Question about the 1st and 2nd chapters in Genesis

jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Question about the 1st and 2nd chapters in Genesis

I had a question about Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them"

and Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being"    

and Genesis 2: 22 "Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man"

 

 

          

           So my question is essentially the following, how is one to make sense of the fact that in chapter 1 it appears to say that God created man and woman at the same time, whereas, in chapter 2 it explicitly says that they were created separately? Is there an explanation to this odd change from chapter 1 to chapter 2?  
 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
According to some the second

According to some the second genesis story expands upon the first chapter. I always had a problem with the presence of two creation stories, until I thought about it and this seems most plausible. There has even been rumors that adam had 2 wives eve and someone named lilith. I don't really buy into the genesis account of creation but it makes a nice allegory I guess.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Calvinist apologetics assert

Calvinist apologetics assert that the first 'men and women' created were more like creatures, but since god specifically 'breathed life' into the man made from 'dust' then he had a soul and was part of the 'elect' given free will and the chance for redemption. The first 'men and women' were the creations that god had repented of later in Gen 6:6 prompting the flood to destroy all the evil on the earth including the fact that god himself had cursed the earth not to grow by virtue of his curse on Cain. The flood was also a baptism for the earth so it would grow again.

Incidentally, this very contradiction is also the answer to the other question of 'Where did Cain get a wife?' He took his wife from the soulless men and women in Gen 1.

 

Ya gotta love these freaks. There's a rationalization for everything.

BTW, asking 'Why did god create man in the first place?' is answered with the old standby 'Because he loves us.' lol.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
First creation is by

First creation is by "GOD"

Second account is by "Lord God"

I have seen this pattern quite a bit in the bible....does anyone have an explanation to the difference between 'god' and 'lord god'?

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Simple. It's bad fiction.If

Simple. It's bad fiction.

If it was written today, no publisher would touch it. If it was published the critics would rip it to shreds.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Short answer...

The word translated as "God" is a different word from that translated as "Lord God."   (Sorry, I forget which off of the top of my head.)  Anyway, what you have come across is one of the early issues in biblical criticism--this is one of the ways in which we know that more than one person "wrote" the material in Genesis.  From there, as a *highly* general introduction, you can get into issues of the traditions behind the texts, the JEPD theory, etc.

 

Conor

__________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


Rocas511
Scientist
Rocas511's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
The two creation stories are

The two creation stories are of different origins.  The first is called the "priestly" tradition while the second is the "yahwey" tradition.  They differ on several points including the order and means of creation.  Does this pose a problem to litteral belief in the bilble?  To rational thinking people is certainly does.  but few such people are disposed toward litteral belief in the bible.

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

-James Madison-


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the replies so

Thanks for the replies so far everyone. I'm not gonna give this up. I am gonna ask as many people who are familiar with the bible that I can. If I hear anything noteworthy I'll post it.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Pass the Crayons...

I think the problem in interpretation of the bible lies in our natural tendency to read meaning into things that inherantly have none.

The Bible as a whole, and the first two chapters of Genesis in particular are pretty simplistic. While we may want to add complex layers of allagorical or metaphorical meaning, it is what it is, the simplistic explanation of a group of bronze age barbarians to the question of origins.

 

You can almost see Abdul the Goatherder patiently trying to answer a small childs question...

Child: How do we know what to call the animals, daddy?

Dad: Adam named them for us.

Child:Where did Adam come from?

Dad:God did it.

Child: Why do we go hungry? Why did uncle Moshe fall off the cliff? Why did those mean men burn our homes and take my sister?

Dad: It's your mother's fault....

 

LC >;-}>

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
And since we're pointing out

And since we're pointing out contradictions... at what point, when god made "man" and "woman", is there mention of those being born w/ the sex organs of both male and female ?  (I should paraphrase that w/ more or less fully functioning organs). 

Since some of us want to attribute our human origin to a grand designer and such...

ObGyn:  "We have some bad news regarding your little bundle of joy I'm afraid.  We can either amputate or excavate, but you're going to have to choose between Betty or Buddy cause the good lord can't abide with monsters roaming the countryside now can he"?  (monster, just a friendly xtian euphemism, for anyone happening to be intersex, m'ah apologies).

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Genesis Duplication

As pointed out Genesis contains multiple threads of several stories. These are the priestly sources and the J sources among others. In his book, "Who wrote the Bible" Elliot Friedman analyzes the Bible suggesting his views on the subject. It may be helpful in answering your question. After one grasps the Bible is an edited compilation of various authors one can see it's merit as even a history is marginal at best. The best one can do is realize Judah and Israel did exist, there were various kings and struggles, some may be true, some may be myths, and much is likely fiction.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
The question of Genesis 1

The question of Genesis 1 and 2 falls into a greater category of the literary genre of Genesis chapters 1-11. Many have made the observation that Genesis 1-11 is dealing with primeval history whereas Gen. 12-50 describes the history of the formation of Israel.

If you compare the material in ch. 1 and 2 they parallel other Ancient Near Eastern writings but are radically different in content ie. monotheism versus polytheism.

As to the differences between them, if you look at the framework hypotheses you can see that chapter is dealing with origins of spaces and filling of those spaces like the sea, and sea creatures which fill the sea. The verses of chapter one form parallel columns to each other in this case. Chapter 2 is a zooming in on the event of the creation of human beings and describing their functions. ANE creation accounts were concerned with functions and roles rather than our modern day concern with material sources. That is why Gen. 1-11 is viewed as theological history. It teaches foundational concepts for the Judeao-Christian worldview.

 

[Mod Edit: K.I.S.S]


Snes737
Posts: 10
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
The answer is very easy

The answer is very easy actually.  If you look at verse 4 of chapter 2, it clearly states that this is the more "in depth" version.  Saying "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.  When the Lord GOd made the earth and the heavens-"

 

In 1:27 it says that "male and female he created them" this is just the broader version.  Like if I were to say "Yeah, Sally, George, and I went to the movies" Then I went more in depth saying "First, I picked up Sally, then Sally and I went to the ATM to get some cash, then went and got George." 

 

So really, the first part is the broad explanation of what happened during creation.  While the second part his meant to describe the fall of man.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
I fail to see where the "in

I fail to see where the "in depth" indicator is in verse 4 of chapter 2. It could very easily be an entirely different account so far as the text itself goes.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Snes737
Posts: 10
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh, sorry, Ill clear that up

Oh, sorry, Ill clear that up for you.  The verse says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created."  The key word is account.  According to "Answers.com" an acount is " A narrative or record of events." So this is like the second record of what was going on at the sam time.  Because as the verse continues "When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" Its basically saying, during the story of creation, this stuff was going on as well.  Thanks for the good question!


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
For fuck's sake, this is why

For fuck's sake, this is why every atheist needs 4 different versions of the bible. We'll keep talking NIV so we can have one commonality.

If you're going to stick with the 'two accounts are the same' stance then you're going to need to answer some very important questions about Gen 4:15-17

Whom did Cain fear would kill him?

and

Where did he get a wife?

and

For whom was Cain building the city?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Snes737
Posts: 10
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Im sorry that you need 4

Im sorry that you need 4 different versions of the bible.  But you dont need to swear.  In every church Ive been too thus far, they have used the NIV.  As for your questions...

 

For whom Cain thought would kill him, he says in 4:14, "Whoever finds me".  But basically, the guy killed his brother, his other brothers and sisters would probably want to kill him.

 

Adam and Eve had more kids as it says in Genesis .  Though they are not mentioned, its highly unlikely that they wouldnt have any more kids.  The reason why Cain, Abel, and Seth are mentioned is because they are important.  There is no time limit between 4:16 and 4:17, so we can assume that that comes after 5:4 "... Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters"  So he could have married one of them.  But more likely he just lay with someone born around the same time as he was.  Adam and Eve had sex more than twice in 130 years.  The point is that other kids probably came in between.  The reason why Seth is important is because he is in direct line with Noah, which goes into the next story "The Flood".

 

He was probably building the city for people.  So his decendants would have somewhere to live.  Considering he was in Nod, which the cliffnotes on the bottom of the page(Im sorry if you dont have them, if you dont I guess you can throw out this arguement) declare as "The of Wandering" which means people didnt live there.  Since his decendants probably were gonna end up living close to home, he could build a city for them to live in.

 

Any other questions? Ill gladly answer them!


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Snes737 wrote:Im sorry that

Snes737 wrote:

Im sorry that you need 4 different versions of the bible.  But you dont need to swear.  In every church Ive been too thus far, they have used the NIV.  As for your questions...

The 'kill them with kindness' forum has no swearing. We encounter too many people using different versions based upon their personal taste which seems counter-intuitive to the claims of the 'perfect word'.

 

Quote:
For whom Cain thought would kill him, he says in 4:14, "Whoever finds me".  But basically, the guy killed his brother, his other brothers and sisters would probably want to kill him.

Seems rather speculative and presuppositional to me. Where were the other kids when the sacrifices were brought in the first place? 

Quote:
Adam and Eve had more kids as it says in Genesis .  Though they are not mentioned, its highly unlikely that they wouldnt have any more kids. The reason why Cain, Abel, and Seth are mentioned is because they are important.  There is no time limit between 4:16 and 4:17, so we can assume that that comes after 5:4 "... Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters"  So he could have married one of them.  But more likely he just lay with someone born around the same time as he was.  Adam and Eve had sex more than twice in 130 years.  The point is that other kids probably came in between.  The reason why Seth is important is because he is in direct line with Noah, which goes into the next story "The Flood".

Do you hear that?

could have

highly unlikely

more likely

probably

It isn't connecting dots, it is making dots to connect.

Yet when archeology, biology, paleontology, and cosmology connect actual dots it typically gets labeled as GUESSING?????  Do you see how infuriating it can be to listen to apologists rationalize the missing pieces in a story that people hold as literal truth?

Three people(or more) on Earth inbreeding generation to generation(or just nine generations) and that gave enough genetic diversity to eight people on the ark to produce all of the ethnicities on earth.

Quote:
He was probably building the city for people.  So his decendants would have somewhere to live.  Considering he was in Nod, which the cliffnotes on the bottom of the page(Im sorry if you dont have them, if you dont I guess you can throw out this arguement) declare as "The of Wandering" which means people didnt live there.  Since his decendants probably were gonna end up living close to home, he could build a city for them to live in.

So your argument is a huge missing gap between 16 and 17.

Quote:

Any other questions? Ill gladly answer them!

Just discussing the various answers is fun enough without overtaxing you with questions.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Snes737
Posts: 10
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Ok, Im sorry. I have to be

Ok, Im sorry.

 

I have to be "speculative" because if I just went out and plain ol' said stuff you would call me out and say I dont have any biblical evidence to back that up.

 

"So your argument is a huge missing gap between 16 and 17."

Then he married his sister who was his wife at that time, and Im sticking too that.

 

"Where were the other kids when the sacrifices were brought in the first place?"

Not there,  Cain came, and shortly after so did Abel.  I think that the chapter makes it clear they were working together "Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil" sounds like they were working together, and not with other people, to me, but what do you think?


Jubal
Posts: 41
Joined: 2008-03-27
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:I think

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I think the problem in interpretation of the bible lies in our natural tendency to read meaning into things that inherantly have none.

The Bible as a whole, and the first two chapters of Genesis in particular are pretty simplistic. While we may want to add complex layers of allagorical or metaphorical meaning, it is what it is, the simplistic explanation of a group of bronze age barbarians to the question of origins.

 

You can almost see Abdul the Goatherder patiently trying to answer a small childs question...

Child: How do we know what to call the animals, daddy?

Dad: Adam named them for us.

Child:Where did Adam come from?

Dad:God did it.

Child: Why do we go hungry? Why did uncle Moshe fall off the cliff? Why did those mean men burn our homes and take my sister?

Dad: It's your mother's fault....

 

LC >;-}>

 

This last bit made me spit out my pop laughing...I can actually picture myself saying that to my kid  -On a bad day&quotEye-wink

 

 

Being open-minded isn't the same thing as being vacant.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Snes737 wrote:Ok, Im

Snes737 wrote:

Ok, Im sorry.

No apology needed. Using profanity is the quickest way to get someone's attention. In order to offer a place less offensive for the delicates, the KEWK forum is readily available.

 

Quote:
I have to be "speculative" because if I just went out and plain ol' said stuff you would call me out and say I dont have any biblical evidence to back that up.

What is odd is calling it 'biblical evidence'. That sounds oxymoronic. A long time ago I asked myself: "What guarantees that the people who wrote the bible didn't 'go out and plain ol' said stuff?

The gaping wholes in the narrative open the doors for speculation. Granted. However, when the alleged 'message' is purported to be 100% true then we have a conflict.

 

Quote:
Then he married his sister who was his wife at that time, and Im sticking too that.

Who just happened to be in Nod(wandering) too? 

 

Quote:
Not there,  Cain came, and shortly after so did Abel.  I think that the chapter makes it clear they were working together "Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil" sounds like they were working together, and not with other people, to me, but what do you think?

Actually, what I think is irrelevant because I think it's such a miserable story that it need never be repeated. There was no ranking of other sacrifices from the children you say because they were not there. Where were they? Not born. Already in Nod?

Why did Cain get angry with Abel? He didn't like being second? Why didn't the other kids do something?

If the other kids didn't come along until after Cain was marked and excommunicated then how did they find their way to Enoch(the city not the kid)?

The holes get bigger and bigger and leave more questions about the particulars.

Even despite that the details are left unaccounted for, there is still the question of the message itself.

God loves you, but won't forgive you for killing your brother even though god's dissatisfaction with you is what led you to kill him.

Murderers are supposed to be marked, sent off to get a wife, and if anyone kills them then revenge will be sevenfold.

God likes meat sacrifices,  but no veggies. He's like a bad girlfriend that won't accept a gift with a thank you. All gifts are not equal in the eyes of the 'lord'?

Why include the story at all if these people all get washed off the Earth a couple of chapters later because they were all regrettable instances of divine stupidity?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
First of all, Snes737...

...I want to apologize for taking so long to reply to you. 

 

Second, I still have, from my former days as a Christian, copies of:

     --The New American Bible (a Roman Catholic translation, not to be

          confused with the New American Standard, which is Protestant)

     --The Jerusalem Bible (another Roman Catholic translation)

     --The New Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic, again)

     --the Douay-Rheims translation (Roman Catholic, again)

     --the Confraternity edition (Roman Catholic)

     --the 1611 edition of the KJV, with Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals

     --a modern KJV, without Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals

     --an NIV

     --a Good News translation

     --an NKJV

     --The Living Bible

     --The Revised Standard Version

     --The New Revised Standard Version

 

If I were to pick the ones which are most used by me, I'd pick:

     --the NAB, because that was actually used from the pulpit when I

          grew up in the Catholic Church, and also because when I

          started my own independant Bible study, that was the

          translation my studies referenced.

     --The RSV, because that is the version which I have most often

          seen recommended on grounds of competent translation

          (It's my "scholar's Bible," if you will.)

     --The KJV (both editions) because the KJV is acceptable to all

          Protestants, is used by Latter-Day Saints, and is even

          considered a beautiful--if incomplete--rendering by some

          Roman Catholics.

     --The NIV, as many of today's Protestants emphasize it.

 

Personally, I don't mind using so many Bibles.  For one thing, any

given rendering of the Bible into English is a translation, and the

translation of any one language into any other is often as much

an art as it is a science.  That's just the way languages are.  The

upshot of all of this is that many churches use Bibles other than

the KJV. 

 

A question for you: how did you come up with your screen name? 

(Mine is just an assumed name which allows me to occasionally

talk about certain personal issues a little more freely when the

occasion arises.)

 

Conor

________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should"--Me


Snes737
Posts: 10
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Darth_Josh, Im tired right

Darth_Josh, Im tired right now, so Im going to wait till tommorow(monday) to answer your questions/statements.

 

But as for Conor, waaaaaaay back in the day I had no idea what I was doing on the internet, but I came across a website where I had to make a username.  I dont remember what it was, but it was----737 because you almost always have to put numbers in your username.  Then one day I was playing ssbm(super smash bros melee) with my cousins and we decided to make names.  Ive never been good, so I hit the random button and got "Snes" I thought that was pretty cool, so now I use it in everything.  The 737 is there because there is probably a "Snes" registered to the board(though I dont know, I never checked).

 

Yeah, but Ill post tommorow, k Darth_Josh!


Snes737
Posts: 10
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What is odd is calling

Quote:

What is odd is calling it 'biblical evidence'. That sounds oxymoronic. A long time ago I asked myself: "What guarantees that the people who wrote the bible didn't 'go out and plain ol' said stuff?

The gaping wholes in the narrative open the doors for speculation. Granted. However, when the alleged 'message' is purported to be 100% true then we have a conflict.

 

I smiled when I read it.  You know, nothing guarantees that the people who wrote the bible didnt go out and plain ol' said stuff.   Ive never stated, and never will state that I can prove God exists.  Because I cant, and I never will.  If I could prove(by some sort of miracle) that the earth was 10,000 years old, what good do I do?  This is why I dislike creationists who think they can.  Like Dr. Hovind, I saw him speak, I was young at the time, so I didnt put much thought into it.  But later I realized how wrong the message he is preaching really was.

 

The fact of the matter is that I cant, and never will prove that God exists.  But I have faith that he does.   I dont like a lot of preachers, because they preach hate.  I dont like anyone telling anyone they are "condemned to hell" I hate that, I really do.  Thats up to God to decide.  I like the arguement brought up by my paster that someone who spends their whole life avoiding Christ and God doesnt want to spend eternity with him in heaven.  Thats why when I think of Spiritual death, I think of just black. I dont envision hell, because there is no point.  I cant, and never will, tell someone they are going to hell, because thats not up for me to decide, it isnt.  Its one of the biggest problems with Christianity, and why there are so many athiests "fighting back" against Christ.  Because we preach wrong.  Because we preach hell and heaven instead of faith.

 

So Ill just come out and say it, Im a sinner.  I sin all the time, who knows I could be doing it right now!  God knows.  The only thing that I can trust to save me is Christ.  Im constantly in the wrong.  I could be right now.  But the fact of the matter is that Ive got to try.  Its why I was drawn to this board in the first place, becuase as a christian watching other christians preach in a fashion that just doesnt seem right, Im disgusted.  And I came onto these boards, not to enter the "battlefield" between atheists and christians, Because the whole concept of a "battlefield" is wrong, but to spread love while trying to show somebody, just one person the love of Christ.  I probably sound really conceited, but its true.

 

Sorry for the big 'ol monolouge.

 

Quote:

Why include the story at all if these people all get washed off the Earth a couple of chapters later because they were all regrettable instances of divine stupidity?

 

To teach, my spiritual leaders(like bible study and stuff) use stories like that to show us things.  For that story, think about someone giving their best to God, whie another person isnt.  The other person gets jealous, and kills the other one.  Ok, so thats the story.  I can think of teaching someone that when they see someone who is more powerful in faith, they may become jealous, and try to sabatoge that person(were all sinners) in their doing good.  Or become discouraged and think theyll never be like that.  When in reality we should hold those people to a higher standard and try to reach their level.  Thats what the story means to me.  No offense, but if you take the message too much at face value, you lose the true meaning.

 

And never think that your opinion isnt important, because it is to me, I enjoy hearing what you have to say to me.

 

Oh, and I meant decendants for Enoch, so the other kids wouldnt have wandered out into Nod in the first place.  God did forgive Cain, he punished him but he forgave him.  Christianity (should)promotes punishement and discapline(ok, lets face it, Im not the best speller) and thats what this was.  Cain got angry with Abel because God favored him, why?  Because Abel was bring his best to the table(offering) and Cain was just bring his normal crops, if Cain had brought the "cream of the crop"(ok, thats at least a little funny...) then he would have been looked on with just as much favor.

 

I hope I helped, feel free to continue asking any questions, and stating any statements you want, Ill gladly reply!

 

 

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Nope. Once you invoke

Nope. Once you invoke 'faith' and use it as a platform, the discussion tends to go nowhere.

You have it. I lack it.

As with seemingly all proselytizers, you too have come to preach this 'faith' thing as a virtue while I see it as nothing more than vice.

You revel in being a 'sinner' yet the very book that details the sin gives no pragmatic value to modern society and draws upon morals from a time in human history that we revile. Your witness of 'I'm a sinner' falls upon incredulous eyes because of its sheer audacity to assume that I need to know your qualities as a human based upon the text of a book shown to be really bad storytelling?

Your only 'sin' in my eyes is that you would call yourself a 'sinner'.

What is 'sin'? Who ordains an action as 'sin'?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Snes737 wrote: Quote:Why

Snes737 wrote:

 

Quote:

Why include the story at all if these people all get washed off the Earth a couple of chapters later because they were all regrettable instances of divine stupidity?

 

To teach, my spiritual leaders(like bible study and stuff) use stories like that to show us things. 

The flood story probably needed to be included as the most ancient stories came out of Sumerian Akkadian legends. They were passed down to the Assyrians and the Babylonians. These flood myths predate the Bible by a thousand years or more. Consider Abraham allegedly came from Mesopotamia and would have known these stories. That doesn't make them true, but the Israelites would have needed these stories as other religions already had them. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)#Sumerian

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

 Other sources in great detail can be found at :

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi

http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/flood-story.htm

 The point of this is in order to appear viable the god legends needed similar tales. Genesis is part of the incorporation of such ancient myths by the writers. It is no more true or real than the 4,000 to 5,000 year old Sumerian legend.

I did see you said

Snes737 wrote:

You know, nothing guarantees that the people who wrote the bible didnt go out and plain ol' said stuff.   Ive never stated, and never will state that I can prove God exists.

That's the whole point of this after all isn't it. The position we have is you are being no different than the ancient people who ascribed everything they didn't understand to a god. You should know better than that. You have the availability of advanced science to test, verify, describe, prove, and disprove. In today's world, you can't say you lack information only that you choose to ignore it and wallow in faith.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Snes737
Posts: 10
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
pauljohn you bring up a good

pauljohn you bring up a good point about the flood "legend" that was around first.  But I have a small thing to say.  And thats that mabye the legend was true.  I mean, Im not trying to sound stupid(which I definitley sound like).  But hear me out.  Now if there really was a flood, it wouldnt just fade into the woodworks.  People would pass it down, would they not?  So just because ideas of a flood were already around does not disprove that there was a flood, in some eyes, it might reinforce it.

 

Who said I ascribed everything I dont understand to my God?  Because I dont.  I believe in Macro and Micro evoloution, I see emprical evidence of lots of things around the world, but it doesnt shake my faith in the least bit.  You people can say that I ignore rational thinking, but I dont.  You may ask me then "Well how can you believe after seeing all this evidence against it" its pretty easy.  I wasnt there.  Honestly I wasnt.  I dont think it matters if the earth was created a couple billion years ago, or if it happened 10,000 years ago.  Its just a distraction from the main message of Christianity, which is Christ.  I cant prove anything, I cant prove a God exsists, but you cant prove without a doubt God doesnt exist, so we have to agree on that.  I dont know, I guess the reason Im Christian in the first place is because it has changed me.  I was agnostic at this point last year, almost athiest. I got a jumpstart in my faith and it changed me alot.  Im not the type of person who just totally ignores the evidence around me.  I just dont think science can disprove God, it may be able to "disprove" that the earth was created by God.  It might be able to disprove that the earth is 10,000 years old(not saying it is).  But it cant disprove my God.  If we put our focus into the New Testament, we see a different light cast upon God.  And thats the message Christians should be teaching.  One of my spiritual leaders, who is one of the strongest people in their faith Ive ever met.  Was a biologist(now a youth leader).  He thinks Carbon Dating machines are right and everything.  But he knows that its not that stuff that matters.  You guys can continue to ask me as many questions as you want in the old testament, but its only there for Jesus to reference.

 

Im sorry for making the subject turning that it doesnt matter when the earth was created, but honestly, I dont think it does.  Im sorry, feel free to attack.

 

 

 

Quote:
Nope. Once you invoke 'faith' and use it as a platform, the discussion tends to go nowhere.

You have it. I lack it.



The reason why I "invoked" faith as a platform was for the shear fact so I could tell you I dont have all the answers, but Im trying my best to answer the ones I can(because I know sooner or later Im gonna screw up here), but otherwise I dont plan on using it.

Quote:


As with seemingly all proselytizers, you too have come to preach this 'faith' thing as a virtue while I see it as nothing more than vice.

You revel in being a 'sinner' yet the very book that details the sin gives no pragmatic value to modern society and draws upon morals from a time in human history that we revile. Your witness of 'I'm a sinner' falls upon incredulous eyes because of its sheer audacity to assume that I need to know your qualities as a human based upon the text of a book shown to be really bad storytelling?

Your only 'sin' in my eyes is that you would call yourself a 'sinner'.

What is 'sin'? Who ordains an action as 'sin'?


According to wikipedia, a virtue is moral excellence in a person or something good.  I do not claim that over you at all.  You could me just as, or more moral then me, Im not going to compare you and I in terms of whos more "moral" and I wont compare myself to anyone else in those terms, its just silly.  I dont even think Im a better person than you(in terms of being "good&quotEye-wink because a buddist, or an athiest, or agnostic, or anyone, could be more moral than I, and better than I am.  The only thing that seperates me from you is my faith(though I hate to say it).  Thats it, nothing else.  As for vice being bad, I never said you not having faith being bad.  Sure, I would prefer you were a christian, but faith doesnt make a person virtuous, nor does not having it make a person vice.


As for "what is 'sin".  Its when you know you did wrong.  Dont tell me youve never felt like you did something wrong.  Like lets say(obviously hypothetically) that you murdered someone.  Then you feel bad about it, you know youve done wrong, thats what sin is.  I would find it hard to believe and find you very conceited if you said you were never in the wrong.  As for who ordains an action as sin, both you and God do.  God does obviously, telling you what you should/shouldnt do.  But note that he does this for your own protection.  Like if you murder someone, there will be a price on your head.  If you lie, you could get caught it hurts you.  If you commit adultry and have a kid or get a disease.  If you covet, it can get in the way of many things.  If you steal and get caught, you get fined.  The law was put into effect to protect us.


As for your definition of sin, being an atheist, you still know when you have done something wrong, and that would be your concept of sin.

 

Ok, thanks for the comments and questions, I appreciate people getting involved in this.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Snes737 wrote:pauljohn you

Snes737 wrote:

pauljohn you bring up a good point about the flood "legend" that was around first.  But I have a small thing to say.  And thats that mabye the legend was true.  I mean, Im not trying to sound stupid(which I definitley sound like).  But hear me out.  Now if there really was a flood, it wouldnt just fade into the woodworks.  People would pass it down, would they not?  So just because ideas of a flood were already around does not disprove that there was a flood, in some eyes, it might reinforce it.

 

It's likely based on the Sumerian legend as it could easily have been  a super typhon, called a category 5 hurricane here in Florida. If such a storm as persitent as say Hurricane Frances in 2004 went up the Persian Gulf it would have produced the results in those myths. It refers to 7 days of rain and flooding, a large wall of water etc. Such a storm would have been magnified by the tight constaints of the Persian Gulf. Since many lived in the vicinity of the lowlands at the time, it may have washed away the world they knew. Generations turned the story into the whole world was flooded, a very unlikely possibility.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote:According to

Quote:
According to wikipedia, a virtue is moral excellence in a person or something good.  I do not claim that over you at all.  You could me just as, or more moral then me, Im not going to compare you and I in terms of whos more "moral" and I wont compare myself to anyone else in those terms, its just silly.  I dont even think Im a better person than you(in terms of being "good&quotEye-wink because a buddist, or an athiest, or agnostic, or anyone, could be more moral than I, and better than I am.  The only thing that seperates me from you is my faith(though I hate to say it).  Thats it, nothing else.  As for vice being bad, I never said you not having faith being bad.  Sure, I would prefer you were a christian, but faith doesnt make a person virtuous, nor does not having it make a person vice.

You missed it. It's okay. I do the same thing. It's easier to notice when it is someone else.

By declaring yourself a 'sinner', you have entrenched yourself into that religion because it teaches you to do that.

"All fall short of the glory of god."

Paul preached about very little else other than his 'transformation' into uber-christian and what virtue and vice were according to 'christ jesus'.

To me, it seems you're trying to fit the archetypical evangelist.

Don't get me wrong. Everyone does it. We have threads providing incontrovertable proof of our own 'witnessing' habits. It just sounds weird when christians do it. lol.


Quote:
As for "what is 'sin".  Its when you know you did wrong. 

Then why need a bible?

Quote:
Dont tell me youve never felt like you did something wrong.

Nothing springs to mind that is worth beating myself up emotionally in front of an absentee judge, jury, and executioner.

Quote:
Like lets say(obviously hypothetically) that you murdered someone.  Then you feel bad about it, you know youve done wrong, thats what sin is.

What did I kill them for?I guarantee you that there are instances where I would not feel bad for killing someone. I would try to avoid it, but hypothetically speaking... you didn't give me enough to go on.

Would I kill someone because god was less pleased with my sacrifice? Ummm. No. I'm willing to bet that anyone confronted with such a situation would not do what Cain allegedly did.

Quote:
I would find it hard to believe and find you very conceited if you said you were never in the wrong.  As for who ordains an action as sin, both you and God do.  God does obviously, telling you what you should/shouldnt do.

Thus in your mind, when you do something that is considered a sin, but it has no pragmatic basis as a 'wrong' thing according to god then is it still a sin?

Quote:
But note that he does this for your own protection. 

Protecting us from himself.

Quote:
Like if you murder someone, there will be a price on your head.  If you lie, you could get caught it hurts you.  If you commit adultry and have a kid or get a disease.  If you covet, it can get in the way of many things.  If you steal and get caught, you get fined.  The law was put into effect to protect us.

These laws existed prior to the bible. 'Sins' such as murder were punishable before people used the bible to justify killing certain peoples.


Quote:
As for your definition of sin, being an atheist, you still know when you have done something wrong, and that would be your concept of sin.

Yet when I would force my standards upon others with the threat of 'eternal' torment I would be labeled despot, tyrant, war criminal, human rights violator, etc.

Christianity calls those people: preachers.

But your god has escaped those labels despite the words allegedly coming from his/her/its own self-damning mouth.

 

Quote:
Ok, thanks for the comments and questions, I appreciate people getting involved in this.

Consider it our life's work. lol. After all, it would be a sin not to seek the end of religion.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Snes737 wrote:As for "what

Snes737 wrote:




As for "what is 'sin".  Its when you know you did wrong.  Dont tell me youve never felt like you did something wrong.  Like lets say(obviously hypothetically) that you murdered someone.  Then you feel bad about it, you know youve done wrong, thats what sin is.  I would find it hard to believe and find you very conceited if you said you were never in the wrong.  As for who ordains an action as sin, both you and God do.  God does obviously, telling you what you should/shouldnt do.  But note that he does this for your own protection.  Like if you murder someone, there will be a price on your head.  If you lie, you could get caught it hurts you.  If you commit adultry and have a kid or get a disease.  If you covet, it can get in the way of many things.  If you steal and get caught, you get fined.  The law was put into effect to protect us.


As for your definition of sin, being an atheist, you still know when you have done something wrong, and that would be your concept of sin.

 

Ok, thanks for the comments and questions, I appreciate people getting involved in this.

Over the centuries those that interpret the words of the god have decided what is "sin" and what is evil. Atheists have been criticized as having no moral compass without the world of the god. Yet, exactly who was it that declared a crusade against the infidel Muslims? Me thinks it was a Christian named Urban II. He desired to save the land of their purported savior from the clutches of the pagans. His actions resulted in the death of thousands, evil incarnate in the form of crusaders practicing the horror of cannibalism, rape, murder of children, and the seizure of the land. Several years later, even being a Jesus believer wasn't sufficient to save one from the perceived beliefs of sin. Innocent III called another crusade to rid the holy land of the pagan. Those that responded in the name of the god altered the course of the vindictive endeavor. The Greek Catholics had shown the failure to interpret the god as the clearly correct Church of Rome. It therefore was within their rights to kill, maim, rape, murder, and seize the city of such poor devotion to the god. Then of course there was all the riches to be had in Constantinople. The sense of entitlement to enforce the correct belief continued with the murders of those that believed otherwise. Cathars, nature worshipers, those that did not see the interpretation of the god as the current reigning King of Rome were all eliminated.

Even the New World did not provide relief for those sinning against the god. Illiterate savages were eliminated for the god to provide for the righteous believers of the true church. The reformed believers, who themselves had been persecuted saw in the ranting of children, the Satan and thus murdered many in Salem. As the new world developed it required labor to produce for the righteous believers. Thousands were seized from Africa to provide for those that believed in the god. Was it not their right to derive the tenfold profit as promised by the book of the god?

So you tell me how atheism has a similar disregard for lives of others. You say that you know you have sinned when both you and God ordain it as such. Clearly the above actions were not seen generally as sins. When they were, the concept was that God would sort out the righteous from the evil. Just in case, the popes gave dispensation in advance for the sins and evil the warriors of god might accidentally perform in his service. The believer seems to have the ability and the method to have the sin forgiven, even if it is murder.

One argument that has been tried against atheists is that without a god to follow we would have no morals and ethics. The world would be filled with violence and crime. It seems however that a believer can do the crime and then be forgiven for the crime. Just how does that provide a means of deterrence? I kill someone. I ask Jesus to forgive me. I am forgiven. The person is still dead. How is that any different? The deterrence should be the loss of freedom by incarceration or the death penalty for crimes. Not a god.

The concept of adultery is also not against a god, but is a violation of a commitment to another. This is civil and has nothing at all to do with any laws. It is a violation of a contract between 2 people. Coveting being a sin means you need to stop watching commercials. A commercial makes you desire or covet an item. Every time you see a commercial you are thus in violation of your god's law.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Snes737
Posts: 10
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Over the centuries

Quote:

Over the centuries those that interpret the words of the god have decided what is "sin" and what is evil. Atheists have been criticized as having no moral compass without the world of the god. Yet, exactly who was it that declared a crusade against the infidel Muslims? Me thinks it was a Christian named Urban II. He desired to save the land of their purported savior from the clutches of the pagans. His actions resulted in the death of thousands, evil incarnate in the form of crusaders practicing the horror of cannibalism, rape, murder of children, and the seizure of the land. Several years later, even being a Jesus believer wasn't sufficient to save one from the perceived beliefs of sin. Innocent III called another crusade to rid the holy land of the pagan. Those that responded in the name of the god altered the course of the vindictive endeavor. The Greek Catholics had shown the failure to interpret the god as the clearly correct Church of Rome. It therefore was within their rights to kill, maim, rape, murder, and seize the city of such poor devotion to the god. Then of course there was all the riches to be had in Constantinople. The sense of entitlement to enforce the correct belief continued with the murders of those that believed otherwise. Cathars, nature worshipers, those that did not see the interpretation of the god as the current reigning King of Rome were all eliminated.

Even the New World did not provide relief for those sinning against the god. Illiterate savages were eliminated for the god to provide for the righteous believers of the true church. The reformed believers, who themselves had been persecuted saw in the ranting of children, the Satan and thus murdered many in Salem. As the new world developed it required labor to produce for the righteous believers. Thousands were seized from Africa to provide for those that believed in the god. Was it not their right to derive the tenfold profit as promised by the book of the god?

So you tell me how atheism has a similar disregard for lives of others. You say that you know you have sinned when both you and God ordain it as such. Clearly the above actions were not seen generally as sins. When they were, the concept was that God would sort out the righteous from the evil. Just in case, the popes gave dispensation in advance for the sins and evil the warriors of god might accidentally perform in his service. The believer seems to have the ability and the method to have the sin forgiven, even if it is murder.

One argument that has been tried against atheists is that without a god to follow we would have no morals and ethics. The world would be filled with violence and crime. It seems however that a believer can do the crime and then be forgiven for the crime. Just how does that provide a means of deterrence? I kill someone. I ask Jesus to forgive me. I am forgiven. The person is still dead. How is that any different? The deterrence should be the loss of freedom by incarceration or the death penalty for crimes. Not a god.

The concept of adultery is also not against a god, but is a violation of a commitment to another. This is civil and has nothing at all to do with any laws. It is a violation of a contract between 2 people. Coveting being a sin means you need to stop watching commercials. A commercial makes you desire or covet an item. Every time you see a commercial you are thus in violation of your god's law.

 

Ok,well I never said that what they did was right.  Yeah, bad things have been done in the name of Christianity, just how bad things have been done in the name every religon(I would guess even athiesism, but I cant think of one off the top of my head).  Its like with that story that youve probably heard about of how this girls parents prayed for her instead of taking her to the doctors for a curable type of diabetes.  I dont think that was the right thing to do, in fact I think it was the wrong thing to do.  I dont think the crusades were a good idea, because they werent.  I think a thing alot of athiests get wrong is that every christian thinks that things like the crusade were ok, and we all act like the westboro church.  But in fact, alot of us try to act in line with the gospels.

 

What is "tenfold profit"?  Im sorry, Im not the most Knowledgable person ever.  I dont think slavery is right, and I dont think what they did is justified by God.  Just because the bible references slavery, that doesnt mean that its ok either.  In the time that the letters of Paul were wrote, slavery was ok.  Because thats how alot of people lived, slavery back in those days was more like surfs.  So I dont ordain slavery.  Because even though those books mention it, their are other things in those books beside slavery that make them good.

 

Oh, and I dont believe the pope can do whatever he wants.  I dont even believe in the pope.  I think alot of right and wrong questions against athiests are stupid.  The world would still have ethics if God wasnt here.  Thats just stupid.  As I said before, you know when you have done wrong.  You know what to, and what not to do.  A true Christian tries to live his life doing good for Christ, and not doing bad for Christ.  Those people probably knew they were doing wrong, but they were motivated by the sinful nature.

 

 

Quote:
The concept of adultery is also not against a god, but is a violation of a commitment to another. This is civil and has nothing at all to do with any laws. It is a violation of a contract between 2 people. Coveting being a sin means you need to stop watching commercials. A commercial makes you desire or covet an item. Every time you see a commercial you are thus in violation of your god's law.

First of all, just because adultry is not against god doesnt mean it shouldnt be in Gods law.  He tells you things like that so you dont be stupid and say "Well God doesnt say I shouldnt do that, so I can do it."

 

As for the coveting thing, I think your concept of coveting is different from mine(and many other Christians.  We believe that coveting is when you want something so much you are will to do something(bad) to get it.  Like if I want a hamburger on t.v., that doesnt mean Im coveting it.  If I decide I want to steal a hamburger, then I have created a sin(In the desicion).


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Snes737 wrote: Ok,well I

Snes737 wrote:
 

Ok,well I never said that what they did was right.  Yeah, bad things have been done in the name of Christianity, just how bad things have been done in the name every religon(I would guess even athiesism, but I cant think of one off the top of my head).  Its like with that story that youve probably heard about of how this girls parents prayed for her instead of taking her to the doctors for a curable type of diabetes.  I dont think that was the right thing to do, in fact I think it was the wrong thing to do.  I dont think the crusades were a good idea, because they werent.  I think a thing alot of athiests get wrong is that every christian thinks that things like the crusade were ok, and we all act like the westboro church.  But in fact, alot of us try to act in line with the gospels.

Good for you, you may yet be saved from belief. You may actually be a tolerant believer.

Snes737 wrote:

What is "tenfold profit"?  Im sorry, Im not the most Knowledgable person ever.  I dont think slavery is right, and I dont think what they did is justified by God.  Just because the bible references slavery, that doesnt mean that its ok either.  In the time that the letters of Paul were wrote, slavery was ok.  Because thats how alot of people lived, slavery back in those days was more like surfs.  So I dont ordain slavery.  Because even though those books mention it, their are other things in those books beside slavery that make them good.

Actually you are the theist, not me.

It is based on the 10% tithing concept and the promise of a return now. Loosely based on Matthew 19:13-30, Matthew 25:12-41, and Luke 19:12-21. This is the basis relied on by televangelists and evangelicals to defraud you of your money. They buy Rolex watches, expensive cars, and luxury homes at your expense. Google "tenfold return" to see the warped basis.

As to your idea slavery was OK ever, you are simply ill informed. Slavery in the 1st century was cruel and inhumane. They were not as you say just like the serfs. It is simply horrific to think one human can own another as property.

 

Snes737 wrote:

Oh, and I dont believe the pope can do whatever he wants.  I dont even believe in the pope.  I think alot of right and wrong questions against athiests are stupid.  The world would still have ethics if God wasnt here.  Thats just stupid.  As I said before, you know when you have done wrong.  You know what to, and what not to do.  A true Christian tries to live his life doing good for Christ, and not doing bad for Christ.  Those people probably knew they were doing wrong, but they were motivated by the sinful nature.

Most non-catholics don't believe in the concept of the pope as the right hand of Jesus on Earth.

It's refreshing to see you realize the world can survive using the values of atheism.

 

 

Snes737 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
The concept of adultery is also not against a god, but is a violation of a commitment to another. This is civil and has nothing at all to do with any laws. It is a violation of a contract between 2 people. Coveting being a sin means you need to stop watching commercials. A commercial makes you desire or covet an item. Every time you see a commercial you are thus in violation of your god's law.

First of all, just because adultry is not against god doesnt mean it shouldnt be in Gods law.  He tells you things like that so you dont be stupid and say "Well God doesnt say I shouldnt do that, so I can do it."

Marriage is a contract. Do we need commandments for all of our contracts?

Thou shalt not ship shoddy product to thy customer.

Thou shalt not make toys of toxic materials?

 

Snes737 wrote:

As for the coveting thing, I think your concept of coveting is different from mine(and many other Christians.  We believe that coveting is when you want something so much you are will to do something(bad) to get it.  Like if I want a hamburger on t.v., that doesnt mean Im coveting it.  If I decide I want to steal a hamburger, then I have created a sin(In the desicion).

I made it extreme to show you how coveting is simply absurd. Jimmy Carter sinned or so he said when he saw a hot babe.

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Snes737
Posts: 10
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Good for you, you may

Quote:
Good for you, you may yet be saved from belief. You may actually be a tolerant believer.

I dont think I will ever be "saved" from belief, sorry.  In fact, one of the first things I asked myself before joining this was if my faith was strong enough, I decided yes, I guess we'll find out!

 

Yeah, I know the whole 10% thing, I just never heard it like you said it.  I also dont think what television evangelists(and other ones) do.  With things like "sowing a seed" its just dumb.  But I think you should give 10% to your church, just for upkeep, not because your buying your way into heaven.

 

Quote:
Marriage is a contract. Do we need commandments for all of our contracts?

They do relate...

Quote:
Thou shalt not ship shoddy product to thy customer.

Stealing...

Quote:
Thou shalt not make toys of toxic materials?

Murder...

 

Also in Christianity, marriage is more then a contract, and I think thats the type of thinking that makes alot of people get divorced.  Marriage is tougher than people think when they get into it, and thats why a lot of people fail.

 

It depends on if the Jimmy wanted her after seeing her.  I could see a pretty woman, and just think "shes pretty" and move on.  But if I go "I want to have sex with her" then I have coveted.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Snes737

Snes737 wrote:

 

Quote:
Marriage is a contract. Do we need commandments for all of our contracts?

They do relate...

Quote:
Thou shalt not ship shoddy product to thy customer.

Stealing...

Quote:
Thou shalt not make toys of toxic materials?

Murder...

 

Also in Christianity, marriage is more then a contract, and I think thats the type of thinking that makes alot of people get divorced.  Marriage is tougher than people think when they get into it, and thats why a lot of people fail.

 

I take a simplified George Carlin approach. Which is one commandment in my case, he had two.

Thou shalt not do harm to thy fellow man.

George Carlin's commandment reduction argument: http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html

George Carlin's 2 commandments are:

" Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.

&

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you."

Since I don't pray to invisible men, I figured the one commandment was better suited for my lack of beliefs.

Consider how it works:

Stealing is included.

Murder is covered.

Lying is obviously included.

Coveting is within my mind, so it causes no harm. As George Carlin says it is what makes GNP.

Honoring parents is included. If the parent however is a pervert and does action to break my single commandment, he is guilty. He then is due fair punishment and all is fair in that regard.

Committing adultery could be harmful if I was married, I'm not so I don't require it. If the woman I'm with is married, not to me, it's not my fault, and I'm not causing harm, she is.

The 1st 3 commandments are not required in my atheistic view.

Since I don't have any gods at all, I don't need the 1st one.

I don't need the 2ND one either as it required the 1st. As a rule, I don't swear in the name of something I don't accept. I gave that up when I gave up belief in the gods.

I don't need to set special time aside for a god I don't have so I don't require the 3rd.

See how life is so much more simple for an atheist. The only thing we need to do is follow one simple rule.

Do no harm to others.

 

It is harder than it sounds.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Snes737
Posts: 10
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
You see, you know whats

You see, you know whats right and whats wrong.  And thats why I dont think the world would be in moral chaos if there was no religon.

But as for coveting, it is the first step to breaking many other commandments.  Think about it.  If I want that car over there, I am coveting it, and I want to steal it.  And so on and so forth, and thats why things are the way they are.