>> ^hpqp:


I was going to suggest reading Byron's "Cain: A Mystery", which develops the immorality of original sin in a much more sophisticated and poetic fashion, but seeing that you did not even get the point of the nonstampcollector video I linked (if you even watched it), Byron would be way over your head.

You say: "God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did."
Have you even read the Bible? God is the one who lies, saying "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen.2:7); the serpent, OTOH, tells the truth (Gen. 3:4-7, italics mine):
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, [...]
It is the lack of knowledge that makes the fabled first humans inferior to (and dependant upon) their father-figure creator. Religion relies on ignorance, obedience and blind faith in authority, i.e. everything that demarcates a dependent infant from an independent adult.



I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I forgot to add this biblical tidbit to my argument (Gen. 3:22-3, italics mine):

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.


Not only does everything the serpent says come to pass, it is even validated by God Himself.

Before you go all copy-pasty-preachy on me shiny, remember that we're talking about a fable with a frikkin' talking snake!

@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:


1. Assuming that your belief in Adam and Eve as historical figures implicitly includes your acceptance of the ridiculous notion that all humankind descends from two individuals and their incestuous offspring, can you explain why a supposedly all-benevolent being would not only punish the two who disobeyed him, but all their children for generations on end? What did they do wrong?

You say: Well how can you judge God? No sinner could and I include myself in that. How could an immoral being judge a moral one?
Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?


2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

You say: In regard to the unforgivable sin, the reason it is unforgivable is because when you become a Christian you receive Gods Spirit. His Spirit is what transforms us, makes us a new creation. If you reject His Spirit, you cannot be transformed, so therefore you cannot be forgiven.

But you also say: anyone who is saved is always saved. If you reject the Holy Spirit you are not saved, therefore you were never a Christian in the first place.

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").


3. You say:Though Adam and Eve did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil, they were informed by God directly that it was bad to disobey him and there would be consequences. God imparted his knowledge of good and evil to them, on that circumstance, so they had the free choice.

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.



Does the irony escape you?


I am looking forward to your next copy-pasted patchwork of apologetic gymnastics.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Do you wear a cologne called attitude? You could bottle the sneer dripping from your words and sell it for a tidy sum. Though it doesn't surprise me that you're actually advocating for Satan in the story, it was a lie no matter how narrow, obtuse, and willfully ignorant your interpertation is. They did die, that makes it a lie. God told them the truth about it.
It was not their lack of knowledge that made them "inferior", it was their faith in God that made them superior. Yet, God gave them the choice didn't He? Your argument here is null and void. He enjoyed a perfect relationship with them but He gave them the choice of knowing anyway. He warned them if they did it they would die. They chose not to trust God and lusted after his power, and then they reaped the consequences, which was seperation from God. It's the same story going on on Earth, right now, in every heart that has turned away from God. What He did, and is still doing, is fair and just. He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do, and He even gives you fair warning.
What's absurd is your nasty and sarcastic attitude. It's just pure arrogance; have you ever read the bible? You're here railing against something you have no understanding of. You're condescending to me about my intellect when even a child has a more cohesive understanding here than you do. Btw, regarding the ridiculous "blasphemy challenge"
John 6;39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
As far as whether the Earth is old or young, I don't know. It isn't clear. I've seen models where the geology of the planet could be explained by a young Earth, and ones that dispute it. I don't really care, to tell you the truth. It makes no difference to me whether the Earth is young or old. Science hasn't proved it either way, and the bible isn't exactly clear on it, so there isn't a way for me to say definitively. To me the jury is out and it doesn't look like it will be back anytime soon. What is important to me is a relationship with Jesus Christ, not how old His creation is.
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did. They chose to believe the lie instead, and lusted after Gods power. Thus they sinned and became spiritually seperated from God. The perfect cannot be joined with the imperfect.
The whole point of our lives is to love God (and eachother) and live with Him forever in paradise. That's why He created Adam and Eve in the first place. Man sinned and fell, became seperated from God, and became mortal and lost their place with God.
Your argument is that it is immoral. Well how can you judge God? No sinner could and I include myself in that. How could an immoral being judge a moral one? It's only your excuse for not doing what He told us to do. God is Holy, but you have believed the lie that He isn't. You are choosing death over life, because that is all sin is. The soul that sins is the soul that dies, but Gods gift is eternal life.
In regard to the unforgivable sin, the reason it is unforgivable is because when you become a Christian you receive Gods Spirit. His Spirit is what transforms us, makes us a new creation. If you reject His Spirit, you cannot be transformed, so therefore you cannot be forgiven.
Everyone who has taken the so-called blasphemy challenge just to please their inner demons of being completely dead to Christ are mistaken. None of them have done anything unforgivable and can all still be saved.

I was going to suggest reading Byron's "Cain: A Mystery", which develops the immorality of original sin in a much more sophisticated and poetic fashion, but seeing that you did not even get the point of the nonstampcollector video I linked (if you even watched it), Byron would be way over your head.
You say: "God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did."
Have you even read the Bible? God is the one who lies, saying "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen.2:7); the serpent, OTOH, tells the truth (Gen. 3:4-7, italics mine):
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, [...]
It is the lack of knowledge that makes the fabled first humans inferior to (and dependant upon) their father-figure creator. Religion relies on ignorance, obedience and blind faith in authority, i.e. everything that demarcates a dependent infant from an independent adult.
You use a lot of religious terms as if they actually meant something. Please define these if you want your argumentation to be the least bit intelligible:
God; sin; moral (in relation to "God"), God's spirit.

Since you did not address the incest remark while continuing to speak of Adam and Eve as if they really existed, I'll assume that you really do think we all descend from only two humans, which is totally absurd. Do you also think the Earth is only 6000 years old? Perhaps the Sun revolves around it (Eccl.1:5)? And is it a flat disc (Is.40:22)?
(Btw, most of those who took the "blasphemy challenge" grew up Christian, so no, imaginary Sky-Daddy cannot forgive them)



http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

*edit:damn,embed wont work.well so much for me making a funny!now my day is just ruined..RUINED i tell ya!

>> ^shinyblurry:

Do you wear a cologne called attitude? You could bottle the sneer dripping from your words and sell it for a tidy sum. Though it doesn't surprise me that you're actually advocating for Satan in the story, it was a lie no matter how narrow, obtuse, and willfully ignorant your interpertation is. They did die, that makes it a lie. God told them the truth about it.
It was not their lack of knowledge that made them "inferior", it was their faith in God that made them superior. Yet, God gave them the choice didn't He? Your argument here is null and void. He enjoyed a perfect relationship with them but He gave them the choice of knowing anyway. He warned them if they did it they would die. They chose not to trust God and lusted after his power, and then they reaped the consequences, which was seperation from God. It's the same story going on on Earth, right now, in every heart that has turned away from God. What He did, and is still doing, is fair and just. He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do, and He even gives you fair warning.
What's absurd is your nasty and sarcastic attitude. It's just pure arrogance; have you ever read the bible? You're here railing against something you have no understanding of. You're condescending to me about my intellect when even a child has a more cohesive understanding here than you do. Btw, regarding the ridiculous "blasphemy challenge"
John 6;39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
As far as whether the Earth is old or young, I don't know. It isn't clear. I've seen models where the geology of the planet could be explained by a young Earth, and ones that dispute it. I don't really care, to tell you the truth. It makes no difference to me whether the Earth is young or old. Science hasn't proved it either way, and the bible isn't exactly clear on it, so there isn't a way for me to say definitively. To me the jury is out and it doesn't look like it will be back anytime soon. What is important to me is a relationship with Jesus Christ, not how old His creation is.
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did. They chose to believe the lie instead, and lusted after Gods power. Thus they sinned and became spiritually seperated from God. The perfect cannot be joined with the imperfect.
The whole point of our lives is to love God (and eachother) and live with Him forever in paradise. That's why He created Adam and Eve in the first place. Man sinned and fell, became seperated from God, and became mortal and lost their place with God.
Your argument is that it is immoral. Well how can you judge God? No sinner could and I include myself in that. How could an immoral being judge a moral one? It's only your excuse for not doing what He told us to do. God is Holy, but you have believed the lie that He isn't. You are choosing death over life, because that is all sin is. The soul that sins is the soul that dies, but Gods gift is eternal life.
In regard to the unforgivable sin, the reason it is unforgivable is because when you become a Christian you receive Gods Spirit. His Spirit is what transforms us, makes us a new creation. If you reject His Spirit, you cannot be transformed, so therefore you cannot be forgiven.
Everyone who has taken the so-called blasphemy challenge just to please their inner demons of being completely dead to Christ are mistaken. None of them have done anything unforgivable and can all still be saved.

I was going to suggest reading Byron's "Cain: A Mystery", which develops the immorality of original sin in a much more sophisticated and poetic fashion, but seeing that you did not even get the point of the nonstampcollector video I linked (if you even watched it), Byron would be way over your head.
You say: "God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did."
Have you even read the Bible? God is the one who lies, saying "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen.2:7); the serpent, OTOH, tells the truth (Gen. 3:4-7, italics mine):
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, [...]
It is the lack of knowledge that makes the fabled first humans inferior to (and dependant upon) their father-figure creator. Religion relies on ignorance, obedience and blind faith in authority, i.e. everything that demarcates a dependent infant from an independent adult.
You use a lot of religious terms as if they actually meant something. Please define these if you want your argumentation to be the least bit intelligible:
God; sin; moral (in relation to "God"), God's spirit.

Since you did not address the incest remark while continuing to speak of Adam and Eve as if they really existed, I'll assume that you really do think we all descend from only two humans, which is totally absurd. Do you also think the Earth is only 6000 years old? Perhaps the Sun revolves around it (Eccl.1:5)? And is it a flat disc (Is.40:22)?
(Btw, most of those who took the "blasphemy challenge" grew up Christian, so no, imaginary Sky-Daddy cannot forgive them)



Since you continuously miss the subtleties of my critiques while avoiding the actual questions that are being posed, I will spell it out as simply as I can. (Note that my intellectual condescension, which you are right in spotting, is based entirely on your unintelligent responses and childish emotional reactions, your disregard for logic, your circular reasoning and your incessant ad hominem attacks. But please, don't let my "nasty and sarcastic attitude" get in the way of your reasoned and logical argumentation... for which we are still waiting.)


1. On the literal reading of Scripture: My question as to whether you took the Adam/Eve/Eden myth as factual and historical truth is crucial, and since you continued to base your argumentation on the assumption that it is, I followed up with questions pertaining to other literal readings of the Bible, i.e. YEC, geocentrism and flat earth theory. In later comments you dance around the issue of the Earth's age, but refuse to address one of my first questions: is all humanity the actual descendants of the fabled Adam and Eve? If not, the whole theory of original sin crumbles. You might argue, as the begrudgingly-evolution-accepting catholic church does, that "original sin" is equivalent to "human nature", which completely voids the whole "created in His image" and "free will" things.

2. On hypocrisy and cherry-picking: I wish I could say how surprised I am at you being oblivious to your hypocrisy and self-contradiction, but it is all too common among religious apologists. You accuse me of "narrow, obtuse, and willfully ignorant" interpretation, of arrogance, ignorance and condescension (I fully own up to that last one), and in the very same lines are guilty of all of the above. What makes your interpretation correct, and mine - which is based directly on the actual text - incorrect? Oh yes, your dogma, which declares that there is only one correct reading of the Bible, i.e. the Christian one, no matter how contrary to the text it is. You assume that any one who contradicts your creed with the help of your holy book "has no understanding" of it... and I'm the arrogant one? I could be a theology major for all you know, and while I am not, I have read the Bible thoroughly enough to know it for what it is: a collection of myths, romanticised history, laws and poetry, written by men.

Concerning the "blasphemy challenge", if I understand your reasoning cherry-picking logic, there is no need to believe in God, the Bible or any Christian creed, since we're all going to heaven anyway, right? But then, in a later comment you proclaim that only some are chosen ("many are called..." I know). What happens to those who are not and, more importantly, how will you get out of that without contradicting yourself?

3. Please do not skirt the questions: note that the "answers" to my earliest questions, repeated here, were unintelligible due to your use of terms (see below) which need clarification.

>>"So the story of Adam and Eve is not just a myth, and we are all descendants of incestuous sex (twice, if the story of Noah is taken into account)?

So God values blind obedience higher than natural curiosity, and expects Adam and Eve to obey without knowing that disobeying is "bad" (since they don't yet have the knowledge of good/evil)?

So it is moral to punish an infinity of generations of humans for what their ancestors supposedly did? And then present the "gift" of forgiveness if you submit to the god who caused you to be "sinful" in the first place??"


>>"You use a lot of religious terms as if they actually meant something. Please define these if you want your argumentation to be the least bit intelligible:

God; sin; moral (in relation to "God"), God's spirit."

Do you wear a cologne called attitude? You could bottle the sneer dripping from your words and sell it for a tidy sum. Though it doesn't surprise me that you're actually advocating for Satan in the story, it was a lie no matter how narrow, obtuse, and willfully ignorant your interpertation is. They did die, that makes it a lie. God told them the truth about it.

It was not their lack of knowledge that made them "inferior", it was their faith in God that made them superior. Yet, God gave them the choice didn't He? Your argument here is null and void. He enjoyed a perfect relationship with them but He gave them the choice of knowing anyway. He warned them if they did it they would die. They chose not to trust God and lusted after his power, and then they reaped the consequences, which was seperation from God. It's the same story going on on Earth, right now, in every heart that has turned away from God. What He did, and is still doing, is fair and just. He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do, and He even gives you fair warning.

What's absurd is your nasty and sarcastic attitude. It's just pure arrogance; have you ever read the bible? You're here railing against something you have no understanding of. You're condescending to me about my intellect when even a child has a more cohesive understanding here than you do. Btw, regarding the ridiculous "blasphemy challenge"

John 6;39

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

As far as whether the Earth is old or young, I don't know. It isn't clear. I've seen models where the geology of the planet could be explained by a young Earth, and ones that dispute it. I don't really care, to tell you the truth. It makes no difference to me whether the Earth is young or old. Science hasn't proved it either way, and the bible isn't exactly clear on it, so there isn't a way for me to say definitively. To me the jury is out and it doesn't look like it will be back anytime soon. What is important to me is a relationship with Jesus Christ, not how old His creation is.

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did. They chose to believe the lie instead, and lusted after Gods power. Thus they sinned and became spiritually seperated from God. The perfect cannot be joined with the imperfect.
The whole point of our lives is to love God (and eachother) and live with Him forever in paradise. That's why He created Adam and Eve in the first place. Man sinned and fell, became seperated from God, and became mortal and lost their place with God.
Your argument is that it is immoral. Well how can you judge God? No sinner could and I include myself in that. How could an immoral being judge a moral one? It's only your excuse for not doing what He told us to do. God is Holy, but you have believed the lie that He isn't. You are choosing death over life, because that is all sin is. The soul that sins is the soul that dies, but Gods gift is eternal life.
In regard to the unforgivable sin, the reason it is unforgivable is because when you become a Christian you receive Gods Spirit. His Spirit is what transforms us, makes us a new creation. If you reject His Spirit, you cannot be transformed, so therefore you cannot be forgiven.
Everyone who has taken the so-called blasphemy challenge just to please their inner demons of being completely dead to Christ are mistaken. None of them have done anything unforgivable and can all still be saved.

I was going to suggest reading Byron's "Cain: A Mystery", which develops the immorality of original sin in a much more sophisticated and poetic fashion, but seeing that you did not even get the point of the nonstampcollector video I linked (if you even watched it), Byron would be way over your head.
You say: "God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did."
Have you even read the Bible? God is the one who lies, saying "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen.2:7); the serpent, OTOH, tells the truth (Gen. 3:4-7, italics mine):
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, [...]
It is the lack of knowledge that makes the fabled first humans inferior to (and dependant upon) their father-figure creator. Religion relies on ignorance, obedience and blind faith in authority, i.e. everything that demarcates a dependent infant from an independent adult.
You use a lot of religious terms as if they actually meant something. Please define these if you want your argumentation to be the least bit intelligible:
God; sin; moral (in relation to "God"), God's spirit.

Since you did not address the incest remark while continuing to speak of Adam and Eve as if they really existed, I'll assume that you really do think we all descend from only two humans, which is totally absurd. Do you also think the Earth is only 6000 years old? Perhaps the Sun revolves around it (Eccl.1:5)? And is it a flat disc (Is.40:22)?
(Btw, most of those who took the "blasphemy challenge" grew up Christian, so no, imaginary Sky-Daddy cannot forgive them)

>> ^shinyblurry:

God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did. They chose to believe the lie instead, and lusted after Gods power. Thus they sinned and became spiritually seperated from God. The perfect cannot be joined with the imperfect.
The whole point of our lives is to love God (and eachother) and live with Him forever in paradise. That's why He created Adam and Eve in the first place. Man sinned and fell, became seperated from God, and became mortal and lost their place with God.
Your argument is that it is immoral. Well how can you judge God? No sinner could and I include myself in that. How could an immoral being judge a moral one? It's only your excuse for not doing what He told us to do. God is Holy, but you have believed the lie that He isn't. You are choosing death over life, because that is all sin is. The soul that sins is the soul that dies, but Gods gift is eternal life.
In regard to the unforgivable sin, the reason it is unforgivable is because when you become a Christian you receive Gods Spirit. His Spirit is what transforms us, makes us a new creation. If you reject His Spirit, you cannot be transformed, so therefore you cannot be forgiven.
Everyone who has taken the so-called blasphemy challenge just to please their inner demons of being completely dead to Christ are mistaken. None of them have done anything unforgivable and can all still be saved.


I was going to suggest reading Byron's "Cain: A Mystery", which develops the immorality of original sin in a much more sophisticated and poetic fashion, but seeing that you did not even get the point of the nonstampcollector video I linked (if you even watched it), Byron would be way over your head.


You say: "God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did."

Have you even read the Bible? God is the one who lies, saying "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen.2:7); the serpent, OTOH, tells the truth (Gen. 3:4-7, italics mine):

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, [...]

It is the lack of knowledge that makes the fabled first humans inferior to (and dependant upon) their father-figure creator. Religion relies on ignorance, obedience and blind faith in authority, i.e. everything that demarcates a dependent infant from an independent adult.


You use a lot of religious terms as if they actually meant something. Please define these if you want your argumentation to be the least bit intelligible:

God; sin; moral (in relation to "God"), God's spirit.

* * *

Since you did not address the incest remark while continuing to speak of Adam and Eve as if they really existed, I'll assume that you really do think we all descend from only two humans, which is totally absurd. Do you also think the Earth is only 6000 years old? Perhaps the Sun revolves around it (Eccl.1:5)? And is it a flat disc (Is.40:22)?


(Btw, most of those who took the "blasphemy challenge" grew up Christian, so no, imaginary Sky-Daddy cannot forgive them)

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^peggedbea:
i've never had a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of a "creator" i understand how one could exist, and the need to believe that one exists and even the desire/importance of pleasing it.
i could never understand the importance of jesus. i'm confused how any of my petty little human sins can cause me to be so abominably filthy in the eyes of my "father" that he needs to have a son and then torture and kill it to make my sins ok. noone has ever been able to offer a satisfactory explaination of jesus's role in the plan of salvation for me.

Well, it's not exactly an easy thing to wrap your mind around. Firstly, if you don't have the spirit it will seem as nonsense. The bible even says this:
1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
So, there's that. I'll try to make it comprehensible..
In the beginning, man had a perfect relationship with God. Adam and Eve lived in paradise
with God, and He would come and dwell among them as well. God gave them one command, not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He told them that if they ate of that fruit they would surely die. To this point, Adam and Eve were immortal and did not know death.
Shortly after, Adam and Eve were tempted to eat of the fruit. Satan told them that God was lying, and that He told them to stay away from it because it would make them like God, knowing good and evil. Until this point, Adam and Eve had completely trusted God to take care of their needs. Now, they desired to have His knowledge and make their own judgements about what is good and what is evil. This is what brought about the fall.
They found out quickly that Satan had lied, and that they would die. Their sin had brought death into the world, and it has been inherited by their descendents ever since. This is what is meant by "original sin" They were kicked out of the garden and forced to toil and labor, and their days were numbered from then on.
Now here is the reason Christ came. To break the curse of death, liberate man from his sins, and reconcile him back to God. People focus on the death, but that is only part of it. Since no man had been able to live up to the requirements of Gods law, they had all earned condemnation under the law, which means everyone is guilty and no one is going to Heaven.
Therefore, to make man right with Him, He sent His Son to Earth as a human being. Christ brought His divinity down to Earth, as a man, and lived a perfect life. His sacrifice on the cross was for the atonement of all sins, past present and future. He was only able to do this because He himself had never sinned. He took our place for the punishment we deserve. Meaning, anyone who believes in Christ will have His sins forgiven because Christ already paid the price. This is the purpose of His death, not that God needed to torture someone, but to give all of mankind access to God through Him, through the remission of their sins. His resurrection broke the power of death over man, and guaranteed eternal life for any man who believes in His name.
So, any man, no matter what he has done, what just punishment he has earned..where ever he might be..by faith in the life death and resurrection of Jesus, he has his sins forgiven, a promise of eternal life, and justification before Gods very throne as an adopted Son of God.
Jesus, who is divine, made us like Him. Salvation is a free gift we didn't earn. To make it into Heaven we must be transformed. Our sin nature must be removed and we must live in the Spirit of God. Anyone who refuses to be transformed by Gods spirit cannot enter Heaven, because the sin nature will not be allowed in. This is why Christ is the only name by which we can be saved. Hope this helps. God bless.


So the story of Adam and Eve is not just a myth, and we are all descendants of incestuous sex (twice, if the story of Noah is taken into account)?

So God values blind obedience higher than natural curiosity, and expects Adam and Eve to obey without knowing that disobeying is "bad" (since they don't yet have the knowledge of good/evil)?

So it is moral to punish an infinity of generations of humans for what their ancestors supposedly did? And then present the "gift" of forgiveness if you submit to the god who caused you to be "sinful" in the first place??

You should really watch this short video, which illustrates simply the nonsense and immorality of the whole "atonement" shtick.




Btw, not everything is forgiven by el Heyzeus.

The role of women in the 1950 was repressive and constrictive in many ways. Society placed high importance and many expectations on behavior at home as well as in public. Women were supposed to fulfill certain roles, such as a caring mother, a diligent homemaker, and an obedient wife. The perfect mother was supposed to stay home and nurture so society would accept them. A diligent housewife had dinner on the table precisely at the moment her husband arrived from work. A wife was a "good" wife only if she carried out her man's every order and agreed with him on everything. In fact, even if she wanted to voice an opinion, he education, or rather lack of thereof would not allow it. Another reference is the 1950's American High School Home Economics textbook. An essay found in the book is entitled "How to be a Good Wife." The television shows aired at this time reflect the publics need for stability and conformity. The main character of the most watched show at the time, I Love Lucy, portrayed a woman as the stereotypical woman-in-distress, who always needed her husband, the man, to bail her out. She also was symbolic of the inept woman: the "woman driver," the "over-spender" who cannot budget, and the basic downfall of man.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/13216/a_womans_role_in_the_1950s.html?cat=41
This link includes the original version of the list.

@Shepppard

Yes there's some distancing from police, I have a cousin whose husband is a cop. He gave me a bad vibe for awhile, couldn't put my finger on it. Then one christmas get together I saw him talking about how cops can take down people easily by controlling the arm behind the back...and talking about how he could do it to anyone there no problem. So an uncle whose a short guy but strong as hell said I doubt it. So the cop tried, failed, made an excuse that he didn't want to hurt him...so the uncle said let's go outside and you can try all you like. That is teenage showoff kind of mentality, and that is not someone you want handling a gun and in charge of deciding what to do with you when they think they've got you on something. I'd guess his age to be late 20s maybe 30 at that time, uncle was probably late 40s or 50.

And a year or so after this, my brother got in trouble, fairly serious trouble. And the cousin's husband called up "to help him", gave him A LOT of bad advice under the guise of being family and wanting to help out. Told him to admit everything, didn't need a lawyer, the cops would take it easy on him...etc etc. An attempt to further his career as being "true blue" I guess. And that demonstrated his core character without any room for doubt left. If it had been his own son in that trouble, he would not have offered that advice...he'd have kept his mouth shut, got him a lawyer and went from there.

I can sympathize with cops who are there to actually protect people and put themselves in harms way to do so, but showboating, intention bad advice and attempted trickery, and no apparent loyalties or common decency is not someone who deserves respect as a human being. So they use the badge to demand respect....and that's where a lot of the trouble stems.....Im a cop so I should.......get free coffee.....get free donuts.....get free pizza........get a free pass......get the girl.......get money........get respect........get your undivided attention and obedience...... get my way.......

And my brother went on to develop a mental disorders and drug problems related to it. I've seen cops threaten him, ready to beat him down when he was not violent just mouthy and contrary. He got his arm and shoulder broken and damaged so badly while he was being held in jail for contempt of court (his mouthiness (mental disorder), not related to any charges) that he had to have a surgeon consult to see if it needed surgery to repair it. They withheld medications from him. Didn't bother to review tapes to catch the 5-8 guys who beat him down on his first day in with the population (they didn't hold him there due to his mental disorder, but all the sudden he was magically put in with the population). It took him pressing charges through a probation officer 2-3 weeks later to get any action rolling...and they still say he's responsible for paying all of the medical bills he incurred due to them placing him in with the people who beat his ass.

I can see why people hate anything to do with the justice system.....he had it bad and all he needed was someone to force medical treatment on him. Other people have had it worse, and no one steps up and takes on some personal responsibility to make sure people are not being abused....because it's not the way things are done. They are there to inflict maximum penalties on people through deception, subterfuge, and basically any way afforded to them. The only people who are not submitted to THIS system are rich, well lawyered citizens, powerful citizens, and close cop-relatives (parents, siblings, children).

>> ^Yogi:

Takei says you should never tell someone to kill themselves. I think it depends on the reason though. If you're telling them to go kill themselves because they're black, or gay, or plushy, then yeah that's wrong you shouldn't do that. But when they say some really fucking stupid shit like McCance did...then no Fuck that, he should die. I would love LOVE to meet him and constantly tell him that he should kill himself. Stupid assholes don't deserve to live...period.


Like Shep said, it really goes to show that he's a better man to not stoop to his level. I remember having a heated discussion with a Jesus freak about abortion and he threw in some statement about how his religion taught him to that everyone deserves to live "even you." I told him to think about his statement: deep down he wanted me to DIE because of my beliefs and it was only his magical imaginary friend in the sky who was blackmailing him into obedience by promising hellfire if he didn't that made him get in line. His base instinct was that I should DIE for disagreeing with him. I told him that clearly he was a violent and unhappy person only governed by threats of violence from white-bearded old men living in the clouds... didn't go over so well

So...I don't know...

Children are little mirrors of ourselves. This seems great when it's your own children and they mirror your values and beliefs. After all, isn't that part of your job? Part of being a parent is to prepare your children for the world by instilling in them an understanding of the world that will help them to succeed. How many people believe their own values and understanding do not represent the proper path for their own children?

Some people value logic, truth and critical thought and some people value faith, obedience and group assimilation. There are a million valid paths to a successful life.

Even though the values of these parents might conflict with your own, they are still loving parents who want their child to have the best life possible. Watching your children follow in your footsteps is one of the most endearing moments there is as a parent. If you're filled with revulsion to see your own child mimic your behavior then there's probably something not right about you. Being filled with revulsion by seeing other people's children mimic their behavior is perfectly normal though.

But at least try to keep a balanced perspective on it. I'm not jazzed to see another ultra conservative christian in the making but I wouldn't call it abuse.

@BicycleRepairMan

Uh, I agree with you... I think?

I never claimed that the Ten Commandments were the source of our morality. It's easy to debunk such a claim--if it were true, any country in which Christians are not the majority should be mired in immoral chaos and clearly this isn't the case.

I simply disagreed with Hitchens interpretation that "You shalt never think about or question these commandments" was part and parcel of either the Commandments themselves or being a Christian. You asked if I'd read them and I posted them for both of us to read. I think we both agree that there is nothing explicitly written in them that says that.

Now, if I understand your argument correctly, you believe the Bible implicitly requires unthinking obedience to not only the Ten Commandments but everything else that is written in it. And I'm sure you could make a strong argument for it. My point was only that others could make a strong argument against it as well, because by arguing about the implicit message we've wandered into the realm of interpretation. I'm not here to argue for or against either position, by the way, just to point out that interpretation is more vital to your argument then you appear to think.

One last point: just because the Commandments are really old doesn't mean they're entirely useless or inapplicable to today's world. The reason we are talking about this is because a lot of those "commandments" are still decent moral guidelines in spite of how old they or whatever the original writers' environment was at the time of writing. Not stealing, killing, lying, scamming people, sleeping around with people's partners behind their backs etc. are still good ideas even in today's world. You're right, they're not good moral guidelines "because god says so." But I also see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because some (completely confused) individuals are making that claim.

I think you're overstating your case on the slavery thing, Morganth, especially in the Roman Empire of the first century, though you do have a point about the fundamental differences between the old/new slavery, i.e. the systematic destruction of entire nations for slave labor instead of it being just a natural byproduct of war/conquest. It is no accident that slaves were largely visually indistinguishable from the general populace, the Roman Senate knew and feared that if they were easily recognizable then they could easily identify each other and therefore join arms and rebel against their masters (to the ire of the prevailing opinion of the day which spawned numerous proposals of this which failed to pass many times in the Senate).

The majority of slaves in the time were the absolute property of their owners who reserved the right to whip, beat, and kill them with no fear of punishment (again though there were many "charitable" masters but your case is a bit overstated), pending the various forms of either outright or payed, formal or informal manumission if their masters even granted them that (not to mention the carrot-on-a-stick of just the possibility of a freedom which may never come kept slaves in line and obedient, removing the impetus of even trying to improve one's lot in life). This was no guaranteed right by any stretch of imagination. To say that the average slave was no worse off than the average citizen just had me honestly and genuinely scratching my head for a bit.

Your issue with Harris on slavery is a matter of degree not kind.

Glad to hear everything's okay in RL!

So, to answer your first question, yes, I have read the Bible and many Buddhist sutras (particularly the Lotus Sutra). I'm familiar with some parts of the Koran, but have not read it in its entirety. What knowledge I have of Hinduism comes from Hindu friends.

Your interpretation of these religious texts is that they promote an obedience to a God or gods. For sure the Buddhist sutras do not, as most sects of Buddhism do not believe in sentient gods per se but in an innate (non-sentient) life force that we all share. But leaving that issue aside, I don't see how you can't have both themes (love thy neighbor/obey god). You couched it as an "either/or" solution, but why does it have to be? There's no logical reason why you can't follow your individual deity and treat other humans with compassion and respect. In fact, in most cases the themes go together--by treating other people with compassion and respect you are following the commands of your deity.

But let's take it further than that. I'm just going to quote you here: Of course you dont have to [interpret the Bible that way], and most religious people dont, read or interpret it that way. Wouldn't you agree that if most people don't interpret the Bible as a form of control, then really your interpretation is not the representative of Christian belief? For certain some people do interpret those religious texts as you have-- fundamentalists, for instance. But I would hardly consider them the majority of religious people or the average representative of religion. In short, just because you’ve interpreted a particular religious text in a particular way, it doesn’t mean your interpretation is by any means “correct” or mainstream.

On a side note, I agree with you that there's a lot of f'd up stuff in many religious texts. Take the Old Testament for example and the bloodshed and wars described within it. However, we’re looking at religion as a whole--not just superficially at the religious text but how that text is interpreted and how the people who follow that religion conduct themselves in daily life. One problem with this, as I mentioned in the last post, is that the most vocal nutcases are usually the ones that you see in the media and not your "average" religious person, so it is easy to form a biased perception of virtually all religions if you’re not associating with members of that particular religion on a daily basis. If you ask the majority of Christians what the major theme of the Bible is, you’ll almost certainly get some answer regarding love and redemption—not your interpretation or violence and control.

To address your second question about empirical evidence about the benefits of religious belief--there's lots. I don't have time now to find all the links. You’ll just have to Google it. I've seen the studies--legit ones on both physical and psychological health published in JAMA and other peer-reviewed sources--and they were enough to convince me. Very few counter-examples have been published with the exception of a recent one in 2010 that showed a correlation between religious belief and obesity, but it was such a small sample size that it could have been a chance finding or attributable to other factors (it drew its participants predominately from African-American /Hispanic communities which typically have worse health-care access than other ethnic groups).

Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at your next argument about MLK. You seem to be stating that it wasn’t MLK’s religious beliefs that prompted him to take action. All I need to do to refute this is point you to any biography of the man or his numerous speeches where he clearly states that his religious beliefs have led him to believe in both the moral imperatives of equality for all people and non-violence as a means of achieving this. Was religion the thing that made him what he was? Absolutely. Same with Ghandi. And Mother Theresa. And the Dalai Lama. And a host of other people who have attempted to or succeeded in changing the world for the better.

Next, let’s talk about the Hitchen’s challenge. I find the challenge ridiculous. Why should religion have to be somehow separate from daily life? All religions are deeply concerned with secular life—with how we live and act. Furthermore basic psychology tells us we don’t act because of any one reason but due to a complex interaction of many reasons, some of which are conscious and some unconscious, and which in the end are in our own self-interest. Hitchen’s challenge is a straw-man argument—replace religion with some other construct such as democracy or music and you will be equally unable to find anyone who meets that challenge (by promoting democracy you protect your own rights; musicians may love music but even they need to sell songs in order to pay the rent and will compose for money).

I think equally ridiculous is the argument that things such as genital mutilation have no other possible explanation or cause than religion. Wouldn’t misogyny be a much better and more rational explanation than religion? Clearly religion is used to fuel the misogyny but it would certainly be a mistake to assume that the misogyny couldn’t exist without religion. Let’s take another example—the Spanish Inquisition. The cause of that tragic slaughter was clearly secular in nature—having finally wrested the southern part of the country from Muslim rule, Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unify a country in which many different religions co-existed. In short, religion didn’t cause the Spanish Inquisition; plain old political power-struggles did. Religion was simply the vehicle through which it was carried out.

And this is really what I’ve been saying all along—that religion is not, as you keep painting it as, the cause of humanity’s problems. It is a tool—a tool that, can be used for great good or great evil. As the folks at religioustolerance.org state: “Religion has the capability to generate unselfish love in some people, and vicious, raw hatred in others. The trick is to somehow change religions so that they maximize the former and minimize the latter.”

Later on, they go on to state that they feel that religion overall has a positive effect on society. That pretty much sums up my view of religion. If you do away with religion, you throw out the baby with the bath water. You lose the Martin Luther King Jr.’s, the Ghandi’s, the Mother Teresea’s, the Dali Lama’s of the world. It’s too a high a price to pay. For me, it’s all about dialogue—talking with others, getting them to see the common ground we all share, respect each other, and, as they said on their website maximizing the good and eliminating the bad.

As long as we keep talking—as you and I have been doing through these threads--we will keep moving forward. But I believe the instant dialogue ends—the instant you demonize the” other” and refuse to engage with them--you’ve planted the seeds of the next conflict: the next Spanish Inquisition, the next Bosnian massacre, or the next 9/11.

Firstly, about the RL busy stuff, I'm fine, I've just been moving and stuff, nothing bad, but thanks for caring

While I agree religion is more than dogma, I think i have a bit of a different perspective on it, religion is, or can be a large part of someone life, obviously, and in that sense it is, as you say a complex socio-cultural phenomen. but heres where i have a problem with the stuff you say:

If you look at the Bible, or the Koran, or the Buddhist sutras, the overarching message you see is one of love for fellow humankind: the Golden Rule. That is religion and that is what people should be practicing.

Really? Have you READ the bible? or the Koran? These books are not written with the golden rule as a model. Sure, there are some hints of that here and there, but the overall theme is something quite different. The message that these books emphasize is one of total obedience to god. Of course you dont have to, and most religious people dont, read or interpret it that way, but that is in fact the main focus of these books.

The empirical evidence we do have, though, shows religious people live longer, happier, and healthier lives overall.

Uh, really? where can this evidence be found? seriously? I live in Norway, one of the least religious countries in the world. We live longer,happier and healthier lives than most of the planet.

For every example that you might choose to offer, say the Inquisition or the 9/11 terror attacks, that supposedly show why religion needs to go I can offer you a historical counter-example like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ghandi as to why religion is crucially important.

Ok, I completely agree that keeping scores here would be pointless, so lets think about this for a few seconds. Take MLK jr. Great guy, obviously, and yes, he was a preacher and certainly religious, by all means, and he also famously quoted the bible in his speeches. But answer me this: Was religion the thing that made him into what he was? Lets suppose he was an atheist, or lets say a muslim for that matter, would he have been totally lost without the wisdom of Moses, who famously said "Let my people go"? or the teachings of Jesus? You know what? I think MLK was a great guy, who fought for a great cause, and I think that independent of his religion. And we all know there were plenty of good arguments OUTSIDE of the bible for a civil rights movement, in fact, the bible doesnt even come around to condemning slavery. So its not really a religious thing, is it? I can say honestly and with a straight face that yes, i think a non-religious person could do what MLK did, (and in fact MLK was actually critized for having to many non-religious people in his circle at the time)

Now look at my side of the scoreboard. And I'll give you the challenge Christopher Hitchens has given many times: You have to name me a good act done or a good thing said, by a religious person, that doesnt have any secular, non-religious basis or potential argument in its favour. and then you have to come up with a bad or wicked thing said or done.. I dont even have to end the sentence.. You've already got several, stuff that you couldnt possibly do for ANY OTHER REASON then the religious one. Who would cut into their childrens genitals without a good medical reason?, who would discourage condom-use in countries where the % of aids victims are well into the 2-digits? what maniac would run an airplane into a skyscraper and think this act would give them 72 virgins in paradise? What sadistic bastard would stone a young girl to death because SHE was raped?

Well, You get my point. I think very large parts of what you call religion, I simply attribute to our normal, human behaviour. not to repeat the MLK point to much. But I think the feeling of injustice that he and all black americans felt at the time had nothing to do with religion, and i think that ultimately his rebellion against it had nothing to do with religion, and again, people listened and things finally changed, not because of religion, but because it was the right thing to do. Just like most Christians and jews refrain from killing people, not because a commandment says so, but because thats how we humans work. But still, there are those who think thats why we dont all just kill eachother, and even those who thinks thats why they dont kill their neighbour , but obviously, thats not it.