Show Me Evidence That Man Was Ever "Fixed"

Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Show Me Evidence That Man Was Ever "Fixed"

Christians assert that morality can only come from God and one quote that comes to mind comes from my theistic scientist friend who said, "The human race is both marvelous and broken at the same time". Now my friend wasn't a YEC er, but he wasn't a liberal Christian either, so it leads me to question this "broken" state of man. If something is "broken" then there had to have been a time in which it was "fixed". YEC ers point to the Garden of Eden, yet we all know they can't produce evidence of Adam and Eve or even a good fix on where the G of E was. What do theistic evolutionists point to as man's "fixed" state? Are they talking about a future state of man after Christ returns? Is it a state of spirit that doesn't exist on the material level? What evidence is there of a "fixed" state that man would've had to be in before he became "broken?"

 

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Here's the garden of Eden

Here's the garden of Eden story in a nutshell: God creates man. Man fails god. God gets emo and breaks man.

The obvious question is, if god created man as perfect then how is it possible that man fucked up with the whole forbidden fruit thing and deserved getting broken? If I build some kind of automatic lawnmower and it ends up shredding the neighbor's cat, I'm obviously the guy to blame, not the lawnmower. Quite obviously man's failure in the garden was really god's failure.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10360
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Manageri wrote:Here's the

Manageri wrote:
Here's the garden of Eden story in a nutshell: God creates man. Man fails god. God gets emo and breaks man.

Lmao. Well put.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Nice replies, but still

 Nice replies, but still doesn't answer my question. I was hoping for response from the more liberal sects of Christianity who interpret Genesis metaphorically. I posted this on CARM and the Christians have ignored it. Surprised?

Emo is a good way to describe it. All of the pictures of Christ on the cross that I've seen look pretty emo to me. He's thin, he puts himself in the position of torture, has things sticking in and out of him..yeah, sounds emo to me.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm not a Christian -but I understand it

Marty Hamrick wrote:

 Nice replies, but still doesn't answer my question. I was hoping for response from the more liberal sects of Christianity who interpret Genesis metaphorically. I posted this on CARM and the Christians have ignored it. Surprised?

Emo is a good way to describe it. All of the pictures of Christ on the cross that I've seen look pretty emo to me. He's thin, he puts himself in the position of torture, has things sticking in and out of him..yeah, sounds emo to me.

What you need to know is-What's considered Christianity in the world really, isn't. What you are making judgement  on is Europeanism. Christianity became extinct before 100 AD at which time it was taken over by authoritarians, that is, floks that wanted to be followed rather then have Christian followers to follow an ideal. There's been no real Christians since. If you are judging Europeanism you're making a good and proper judgement.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Marty Hamrick wrote:If

Marty Hamrick wrote:

If something is "broken" then there had to have been a time in which it was "fixed".

Hmmm.   Interesting question.   But maybe you're getting stuck on the word broken.

I never heard anyone call humanity "broken" growing up in religion.  Just that it fell short of the glory of god.

So if humanity has never reached the level of deserving the glory of god, then there was no time in the past that humanity ever did.  Both Adam and Eve failed from the getgo.

Which is the entire reason for the sacrifice of Jesus.

But anyway, this will completely differ depending on every single, MFing, christian you ask.   It's damn hard to find two christians that agree on many details of christianity.   Just the basics usually.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You need to understand the difference

Manageri wrote:
Here's the garden of Eden story in a nutshell: God creates man. Man fails god. God gets emo and breaks man. The obvious question is, if god created man as perfect then how is it possible that man fucked up with the whole forbidden fruit thing and deserved getting broken? If I build some kind of automatic lawnmower and it ends up shredding the neighbor's cat, I'm obviously the guy to blame, not the lawnmower. Quite obviously man's failure in the garden was really god's failure.

of man and/or animal. Perfect man is one who subscribes to being human (humane) only, and sets aside the animal traits of which all have. To incorporate the two together you have broken man. A broken one is not man. Man must be considered within the context of humane=human=man. The three must go together, remove one and you are animal. Take into account that the entire concept of people is a case of man vs animal. Each is a state of being. If all subscribe to a man and animal concept as one then you have the world that is present. If you invent your mower as you have the difference is---did you invent it to specifically grind up the cat or to mow your lawn. If you did so to mow your lawn then grinding up the cat may be on accounts of your actions but not intentions. The animal is the one that intentionally sets circumstances in motion to deliberately do harm. If you intentionally built the lawn mower to grind up the cat and then changes your "mind" you cognitively opted to be/remain humane/human/man.

   So, who's failure is it in the garden. If man is made one way and then opted to become the other--can the creator be held at fault, as one of the precepts of man is to have free will to decide or choose.

For one to be human is a free choice provided one is aware that one has the knowing to make that choice. And to make the choice one needs to know the differences.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Perfect man

Old Seer wrote:

Perfect man is one who subscribes to being human (humane) only, and sets aside the animal traits of which all have. To incorporate the two together you have broken man.

Well there goes me out with the bathwater.   I delight in reveling in my primal, animal qualities.

I even refer to my beard as my face fur.  And I love playing in dirt and hooting.  

It's a hobby (don't judge me).

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Since Kap hasn't been around

Watcher wrote:

It's a hobby (don't judge me).

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Perfect man

Old Seer wrote:
Perfect man is one who subscribes to being human (humane) only, and sets aside the animal traits of which all have. To incorporate the two together you have broken man. A broken one is not man. Man must be considered within the context of humane=human=man. The three must go together, remove one and you are animal. Take into account that the entire concept of people is a case of man vs animal. Each is a state of being. If all subscribe to a man and animal concept as one then you have the world that is present.

Please tell me you at least believe in evolution and know that people actually are animals? I'm not sure I'll have the will to continue talking to someone who's basic knowledge of reality is comparable to thinking the moon is made out of cheese.

I'd also like to know exactly which traits you think belong to animals and which belong to humans, as I'm fairly certain any realistic list of good traits that only humans have is nowhere near the corresponding list of disgusting shit that only humans are capable of. In fact I'm not sure there's anything in the first category.

Quote:
If you invent your mower as you have the difference is---did you invent it to specifically grind up the cat or to mow your lawn. If you did so to mow your lawn then grinding up the cat may be on accounts of your actions but not intentions. The animal is the one that intentionally sets circumstances in motion to deliberately do harm.

Animals are the ones that deliberately harm others? Are you serious? Deliberate assholery is pretty much the central tenet of humanity. I doubt more than a fraction of sentient animals even have the capacity to contemplate inflicting suffering on something else.

Quote:
So, who's failure is it in the garden. If man is made one way and then opted to become the other

Correction: Man was made with the option of staying the way he was, or changing to what he became. Kinda like if I build a TV that has the ability to turn into a nuclear bomb and instantly detonate at any random point in time, my "but it was a TV at first!" defense in court is gonna be taken seriously by approximately 0% of the population.

Quote:
--can the creator be held at fault, as one of the precepts of man is to have free will to decide or choose.
For one to be human is a free choice provided one is aware that one has the knowing to make that choice. And to make the choice one needs to know the differences.

Except that we don't have free will, and even if we did, the Eden story is still retarded because Eve didn't have knowledge of what is right before she bit the fruit, so in what sense is it just of god to punish her for something that she, according to the friggin story itself, could not possibly know was wrong?

The fact man hypothetically had free will doesn't free god from the responsibility anyway. If I leave a kid alone with a known child molestor, the "fact" he has free will to rape or not rape the child doesn't mean what I did was totally fine, I'm still an asshole.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Message deleted by The Theist

Message deleted by The Theist


 


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Except that

Manageri wrote:
Except that we don't have free will, and even if we did, the Eden story is still retarded because Eve didn't have knowledge of what is right before she bit the fruit, so in what sense is it just of god to punish her for something that she, according to the friggin story itself, could not possibly know was wrong?

Genesis 3:1-3 Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it began to say to the woman: "Is it really so that God said you must not eat from every tree of the garden?" At this the woman said to the serpent: "Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it that you do not die.'"
 

The Theist Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: What The Bible Says About Freewill and Do Humans Have Freewill?


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Manageri

Old Seer wrote:

Manageri wrote:
Here's the garden of Eden story in a nutshell: God creates man. Man fails god. God gets emo and breaks man. The obvious question is, if god created man as perfect then how is it possible that man fucked up with the whole forbidden fruit thing and deserved getting broken? If I build some kind of automatic lawnmower and it ends up shredding the neighbor's cat, I'm obviously the guy to blame, not the lawnmower. Quite obviously man's failure in the garden was really god's failure.

of man and/or animal. Perfect man is one who subscribes to being human (humane) only, and sets aside the animal traits of which all have. To incorporate the two together you have broken man. A broken one is not man. Man must be considered within the context of humane=human=man. The three must go together, remove one and you are animal. Take into account that the entire concept of people is a case of man vs animal. Each is a state of being. If all subscribe to a man and animal concept as one then you have the world that is present. If you invent your mower as you have the difference is---did you invent it to specifically grind up the cat or to mow your lawn. If you did so to mow your lawn then grinding up the cat may be on accounts of your actions but not intentions. The animal is the one that intentionally sets circumstances in motion to deliberately do harm. If you intentionally built the lawn mower to grind up the cat and then changes your "mind" you cognitively opted to be/remain humane/human/man.

   So, who's failure is it in the garden. If man is made one way and then opted to become the other--can the creator be held at fault, as one of the precepts of man is to have free will to decide or choose.

For one to be human is a free choice provided one is aware that one has the knowing to make that choice. And to make the choice one needs to know the differences.

 

Animals very rarely set out to cause harm, and few animals are intelligent enough to even consider that they intentionally set circumstances in motion to cause harm. The vast majority of animals are reactive not proactive. An animal causes harm for a few basic reasons, it is hungry (in which case anything that eats meat causes some harm), it feels threatened, it is protecting its territory or it has been surprised. This is why you can generally walk through bear country and have a very small chance of being attacked if you take basic precautions. Bears don't rove around looking for things to kill for the sake of killing. Interestingly, the animals that show the highest likelihood of killing for entertainment are domesticated dogs and cats, probably because their dietary needs are met without hunting but they still have predatory instincts. Highly aggressive animals that kill randomly have been recorded but those actions are rare enough that they can be considered abnormal, just like serial killing among humans is abnormal. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Genesis

The Theist wrote:
Genesis 3:1-3
Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it began to say to the woman: "Is it really so that God said you must not eat from every tree of the garden?" At this the woman said to the serpent: "Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it that you do not die.

Which didn't happen, meaning God lied. According to the story it's the fruit from the tree of life that controls whether they live forever, not the tree of knowledge. God said you will die if you eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and instead he cursed them to live in shit and suffer. All for something they did before they knew anything about good and evil. And all of this could have been prevented by god building a friggin fence around the tree or whatever.

The most amazing thing about the bible to me, right after the fact people with more intelligence than a 7 year old take any of it seriously of course, is how massive an asshole, idiot and utterly incompetent fuck up the authors managed to make their god.

Quote:
The Theist Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: What The Bible Says About Freewill and Do Humans Have Freewill?

I really couldn't care less what people interpret the bible to say about free will.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Which didn't

Manageri wrote:
Which didn't happen, meaning God lied. According to the story it's the fruit from the tree of life that controls whether they live forever, not the tree of knowledge. God said you will die if you eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and instead he cursed them to live in shit and suffer. All for something they did before they knew anything about good and evil. And all of this could have been prevented by god building a friggin fence around the tree or whatever. The most amazing thing about the bible to me, right after the fact people with more intelligence than a 7 year old take any of it seriously of course, is how massive an asshole, idiot and utterly incompetent fuck up the authors managed to make their god.

There are many a 7 year old that could correct your interpretation.

1. It did happen. Eve died. Had she not taken from the tree, she wouldn't of. There is something lost in the translation; the Hebrew literally says 'in dieing you will die.' In other words, she began the slow process of death at that time. 

2. The fruit had no special qualities. It wasn't the fruit that controlled their life or death, it was Jehovah. Notice that Eve said they would die even by only touching the tree. The tree was only a representation of Jehovah's sovereignty, a sort of reminder as well as a symbol of their respect. Did they know what was going on? They undoubtedly did. The knowledge wasn't knowledge as such, it was an intimate acquaintance. The Jerusalem Bible put it best: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride."

God had no intimate knowledge of what it was like to do bad, no knowledge of bad. He wasn't withholding any knowledge from them regarding good. The knowledge was the deciding for themselves, the rejection of God's guidance and so his protection. So the curse isn't necessarily a punishment as it is a pronouncement.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Ah yes, the loving god

 Yeah, I think we can learn solid parenting advice from god. When your children don't listen to you, kill them slowly, after all you created the little bastards so whatever you decide to do to them is morally right. 

 

I'd sure hate to see what god would be like if he did have intimate knowledge of what it is like to do bad. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Ra, Ra, Ra!

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Yeah, I think we can learn solid parenting advice from god. When your children don't listen to you, kill them slowly, after all you created the little bastards so whatever you decide to do to them is morally right.

I'd sure hate to see what god would be like if he did have intimate knowledge of what it is like to do bad. 

Its a common sentiment of atheists, but you have to ask yourself, who chose it? The parental reference was an astute though misapplied analogy. Consider the Hebrew word ra, which can be translated, among other things, as bad, evil, or calamity.

The parent tells the child not to play in the road and warns the child what might happen if they do. What could happen is bad (ra), but the child may see this as oppressive and play in the street anyway. The child could suffer some calamity (ra) and even death, or get caught by the parent and punished.  To the child the punishment is bad (ra) and to the parent it is justice through calamity (ra). That is what is meant when the Bible says God created evil (ra).

Everlasting life in paradise is like a house a father gives his son with the stipulation that he respect his father's wishes and take good care of the house by following some obviously important rules, but the son doesn't do this so the house is in disrepair, and would be destroyed if the father didn't remove the son and give the house to another that would take proper care of it.  

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:The parent

The Theist wrote:

The parent tells the child not to play in the road and warns the child what might happen if they do. What could happen is bad (ra), but the child may see this as oppressive and play in the street anyway. The child could suffer some calamity (ra) and even death, or get caught by the parent and punished.  To the child the punishment is bad (ra) and to the parent it is justice through calamity (ra). That is what is meant when the Bible says God created evil (ra).

Everlasting life in paradise is like a house a father gives his son with the stipulation that he respect his father's wishes and take good care of the house by following some obviously important rules, but the son doesn't do this so the house is in disrepair, and would be destroyed if the father didn't remove the son and give the house to another that would take proper care of it.  

Bull.   God supposedly created every aspect of reality.   Anything that can cause harm or suffering was created to be possible by god.    The buck stops with him in that retarded mythology.

All the weak deflections by theists trying to deny this fact or doing some mental gymnastics that all the bad shit being caused by Satan or wicked humans is just that, weak.

An almighty, all powerful, all knowing, all loving god could and would easily create a reality where suffering just isn't an option by design or accident by lesser beings.

Using an analogy about a father giving his son a house and the house going into disrepair or destroyed if certain things aren't done utterly fails all logical rationalization if the father created the very possibility in reality that the house will go into disrepair or be destroyed if certain things aren't done.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Bull.   God

Watcher wrote:
Bull.   God supposedly created every aspect of reality.   Anything that can cause harm or suffering was created to be possible by god.    The buck stops with him in that retarded mythology.

I think that the mythology as you see it is retarded, but it doesn't match with what the original authors wrote. Look at the facts in response to your statement above. God created the earth and man to live forever upon it. There were very little rules. Fill the Earth. Subdue it. Don't touch this tree or you will die.

Watcher wrote:
All the weak deflections by theists trying to deny this fact or doing some mental gymnastics that all the bad shit being caused by Satan or wicked humans is just that, weak.

If you remove your misconceptions, probably poorly developed by the theists themselves, and not accurate when compared to the Bible, it isn't so much my mental gymnastics you object to, its your own interpretation.

Watcher wrote:
An almighty, all powerful, all knowing, all loving god could and would easily create a reality where suffering just isn't an option by design or accident by lesser beings.

What do you mean by almighty, all powerful, all knowing? Are these assumptions you have made on your own? Preconceived notions from a mortal man on the nature of a mythological deity created by other men? Or are they coming from the aforementioned uninformed theists, themselves heavily influenced by pagan mythology? What does the Bible actually say about God's omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscient nature?

Is he omnipresent? No. His position is fixed in heaven. Is he omnipotent? No. He can't lie. Is he omniscient? No. He sent angels to see if the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were as bad as reported. He asked Adam and Cain what they had done.

God can do whatever he wills, so long as it isn't contrary to his own standards; get to know a thing, see a thing accomplished and be wherever he will to be. 

Watcher wrote:
Using an analogy about a father giving his son a house and the house going into disrepair or destroyed if certain things aren't done utterly fails all logical rationalization if the father created the very possibility in reality that the house will go into disrepair or be destroyed if certain things aren't done.

Ah, but you see, he didn't. Man did and man continues to do so.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Beyond

The Theist wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Yeah, I think we can learn solid parenting advice from god. When your children don't listen to you, kill them slowly, after all you created the little bastards so whatever you decide to do to them is morally right.

I'd sure hate to see what god would be like if he did have intimate knowledge of what it is like to do bad. 

Its a common sentiment of atheists, but you have to ask yourself, who chose it? The parental reference was an astute though misapplied analogy. Consider the Hebrew word ra, which can be translated, among other things, as bad, evil, or calamity.

The parent tells the child not to play in the road and warns the child what might happen if they do. What could happen is bad (ra), but the child may see this as oppressive and play in the street anyway. The child could suffer some calamity (ra) and even death, or get caught by the parent and punished.  To the child the punishment is bad (ra) and to the parent it is justice through calamity (ra). That is what is meant when the Bible says God created evil (ra).

Everlasting life in paradise is like a house a father gives his son with the stipulation that he respect his father's wishes and take good care of the house by following some obviously important rules, but the son doesn't do this so the house is in disrepair, and would be destroyed if the father didn't remove the son and give the house to another that would take proper care of it.  

 

I live alone, so I tend to be pretty relaxed about leaving dangerous things around like my guns, knives, rat poison and other things that could potentially kill a kid. From time to time, a niece or nephew comes to visit me. When they do I put away everything dangerous and lock it up so that the kids can't get it. While I would hope that they would listen to my instructions, I know kids don't always listen so I can foresee the possibility of them messing around and getting seriously hurt. If one of the kids did shoot themselves, I wouldn't blame the kid. Also, it would not occur to me to punish all of the kids descendants for millenia, nor to conspire to have my own kid magically for the purposes of being brutally tortured... you xtians really are sick twisted fucks. 

One would think that an omnipotent, all knowing, super being would be capable of having the foresight of a mere mortal like myself. Then again, he also wasn't capable of developing a decent air conditioning system, something I can guarantee will be included when capitalists figure out how to build an entire planet. Guess humans are simply superior to god, maybe that's why he is so vain and insecure because he knows it. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Theist

" but it doesn't match with what the original authors wrote"-Theist

You've mentioned before these original authors and original text. Who and which text, and what proof do you have of their authenticity?

Are you just referring to pre-translated hebrew text? 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Also, it

Beyond Saving wrote:
Also, it would not occur to me to punish all of the kids descendants for millenia, nor to conspire to have my own kid magically for the purposes of being brutally tortured... you xtians really are sick twisted fucks.

We are all sick twisted fucks.

Have you ever seen any of those pastoral images of Jesus or David or some other shepherd carrying a little lamb, either over their shoulders or otherwise? Do you know why they did that? Because the shepherd would break the little lamb's leg in order to keep it from wandering off again. To protect it from the lion or the wolf. Then they would carry it until the leg had healed and it had grown out of wandering off.

Also, you may have seen paintings of Adam and Eve with lions and wolves and lambs, each having no fear of harm from each other. And later, in Paradise Earth after sin is removed the child playing on the nest of the cobra or the lamb laying down with the lion. 

Earth was given to man under certain conditions. All of the ugliness you see around you is a product of man's attempt to decide for themselves what is good and what is bad. How bad does it have to get?

Beyond Saving wrote:
Then again, he also wasn't capable of developing a decent air conditioning system, something I can guarantee will be included when capitalists figure out how to build an entire planet. Guess humans are simply superior to god, maybe that's why he is so vain and insecure because he knows it.

Have, uh . . . have you ever heard of the water canopy? Then there are wasps . . . that's where we got the idea.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Message deleted by The Theist

Message deleted by The Theist


 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:One

Beyond Saving wrote:

One would think that an omnipotent, all knowing, super being would be capable of having the foresight of a mere mortal like myself. Then again, he also wasn't capable of developing a decent air conditioning system, something I can guarantee will be included when capitalists figure out how to build an entire planet. Guess humans are simply superior to god, maybe that's why he is so vain and insecure because he knows it. 

Apropos conversations with Harley and Ex-Min, I rode motorcycles in High School because we were a struggling middle-class family with three kids and not enough money for three cars for three kids.

My last semester in college, Mom insists Dad gives me his VW Rabbit, because they moved 50 miles away and I'm still riding motorcycles.  The car is a car, but it is is a =car=, and the worst day on a motorcycle is better than the best day in any car that isn't a Corvette.

The Garden of Eden is a Volvo.  The Apple is a motorcycle.

You choose.  I chose the motorcycle because I'd never =want= to own a Volvo.

Sin is merely the ability to choose, and I choose the ability to choose.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:There are

The Theist wrote:

There are many a 7 year old that could correct your interpretation.

1. It did happen. Eve died. Had she not taken from the tree, she wouldn't of. There is something lost in the translation; the Hebrew literally says 'in dieing you will die.' In other words, she began the slow process of death at that time. 

That's your interpretation, it doesn't actually mean anything. It's no different from saying in swimming you will swim or any other word you wanna put together twice and then claim that makes it mean something different.

Quote:

2. The fruit had no special qualities. It wasn't the fruit that controlled their life or death, it was Jehovah.

Says you.

Quote:
Notice that Eve said they would die even by only touching the tree. The tree was only a representation of Jehovah's sovereignty, a sort of reminder as well as a symbol of their respect.

Right, kinda like when I was a kid my parents would leave an exposed wire into my room with lethal voltage, and warn me not to touch it "lest I die" because they needed to teach me respect. No wait, they actually didn't, because they're not sociopathic imbeciles.

As for dying from touching the tree, it seems god is completely unaware of the fact they even ate the fruit until they start dressing themselves and all that stuff, which they only did because they gained that knowledge from the fruit. Unless the tree also had magical insight giving bark, there's no support for claiming touching the tree would have had the same outcome.

Quote:
Did they know what was going on? They undoubtedly did. The knowledge wasn't knowledge as such, it was an intimate acquaintance. The Jerusalem Bible put it best: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride."

That's a really cool rationalization, too bad nothing in the story supports it. If Adam and Eve already had "moral discrimination", then why is it they suddenly became uncomfortable with being naked right after eating the fruit? Did they just instantly make up that rule on their own on the spot with their newfound "moral independence"?

Ain't it funny how the book supposedly written by a perfect being (or written by men directed by him or whatever you happen to believe) needs to be reinterpreted on pretty much everything it says to make any sense whatsoever?

Quote:
God had no intimate knowledge of what it was like to do bad, no knowledge of bad. He wasn't withholding any knowledge from them regarding good. The knowledge was the deciding for themselves, the rejection of God's guidance and so his protection. So the curse isn't necessarily a punishment as it is a pronouncement.

What? Are you saying eating the fruit wasn't actually bad, they deserved all that shit just because they disobeyed god?


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Beyond

The Theist wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Then again, he also wasn't capable of developing a decent air conditioning system, something I can guarantee will be included when capitalists figure out how to build an entire planet. Guess humans are simply superior to god, maybe that's why he is so vain and insecure because he knows it.

Have, uh . . . have you ever heard of the water canopy? Then there are wasps . . . that's where we got the idea.

Have, uh . . . have you been outside recently? Obviously, the big G's air conditioning system is faulty while the one in my house works fine hence why I am wasting my time fucking with you instead of doing something outside.  

Wasps? Really? Michael Faraday saw wasps fanning their nest and came to the conclusion that he should try compressing ammonia and allowing it to evaporate to create a cooling effect? (which became the basis of a variety of compression systems which ultimately led to modern air conditioning)  Seems like a pretty big leap to me, but I will admit Faraday was a far smarter man than I will ever be. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:I think

The Theist wrote:

I think that the mythology as you see it is retarded, but it doesn't match with what the original authors wrote. Look at the facts in response to your statement above. God created the earth and man to live forever upon it. There were very little rules. Fill the Earth. Subdue it. Don't touch this tree or you will die.

Well keep this original story a secret so we can't deconstruct it in your face.   Good defense you have there.   I would hide it too around us.

The Theist wrote:

If you remove your misconceptions, probably poorly developed by the theists themselves, and not accurate when compared to the Bible, it isn't so much my mental gymnastics you object to, its your own interpretation.

No.   It was the interpretation of protestant christianity.  Not mine.   And until you provide some "purer" word of god the sin is on you for not spreading it to us damned souls.

 

The Theist wrote:

What do you mean by almighty, all powerful, all knowing? Are these assumptions you have made on your own?

Again, no.   I didn't sit around and make all this shit up.   Protestant Christianity.   They make the claim that god is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, etc.

This is why I quit talking to retarded theists like you.   You can't get two of them to agree on anything other than very basic concepts of religion.    I'd rather be wrestling eels.   I can't learn 3 billion different interpretations of religion just so I can shit all over them.

Whatever compartmentalized little story you have twisted into a mental pretzel so you can still somehow believe in it while convincing yourself you're not a complete dumbass is fine.

I'm not going to humor you though.   Go find someone else to spew psychological rationalized diahrea on.

The Theist wrote:

Ah, but you see, he didn't. Man did and man continues to do so.

Clear as mud.   You contribute nothing to my understanding of reality.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Is he

The Theist wrote:

Is he omnipresent? No. His position is fixed in heaven. Is he omnipotent? No. He can't lie. Is he omniscient? No. He sent angels to see if the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were as bad as reported. He asked Adam and Cain what they had done.

 

Ah, if god/s/dess is not all powerful, all knowing, all present, why bother with him/her/it/them at all?  - very roughly paraphrased from Epicurus.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:The Theist wrote:Is

cj wrote:

The Theist wrote:

Is he omnipresent? No. His position is fixed in heaven. Is he omnipotent? No. He can't lie. Is he omniscient? No. He sent angels to see if the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were as bad as reported. He asked Adam and Cain what they had done.

 

Ah, if god/s/dess is not all powerful, all knowing, all present, why bother with him/her/it/them at all?  - very roughly paraphrased from Epicurus.

Hey CJ ! It's good to see you back. Where have you been ? 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Hey CJ

harleysportster wrote:

Hey CJ ! It's good to see you back. Where have you been ? 

 

Full time job, full time school, 61 years old - where the hell do you think I've been?  The job was only a 6 month contract, so I am out of work again, and classes are over, so I am not studying.  Dealing with unemployment and job hunting and all, and I am beginning to feel a little bored.  So here I am.

Hiya!

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.