original sin
Posted on: June 23, 2010 - 8:00pm
Offline
original sin
quick little practice in logic: adam and eve committed the original sin by going against God's word and eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eating the fruit of the tree i assume gave them knowledge of good and evil. So it is implied that beforehand they did not know what is good and what is evil. so how can they have known that god is good and they going against his word is evil until after they ate the fruit. so really the original sin was carried out in ignorance. doesnt seem very fair to me or is God allowed to punish you for sins you did not know you were committing?
I Am My God
The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence
- Login to post comments
You haven't the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. I gave you the definition of contradiction and you still don't know what it means. Let me break it down into lamen terms. Example: a person says that they think child abuse is wrong and then turns around and beats their kid to death. Get it now? Next subject- Evolution has been observed so you are wrong. It wouldn't have a name if it hadn't. It's called evolution because it has been observed that people/animals and so on are changing. They are different than they were say 1,000 years ago. Everything is constantly changing.
Edit: oh and there are transitional fossils. It's a metter of wether you want to believe it or not. There's plenty of evidence for them. Go look. Google tiktaalik, I think that's how it's spelled. I watched a tv show on evolution and they dug this critters fossil up. So you don't believe in dinosaurs? Where the fuck do you think elephants and aligators originated from?
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Well, I could go into details about the Big Bang Theory and the scientific data that our planet was formed approximately 4.6 Billion years ago, but you would probably point to the inexplicable gaps in between to validate your answer. I am sure you have heard the term about the "god of the gaps" argument. Everything that science and finite man has not properly answered automatically gets attributed to god. But there are some flaws to this particular brand of logic. Let's take the Black Death of the Middle Ages for a moment. Many people ascribed the cause of the plague to sin, to the Jews, to bad odors. Whole entire groups of people known as the flagellants, moved from city to city, constantly beating themselves with whips and hoping that God would answer their repentance by ending the plague. There were many other Christian sects that had equally desperate ideas to stop the plague. Anti-Semitism was at an all time high, due to so many allegations by the church that it must be the jews poisoning the wells. Now, here is my point :
Today, many hundreds of years later, there is no mystery about the Black Death. No mystery where it came from, no punishment from God, no Jewish Cabal.
Isn't it a good thing that science is forever expanding ? Isn't it a good thing that science is forever trying to expand it's knowledge into the realms of the unknown and shed light on superstitious beliefs ? We can now be certain, that the wind sighing in the eaves is simply a natural occurrence and not a vengeful banshee. We can be certain that when we have indigestion and nightmares occur that it is not evil spirits invading our dreams. We know only a little, but we know more today than we did. We are forever learning.
Wouldn't faith in God and no inquiry into what creates things have halted that progress?
No, I can not tell you where the universe originally came from, but I can say that just because I can not answer that, does not automatically make the book of Genesis correct.
“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
So, even back then, even back in the Bible times, there were people that saw through the ludicrous notion of God. That has to be fact, if you truly believe the word of the Bible, otherwise the writers would not have felt the need to put that on the parchment. Now supposedly, this was in the Biblical times, when miracles were just happening all over the place. Even then with all the sick people being supposedly healed and all the dead people walking and all the demonic spirits invading pigs, there were people that must have believed in the scientific method. That is the only reason why someone would have written "the fool says in his heart that there is no God". A clever attempt at mind control on the part of Christianity. They were trying to make it against the law to "FEEL" in your heart that God might just be a lie. They knew that thoughts could not be free, otherwise people would have intellectually seen through the foolishness and evolved past that notion. Same thing with the Ten Commandments trying to even dictate what you could think and feel. Hmm, do you want to live in a society where you can go to jail for looking at a married woman and having impure thoughts ? Makes the notion of the modern day tyranny to be quite tolerant.
“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
You bloody twerp.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Evolution has been observed, it does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, there are transitional fossils, life probably originated through the observable self organisation of molecules.
You don't understand the nature of scientific theory, Lee. A scientific theory is functional, is parsimonious and must be described by the empirical evidence observed. It's not a guess based on nothing - like creation theory.
Why don't you broaden your knowledge before coming down here and parading your ignorance for jesus? You are making him look bad.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Let's see, God is supposed to give people free will to choose. But when they choose to disbelieve, God somehow holds the free will to choose unbelief against them for all eternity ?
God gave Adam and Eve a teaser, knowing that human curiousity would make them choose to eat the apple. But when they chose to eat the apple, for all eternity punishment ensued ?
A very sadistic dude, this God of Abraham.
“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
Of course Adam and Eve understood God's instructions. The point was they didn't know it was wrong to disobey because they had no morals.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Hello Pagan,
I see you have some confusion over Christian theology. Wow, that's a shocker. I'm here to help.
The Original Sin is NOT about Adam's sin because they were the first one to sin. (lol). The original sin is not the sin of Adam and Eve. That's the first huge error you have on Original Sin. Original Sin is the EFFECT on humankind as the result of Adam and Eve's sin. Not looking to good right up to bat. Let's continue.
The Bible says that we are to be babes when it comes to knowledge regarding evil.
The Bible in Genesis does not talk about specifics in terms of the conversations God had with Adam. We do know that the 2nd Person of the Trinity walked around and spoke to Adam. The Targums specifically make mention of this via the MEMRA, which is indeed the 2nd person of the Trinity.
And Adam has knowledge since he was the first scientists. He was to classify and name the animals.
They knew that if they were to eat that fruit (whatever it was), it was indeed evil. So they knew of evil since the tree was evil to eat. God reveals to us when He may. He did not want that revelation given to them yet. It's the simple. Not the absence of knowledge regarding good and evil, but an specific kind of knowing of the good and evil God did not want them to know of, lest they BECOME evil themselves.
They also had knowledge via the Imago Dei. Since that was not defected, but purely in play, then they knew things simply via that relationship.
It is a logical fallacy to say that they did not know what was good and evil because the tree was of good and evil. The Tree was not the exhaustive tree of good and evil but of a specific kind of knowledge. With that you are reading into the text like pagans do.
Thus they knew God was good. Specifically since after Creation God said creation was good. And since The 2nd person of the Trinity talked with Adam (which is revelation), then logically Adam knew of good, but not of a specific kind.
Adam and Eve's sin was not carried out in ignorance since God told them to not eat it. Thus they knew it was wrong. Eve was seduced (a typical woman), and Adam ate the fruit not out of deception, but probably out of love for Eve.
The whole issue is full of logical fallacies. You add things there are not there, and you take the text out of context. ANYTHING that God says to anybody is revelation. So logically, they were revealed many things. One thing specifically, that if they eat the tree, that is evil, since GOD is the standard of all good. Anything via the disobedience of God is evil. Thus the understanding was there.
And remember, the sin of the tree also caused the Imago Dei to be damaged severely. This was part of the consequence of mankind.
If you have a theological question in the future, don't be afraid to ask. I love talking about theology to pagan atheists. Happy Thanksgiving. Adam and Evil were real people. You evolutionists know about the "DESCENT OF MAN" theory. I agree that is was a DESCENT OF A MAN that is the true focus. That being Adam.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
You see? You knew the answer to your own stupid question all along. As the keen logician you proclaim yourself to be you will understand what I mean when I say that original sin represents a genetic fallacy and the salvation of calvary is a cherry on top of a logical fallacy from force. Isn't it fun learning new things?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
The original sin was Yahweh lying to Adam, telling him he would drop dead from eating the fruit when really all it did was give him awareness. The second sin was punishing a snake for telling the truth. The third sin was subjecting all womankind to pain because the first woman listened to the truth and acted upon it.
Is it any wonder that Xtians are as vile as they are? They have been following the will of a sadistic lying tyrant from the get-go.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Speaking of which, what is the statute of limitations on the crime of eating an apple that a snake told you to eat ? I mean, after a few thousand years, wouldn't the punishment at least allow for a parole hearing once in a great while ?
I have noticed that a large majority of the posters that seem to actually believe in this tale have not mentioned the parts of the original story that mentioned Lillith. Was that a part of the original story that you can only get on the Director's Cut version of the DVD ? Was there some reason why the people that decided what books could go in the Bible and what books could not go in the Bible had to take the versions of Lillith out ?
But when you sound it all down, it still boils down to this :
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
That makes so much sense and is so logical that I do not see how we can argue with this notion.
“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
the real sin is that christians are prepared to love a torturer and a murderer in order to save their own hides. They really do believe we will be tormented forever and many, just like our evangelical cliche of a friend Lee here, are perfectly fine with that. Such comfort with torture does not speak highly of Lee's core morality. There's a word for the way christians behave in the face of an immoral, threatening deity. The word is appeasement.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Yes, it is both sickening and frightening that a large number of the human race would profess to glorify and adore such a monster, all while chanting their memes of peace and love. Were such a god real, it would be the obligation of anyone with real morals to overthrow him. And yet they preach about morality to us.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Lilith,
The problem with Lilith is that there is no evidence of this. The story came from an Occult Black Magic type of Judaism along with Kabbalah. Specifically the Zohan of the 11th century.
The Lilith is made up and is used in occult areas specifically witchcraft.
But this has nothing to do with original sin.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Ummm, Lilith appears in the Babylonian Talmud fully 500 years before the Zohan, and is easily identified as the Mesopotamian Lilitu with writing about this type of demoness going back about 4,000 years. And the whole Bible is made up, so your point is?
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Oh, and specifically the idea of Lilith as the first wife of Adam came from the Alphabet of Ben Sirah which was written somewhere between 700-1000 CE. It was he who introduced the idea of Lilith wanting to be on equal footing with Adam while in the sack. She was later given the role of succubus, which is in keeping with the Mesopotamian Lilitu that would spread disease and kill children in the womb by touching the mothers stomach. The birdlike imagery of her from the Talmud is again in keeping with Assyrian depictions of these demons with bird talons and wings. And since much of the Bible was derived from Mesopotamian myth it is fairly obvious that Lilith was just another piece of mythology that was hijacked by the Hebrew.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
"Evolutionist theory faces a problem with the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate as does empirical observation that things tend to disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory of evolution insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began."
"Beginning with the Big Bang and the self formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system and relationship, down to every atom, molecule and beyond, is the result of a loosely defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, which is a direct contradiction of the 2nd law."
Sorry dude! You should be reminded or informed at this point that not one shred of evidence exists to support the above described evolution (self-creation) myth. It's never been observed!
Now on to transitional fossils!
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid." Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist) Macroevolution: Pattern and Process p.39
"Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so." E.R. Leach (evolutionist)
"Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist) The Major Features Of Evolution p.360
I can give you more references if need be.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Please don't give me references on physics and paleontological topics by people who wouldn't know the Laws of Thermodynamics if they got bit on the butt. Let me give you a few recommendations instead. First, take a college level physics class.
The short cut for the Laws of Thermodynamics is:
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't quit the game.
Now, the laws are for closed systems. That is, no additional energy (usually in the form of heat) is being added. For example, you can cook dinner. You take a frozen pizza out and either put it in the microwave or in the oven. Heat is added to the frozen pizza, making it hot and gooey and ready to eat. You have just trashed your argument for evolution violating the 2nd LOT.
The earth has energy being added all the time - it's called the Sun. And without this additional energy being added to our system, we wouldn't be here typing on the internet. There is also internal energy radiating from the earth's molten core to the surface. Energy galore. And so acorns turn into mighty oak trees and one sperm plus one ova become infants that grow into people. If you can't understand how this happens - sign up for the physics course.
Second recommendation is Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero. Available at amazon.com or your local library. So you don't have to pay for it if you don't want. The book is full of pictures of series of transitional fossils. Dr. Prothero is a paleontologist specializing in mammals on the North American continent and he explains very clearly how each animal evolved and why we believe the fossil record is adequate.
Third recommendation is Feathered Dinosaurs: The Origin of Birds by John Long and Peter Schouten. A beautiful book of photos of actual fossils with the impressions of feathers and proto-feathers. These are recent fossil finds from the dry lakes of northern China. The sand is extremely fine and the dunes often collapsed suddenly burying the not quite birds and making excellent impressions of their skeletons, skin, and feathers. There are also artists renditions of the probable live dinosaur/bird. Again, available from Amazon or your local library.
Please note. Many libraries are connected via WorldCat - a world wide catalog of the collections of those libraries. If you are a member of your local library, you may very often borrow books from other libraries around the world for free or very minimal costs. At my library, often the postage to ship the book directly to your home is free. All you have to do is ask. And living in the middle of nowhere is not an excuse to be ignorant anymore.
-- 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.
Youza! It is called the Inter Library Exchange Program. I was using it 8 years ago when I was writing a book on the history of the origins of the Old Testament. I think it is pretty much universal in the program that you only pay postal charges for the books. Even for me here in the middle of nowhere a simple call to the library in Fairbanks or Anchorage will get them to borrow the books I ask for and have them mail dropped here.....eventually.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Strawmen of evolution + ignorance of thermodynamics.
The theory of evolution only describes how organisms on Earth have evolved. It does not claim that the entropy of the universe decreases.
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases in a closed system, due to simple probability. The Earth is not a closed system.
Okay, here's a small piece of evidence. How about ring species? Explain a ring species.
The entire concept of a transitional fossil is often misleading. All organisms, trivially, are transitional organisms in the sense that they are transitions between their parents and their offspring.
Just asserting that the fossil record lacks transitional fossils displays an embarrassing level of ignorance. You don't understand what evolution is. You don't understand what a "transitional fossil" is. You are ignorant of the tens of thousands of fossils that scientists have found.
1 million references of Creationist websites aren't worth two shits. Demonstrating that you understand what you're talking about is worth a lot more, and you have clearly not demonstrated that you know what you're talking about.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Much LOL'ing...
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
The comedy just keeps getting better! LOL! Yeah it evolved from a cold pizza to a hot pizza. It's still a pizza! When we can see a pizza morph into a banana then morph into apple through billions of years of a slow process then I'll believe in evolution and God didn't create us. Is that gonna ever happen no! This is exactly what evolution claims is fact. Hilarious!
By simply adding energy alone does not decrease entropy, in fact it increases entropy, speeding up natural processes that cause breakdown, disorder. For example, consider your cars paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass. The 2nd law applies equally well to open systems as well. Every living organism's DNA contains all the information needed to direct the process of building the organism from cell to a fully functional mature specimen. All the information is there from the beginning. Information comes from an intelligent source (God) not from pure random chance through billions of years lol. Everything is designed! I want you to take your watch and smash it up with a hammer and put all the parts in a bag. Now shake the bag for 14 billion years, are you going to get a watch. No!! A person doesn't have to have a Phd in physics to understand that it is impossible for life to come from nothing.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
The pizza was not about evolution, it was about energy, numbnuts. If you check it out with AnswerinGenesis.com, you will notice that even they say not to use the 2LOT argument anymore, since the creationist version is wrong.
I don't have the patience to respond to the rest of your post. You haven't bothered to look up anything, learn anything, even read my post carefully. Deliberate ignorance should be the only sin.
-- 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.
The 2nd law applies to systems that are both closed and thermally isolated from their surroundings. Living organisms take in and expel matter and exchange heat with their surroundings, making them open systems. The earth takes in energy from the sun and space, so it too is an open system.
Also, organisms take in foodstuffs that contain highly ordered, low entropy molecules, like proteins and starches, and excrete wastes that contain less ordered molecules. Therefore, an organism discards matter with a greater entropy content into its environment than the matter it takes in. Energy, heat, and entropy transfers within subsystems operating inside a closed system are perfectly allowable under the laws of thermodynamics. So the argument is invalid under either open or closed systems.
By the way, the first law of thermodynamics disproves god.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
-- 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.
The comedy does keep getting better.
The available data is consistent with life having evolved from less complex organisms to more complex over long periods of time. The evidence comes from fossils, laid down in sedimentary rocks in sequential order from oldest to youngest as the law of gravity decrees.
Is there a single piece of evidence that supports another conclusion? There is not. Please post evidence found in the rocks that supports creation. We'd all change our minds if we could see some.
There are many transitional fossils. Stop reading Duane Gish and go buy a book about fossils. Or do you think satan put them there to deceive us?
And what's this lateral evolution you're raving about? If you see a banana evolve sideways into an apple you'll believe in evolution? No you won't. That would be supernatural and we already know you believe in magic and think actual evidence is beneath you.
Interestingly, I think in this thread we're witnessing a human brain turning into a banana. Given you share 60 per cent of your DNA with bananas Lee, perhaps this should come as no great surprise.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
You missed the point. No one suggests that they didn't know what he meant, ie, they understood the instruction.
It was any knowledge of why they should necessarily obey such an instruction which was clearly lacking, otherwise it would not make sense to label the tree as it was, as giving one the knowledge of good and evil.
Try again.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
They absolutely had knowledge of why they shouldn't eat it. They would die if they ate it and they would have knowledge of evil. The moral of the story is obedience. Adam and Eve had plenty to eat and a large variety of fruits to choose from and could have believed God. God gave them free will to choose, otherwise they would have been puppets. True love always requires a choice. God wanted them to choose to trust and love Him. The only way to give this choice would have been to command something that was not allowed. Satan used the oldest play in his playbook of deceit- God is keeping something good from you. The knowledge of evil brought fear and shame to Adam and Eve so it was not a very good thing. It ruined their relationship with God and each other. God does not have to justify Himself to anybody! He has the right to give life and to take life anyway and anytime He so chooses. The servant is not greater than the master.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Yeah, my mom used to say it, too. "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it!" Nowadays they call that child abuse.
-- 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.
But they couldn't know it was wrong! And clearly God was lying in saying they would die!!
Behaving according to threats or promises is not morality, it is simply appealing to fears and desires, no moral sense involved.
And obedience to authority figures is not automatically morally right, otherwise the Nuremburg Trials of Hitler's deputies would have not have been justified.
Such a view as you put forward there endorses every evil dictator in history, when he punished anyone who didn't carry out his every command.
Th G of E story has an evil 'moral' lesson - obey authority, no matter what they command.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Though they lacked knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree, that doesn't necessarily mean they had no understanding of obedience and disobedience, or that they were totally ignorant of right and wrong any more than the tree of life meant they were dead until they ate from it. How did God lie? When they ate of the fruit, they surely died a spiritual death that very day as well as a physical death in the future.
God did not threaten Adam He simply gave Adam a command as to avoid death! The command was given out of love and nothing else. Parents tell their kids not to do certain things because they know as a result the child will be hurt. No morally responsible parent ever wants to see their children hurt. Trying to paint God as immoral or malevolent is fallacious on your part. Again, reading all the threads in these forums leads me to one conclusion! Angry! Angry! Angry! You all are angry at a God that you say doesn't exist. How can you be angry at something that doesn't exist. Where is your reasoning and logic?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Ummm... when my sons were of the running in the street age, I remember telling them not to. I don't remember telling them they would suffer in pain for eternity, or that their children's children's would also suffer because of their actions. It is one thing to punish someone for an action they do - it is something entirely different to punish them, their children, their grandchildren, etc.
And I am not angry with a god/s/dess that doesn't exist but with his/her/its/their followers who are so lacking in rationality.
-- 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.
Nope, it really doesn't make any sense to punish their children, and it certainly isn't moral by any stretch of the imagination. Of course when it is read in context it is obvious that Adam & Eve were about to become gods, and Yahweh didn't want the competition. Funny how the fundies can never seem to grasp reading something in context. Just do some convoluted mental gymnastics and keep worshiping a sadistic, amoral, lying, murdering monster, and insist that said monster is the source of all things good. Sheesh!
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Twenty assertions in one paragraph. A new site record!
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Lee, the problem (if this god exsisted which I highly doubt) is that he was a bad daddy. With children you have to fully explain consequences which god failed to do. In my view it is the same as me telling my son not to touch the hot stove because I said so. Children have to learn by experience or through teaching.
The learning through experience comes when they get older, after you've given them the basics of understanding. My kids have all spent a great deal of time in time out and being grounded. They learn after explaining thoroughly and giving them consequences should they choose not to listen.
Your god wasn't thorough enough. He saw fit to let them find out for themselves. What was the consequence anyway? They had to put leaves over their privates? He didn't even go through with the consequence he told them he would. It's bad parenting and in all honesty, if god created them, he had to parent them. This is always part of why it's so irritating for christians to ask about or emply that atheists have no morals.
Lemme ask you this Lee, if I tell my son to hold my hand at the crosswalk at the mall and he yanks free should I stop him or let him go? Should I let him learn the end result of not listening to me? If you say yes my conversations with you are done but in all honesty you have the "yes" answer for the Adam and Eve situation.
Anyway Lee, this whole thinv is rediculous anyway because you don't believe in evolution or fossils so why would you believe that there was a talking snake? Have you ever seen one?
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Why did you tell your sons to stay out of the street? Because they might get hit by a car and killed or seriously injured and you don't want to see that happen because you love them dearly. God did the same thing by telling them not to eat the fruit because they would die and life for them would be troublesome at times. We can see the result of this disobedience just by looking at the world today. It's a fallen world. If God is eternal as the scriptures testify, it stands to reason that a sin we commit is an eternal sin because it is a sin committed against an eternal God which requires eternal punishment. But the good news is we have an advocate in Jesus Christ who washes away our sin and took the punishment for our sins on the cross.
God is not directly punishing their children or their grandchildren. The verse you are referencing is being completely taken out of context. God does not condemn children because of their parents misbehavior (See Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20) However, children suffer the consequences of their parents sinful choices. A parents adultery, substance abuse, or other dysfunctional behavior establishes a pattern that children model as they mature. The result can be a repetition of their parents behavior leading to conflict, divorce, poverty and many other conditions that make their children's, and even their grandchildren's lives difficult. The referenced verses you are speaking are about idol worship.
So, you are angry with me because of my faith in God and as you state I don't know how to reason or use logic? It's a free country! I have every right to choose who I place my faith in and what I believe as well as you do. I think atheism is irrational but I'm not angry with you. Why do you allow my irrationality and lack of logic as you say to affect you and make you angry? That's not very smart! I think I have a better reason why your angry and hate everything about God and his followers.
If the world hates you, you know that before it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love it's own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. John 15:18-19
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
How can someone be sadistic, amoral, lying, and a murderer if they don't exist? Could you please answer?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Where is the proof that God doesn't exist? The Atheistic position is very presumptuous. There is plenty of historical evidence for the person of Jesus Christ. The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts. Why didn't they deny these accounts? If this was all just a hoax the church would have never gotten of the ground and been proven to be false oh about 1900 years ago. Yet, Christianity is 2 billion strong and growing worldwide each day. But I guess were all delusional though huh.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
He fully explained the consequences, you shall surely die. Am I missing something here, please tell me if I am. In my opinion, God didn't have to justify Himself to A and E. My father never justified himself to me when I was a kid. He told me not to do something for my own good and I did what he told me out of respect for my father. I agree that children need to learn some things on their own, but others things they don't. It's a matter of obedience and reverence simply put.
He certainly did! The instant they at the fruit, they died spiritually. They also both died a physical death in the future.
Rebecca, of course you should stop him! I'm not really sure I like your analogy lol. God had to allow them the freedom to choose life or death. It's called free will. Would you like to be in a relationship where you were forced to love your partner. I hope not! God gives us a choice. If God is eternal as the scriptures testify, it stands to reason that a sin we commit is an eternal sin because it is a sin committed against an eternal God which requires eternal punishment. But the good news is we have an advocate in Jesus Christ who washed away our sins and took our punishment for our sins on the cross. Like holding our child's hand at the crosswalk. He redeems us all we have to do is believe in Him and who He said He was. There is plenty of historical evidence to the person of Jesus Christ. What do fossils and evolution and talking snakes have to do with it God being a bad daddy?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
That's not really a free choice though is it? You just said that if you don't love god you'll be eternally tormented. Why don't you just say it's compulsory?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Oh, so they lacked knowledge of good and evil, but they didn't lack it.
Okay. Got it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Because it's not compulsory.
God doesn't want his followers just mindlessly worshiping him out of fear that they'll be tortured for all eternity. He wants them to actually love him. In the same way, I don't want my girlfriend to stay with me just because I'll beat the shit out of her if she tries to leave. I want her to actually like me.
So, I'm not really "forcing" my girlfriend to love me; it's just that there are "conditions" involved. Something will happen to my girlfriend is she stays with me, and something will happen to her if tries to leave. She can still choose to leave or not; that's completely up to her, hehe.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Argument from silence.
Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén's principles of source criticism variously state:
* The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations
* If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.
The Bible is completely biased and cannot be considered a trustworthy source. There are no references to Jesus outside the bible that can be considered directly connected to him or eyewitnesses.
Appeal to majority.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Lee, I understand you are probably a kind person. You are just so blinded by what you've read in the bible and you contradict yourself a lot. I see your really trying to get your point across about jesus and god, you just aren't doing a really good job with it.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
And just how well is christianity preventing child abuse? Last statistics I saw, religion made no difference in whether a family was dysfunctional enough for the children to be abused. I have known people who were abused as children who did not abuse their own children - and they managed this feat without going to some church, reading some ancient book written by a bunch of goat herders, or praying to some sky fairy. All of your strength is your own - it is not given to you by praying, you already had it. You own the strength and you can call on it - it is always there and it is always yours. No god/s/dess reaquired.
And atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rates. Evangelical christians have the highest. Go ahead, look it up for yourself.
It's a free country. Believe whatever nonsense you want to believe. My issue is when people try to get their religion made into law. No one has been able to tell me which christian faith they want as law - whether mormon, jehovah witness, catholic, etc. I also detest religion in the science class room. If people would give up deliberate ignorance, I could learn to live with them a lot better.
And the world doesn't hate me. I don't have those self-esteem problems, thanks. Seems to me it's the christians who have self-esteem problems. After all, why else would they run around insisting their way is the only right way and how all those sinners are going to burn in hell. But they aren't, because they are better than anyone else because they belong to ....... or they believe...... and god/s/dess loves them best!
-- 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.
That's an assertion on your part. God communicates to me every day! The Bible was written so God could reveal Himself to His creation as well as the plan of redemption. Do I hear Him audibly? No, of course not. God speaks to your heart and mind through His written word. Silence is an excuse on your part. Open up a Bible for honest reasons rather than try to disprove and rip apart. You'll never be able to do it. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Matthew 24:35
I must point out to you that bias actually has NO CORRELATION to truth or falsity. One's predisposition to believe X has no logical bearing on the truth status of X. For example, if there are two propositions X and -X, one of which is true, and the other false; and if there are two proponents A and B, with A having a bias toward X and B having a bias toward -X, then ONE OF THEM IS STILL CORRECT- in spite of bias.
The apostles where eventually martyred for their faith in Jesus. Would you risk your life for something that you new was 100% false?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
god/s/dess sends you text messages? Seriously? I'm so not impressed.
That's why I am not a christian. 100% false and I am not risking my life over it.
-- 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.
How do you tell that it's actually God speaking to you as opposed to your own thoughts? If you're like most Christians, what God tells you to do has an amazing similarity to what you want to do.
If you do use the Bible, I have a feeling that you tend to use a lot of the writings of Paul and his converts. that makes sense because he created the religion you currently practice (the one that makes Jesus a God). Even then, you likely pick and choose the parts you want to obey.
As for martyrdom, that part of Christianity that all Christians want to go through, I don't think the apostles knew what they believed was false. Not even Paul, who hoped to destroy Judaism and set himself up as a prophet, knew what he believed was false. That being said, people have done (and continue to do) a lot of bat-shit crazy things for their sincere beliefs.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Well that stands to reason since 78% of the population considers itself Christian. I personally believe the destruction of marriages is due to the fact that the church refuses to take a biblical view of marriage.
What do you mean by "get their religion made into law?" Could you elaborate? To educate you, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses are cults not Christianity. Roman Catholicism is not true Christianity because they have added much to the scope of Christian doctrine that is not revealed in scripture. Roman Catholicism is a religion of self-righteous works to attain salvation.
I also detest my tax money being spent on religion in the classroom. Evolution is a religion! As soon as anyone says "I believe or we think" faith is involved therefore it is a religion. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or the fossil record of the past. The universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale. The fact is evolutionists believe in evolution because the want to.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20