questions and i simply have to have a sinister (supposedly) motive for asking questions ?
i would think that for someone who's very private with their own reasons for things - that they would be the first to respect someone else's privacy. Yes, i ask questions. Is anyone required to answer them ? No. And a few people have refused to answer them - which is perfectly fine. My reasons for asking these questions ? i'm curious. Have you ever been curious about anything ?
i agree - shame on them !
I didn't say it had to have a point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote.
I truly apologize if you feel I have bullied you. That was never my intention. If my asking you questions was the cause of it, I will immediately stop asking you anything. Maybe you can do the same for me.
Seems like we will both be happier if we not engage any further.
Agreed?
that's a good possibility, sometimes things aren't written as clearly as we think they are when we write them. It happens.
thank you. i appreciate that
if i was out of line or if you felt i was out of line - then i do apologize as well.
i don't necessarily agree with that - i think if we have a better understanding of viewpoints then we'd get along better (even if we disagree on certain topics). if you'll note - i won't ask you questions concerning your beliefs (i may have asked a couple previously) since you've stated that your beliefs are personal to you and you don't wish to discuss it (which is perfectly alright). But yes, i am curious about people who hold religious beliefs and how they came to have those beliefs etc.
Learning isn't a bad thing and i think it'd be a good thing to understand the viewpoints and thoughts of the religious so communication is more effective and common ground can be reached - this can't happen if there's the constant "i'm being attacked because you asked about my religious beliefs". I'm not trying to change anyone's beliefs or viewpoints or state that those beliefs are "stupid" or "wrong" or anything like that (the only time i have ever attacked the religious if when they use that religion as a weapon to attack others - example: same sex marriage), i am just genuinely curious as to how the religious came to hold their beliefs, their thought process, how they reconcile seemingly illogical things within their religion etc. It's not because i'm trying to make a difference or trying to have a purpose or sinister motive behind it - i'm literally just curious and i think learning from that curiosity would foster better communication and understanding (for most people anyway, there are some religious fanatics that i stay away from - they definitely scare me honestly)
but, bottom line, if you feel that it's better we don't engage any further - then let me know and i will respect your wishes and not engage you any further
I think that would be best--not engaging further.
Thank you.
Really appreciate you following up like that.
Seems they didn't listen when you asked them to stop, so I figured it was open season, despite what you wrote only to me earlier.
Unfortunately for you, it's still yes.
Nope but the truth does seem to hurt you more than most. You should work on that. Personal growth is a good thing.
Incidentally i'll allow you the last word here ..... since i know that sort of thing is important to you.
Enjoy!
I am wondering why I should not be addressing you on the issues that you raised that people who believe in Yahweh should be exempt from questions and ridicule.
Because it is absolutely none of your business what anyone else besides yourself believes?
I didn't do any of the things you complained about.
You are simply barking up the wrong tree.
Probabilistic Logic then ?
Nope, just simple fact. get back to me when you learn what logic is.
Which type of "Logic" are you looking for. There are so many to choose from.
I thought logic was made quite clear, by myself and TiG. like I said, when you learn what logic is, get back to me.
Well when you say that and this "the childish names--"bible babblers" and "Flying spaghetti monster", etc. should stop" Makes me think you do care and you do want to change their mind so they stop saying such things even though it is what their religion believes to Pastafarians GOD is the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you should respect that not be offended by it. That does not mean you cannot however engage them in a debate about their religion and how yours differs in an attempt to enlighten them on your beliefs.
Thoughts?
Okay.
You believe that it a real religion, and that the people who use that term( Interestingly enough, ONLY when speaking to someone who DOES believe in God).
meanwhile, I see it for what it really is---an insult and trying to make fun of what others believe ion.
You can pretend otherwise--that is your right.
If someone can not converse without the name-calling, I can certainly live without them.
Thoughts?
I DON'T DEBATE OTHERS ABOUT their RELIGION--THAT IS stupid. iT ISN;T ANY OF my BUSINESS WHAT OTHERS BELIEVE.
It is absolutely my businesses when anyone uses those religious beliefs as a basis to control and harm others.
I wouldn't have asked if you were actually "Clear".
Consistent Logic is not practical in normal life. We all aren't some higher up in some office, dictating what WILL BE Logical. Even illogical arguments use logically sounding statements. Like I've said....C3PO's we aren't....meaning You, or anyone else here for that matter. Regurgitation of what we have read or heard is the norm.
True. One example is the indoctrination into the religious beliefs of our parents.
If your parents were Mormon, then you would have been raised believing that Joseph Smith spoke face-to-face with Yahweh. If your parents were Baptists, you would be taught that Joseph Smith had not spoken face-to-face with Yahweh. Most likely, you would have been taught that Christian sects outside of your own were "false" or even cults.
What I believe was not mentioned it is what they believe and your contradictory comments that you do not care what they believe yet you clearly do.
Pastafarians, Scientologists, Christians, Muslims, Jewish..etc all believe what they believe, and they all have a different way of expressing it.
Just because you do not like that one God is called Allah the other is called Flying Spaghetti monster and another is Xenu does not change the fact that yes you are offended by their beliefs because it is disparaging your Yahweh in some form or another and you want them to stop, and in them stopping they would have to accept that God (your God) is the one and true god and call him as such.
So once again you do want to change their beliefs and you do care. The passive aggressive nature in which you are doing it on the other had is a different discussion.
"Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. "
Marcus Aurelius
I can't make it any clearer than I already have. At this point, your lack of understanding is on you.
it is a reasonable expectation in any discussion or argument, or other intellectual inquiry and exercise.
It is what is, not what will be.
Anyone versed in logic may be able to pick up on that too and call it out.
C3PO was quite emotional for a droid. I wouldn't use him as an example of logic.
That doesn't automatically make what is regurgitated logical. Especially if it's based on nothing more than belief or emotional appeal.
Had a thought, the way you (Texan) feel about Pastafarians god or Scientologists aliens and the organizations as a religion is probably pretty close to the way Atheists feel about your God and every other God or religion out there.
You and they are not so far apart, you just got stuck one more "God" then they (Atheists) did.
They may feel just as offended when you mention God as you feel when the Flying Spaghetti Monster is mentioned and yea, they probably want it to also stop.
Of course not, people make mistakes. But you seem to be dismissing logic itself - as if making a logically sound argument is not a good thing. As if a circular or contradictory or unsound argument is okay and should be accepted because ... after all ... we are all human and perfect logic is impractical.
Humans are imperfect.
Humans dictate what is logical.
Thus Logic must be imperfect.
Your second premise is unsupported. You would have to prove that logic itself is imperfect. For example, prove modus ponens itself wrong or faulty. Do that and I predict you will be famous.
Whose standards are you going by to come to your Logical Conclusions ?
I ask you....
Who decides what is logical ?
God ?
Humans ?
Some other entity ?
There are so many Logical "Types" as dictated by Humans, after all. So back to my same premise.....Humans ARE "Imperfect" !
Am I wrong that Humans are Imperfect ?
When you understand what logic actually is, then you will see it is not based on "individual standards."
Logic is based on "MANY" differing standards, as set by "MANY" different individual Human ideas !
No, it's not. Once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of logic.
What the what?
Yes it is !
Which Perfect human are you basing your Opinionated Logic on again ?
I do not think it is possible to explain or even reason with someone who is claiming that logic itself is flawed. That probably is the most absurd position one can take, right? Implicitly this would mean that all formal systems are flawed since all are founded in logic. For example, arithmetic is flawed and should not be trusted.
Run away ... this will scar your brain tissue Gordy.
I know.....It's hard ain't it.
I NEVER said anything of the sort !
I Proposed that Logic can be "Imperfect" !
All I proposed is that there "MUST" be flaws in logic, basing that "Logical" conclusion on the "FACT" that Humans are Imperfect and Humans are the one's that propose to us what is "Logical" !
if that "Offended" you....so be it !
The stupid . . . it burns!
True, you wrote it:
I never said anything about "Trust"....did I.
Even "Your" logic has imperfections.
No, it's illogical.
Then don't do that....logically speaking that is.
"Humans do have an amazing capacity for believing what they choose, and excluding that which is painful."
- Spock
We should all back away from our computers....now...slowly....
... and get out the antiseptic spray so you do not catch any of it.
Well, we did try.
Absolutely.
"Logic" is dependent on individual and subjectively determined parameters. In other words, logic is not really logical, but rather logic is illogical in nature.
I'm reminded of